Christine Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/re.../Dawkins-t.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxfighter Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 That is a really well done and scathing review (in a good way). The problem here is giving so much attention to these people, I would think it would be better to pay no attention until they completely dive off the deep end where there is absolutely no way for them to prove they are stable. Too many people want someone to follow and don't care what it is they're following as long as other people follow with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I would disagree about this giving them too much attention. The book is out there. They are drawing attention to themselves. It is the repsosibility of those who know better to get contray information out there so the public doesn't take our silence as approval... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Notwithstanding the inconvenient existence of dogs, cabbages and pouter pigeons, the entire corpus of mathematical genetics, from 1930 to today, is flat wrong. Michael Behe, the disowned biochemist of Lehigh University, is the only one who has done his sums right. You think? The best way to find out is for Behe to submit a mathematical paper to The Journal of Theoretical Biology, say, or The American Naturalist, whose editors would send it to qualified referees. They might liken Behe’s error to the belief that you can’t win a game of cards unless you have a perfect hand. That's brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts