[GourmetDan]

You should never accept a statement by an evolutionist at face value. Their minds don’t work correctly and their statements are likewise false.

Behe actually testified that ID was falsifiable just as astrology had been falsified.

In an evo mind, that translates into the false statement that you saw.

[SampleMan]

My point is simply that those who dismiss ID out of hand as irrational, have no problem accepting the dizzying improbabilities otherwise required.

1 in a billion chance? Acceptable.

1 in a trillion chance? Acceptable.

One trillionth in a trillion chance? No problem.

Such unquestionable acceptance smacks of blind faith to me, which is what they suggest they just can't accept.

[Liberty1970]

One funny thing about this whole debate is how ridiculous the evolutionist/naturalist mindset is in the context of real-world engineering and technology. Even fairly simple man-made artifacts are typically designed and engineered in non-stepwise manner (I'm thinking of the airbag crash modules built where I work, for example). Nor is it conceivable that such simple artifacts (compared to biological systems) could be built in a step-wise fashion as Darwinism requires. Yet it is an article of faith among Darwinists that literally everything in the biological world was produced in step-wise fashion, in total contradiction to our practical technological experience.

Darwinists sometimes naively point to 'evolutionary' iterations in technology without grasping the numerous intelligent decisions and multiple concrete changes in design and manufacturing for even small product upgrades. The reality is, changing most decently-optimized products requires numerous simultaneous changes to maintain function and efficiency such that it is an improvement over the old product design.

A biological example would be the shift from a reptilian lung to an avian lung. What makes a reptilian lung work in its environment is quite different from the optimal design for an avian lung, and requires substantial redesign. Not gradual 'evolution.' The same could be said for innumerable other biological features (such as different eye designs, bones, urea excretory systems, etc.) found in such a proposed transition. Evolutionism has embarassingly become a 19th-century word story unable to cope with the specifics and complexities of modern scientific discovery.

[DungeonMaster]

Behe actually testified that ID was falsifiable just as astrology had been falsified.

In an evo mind, that translates into the false statement that you saw.

Wow what a difference when you phrase it that way! I guess words mean things. I'm trying to think of how one could falsify ID though.

[count-your-change]

This is what Behe said when questioned about astrology:

“Question..... But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

Answer.... Yes, that’s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.”.

You may have to explain it S L O W L Y to the Braying Bunch.

[ColdWater]

Behe testified that man evolved over billions of years from simple organisms.