You said something was “retarded”. That something is exactly what Behe is proposing.
Where do you find any daylight at all between what you said was “retarded” and what Behe proposed?
Please explain, if you are capable of doing so utilizing the English language.
“Are you incapable of reading and understanding a sentence in English?
You said something was retarded. That something is exactly what Behe is proposing.
Where do you find any daylight at all between what you said was retarded and what Behe proposed?”
I don’t think you’re understanding how irrelevant your line of argument is. In the article there is not one mention of Behe’s belief (unless somehow I missed it the two times I read it) in theistic evolution. He may speak of this elsewhere, but it is irrelevant. The article is titled Irreducible Complexity, which is a concept unaffected by any other topic except it’s own. It is not even an idea that is isolated to Behe, as I have known of it for year before I ever heard of Behe. (I have never read Behe’s book.) If I disagree with Behe who might insist that God still worked within a “direct evolution,” what does that matter on the topic at hand, which is irreducible complexity? But you are so immature in your arguments that you don’t realize that I actually consider evolution without a designer even more idiotic than evolution with a designer.
When your whole argument in this thread is dependent on a calumny or an insult to prove your scientific hypothesis (so called), it’s time to give it up and admit that you can’t possibly give an answer to these things.