Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New ID threat assessment lists Akyol, O’Leary, … oh and the Pope too, by the way …

Denyse O'Leary
July 30, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend draws my attention to a recent squawk in TRENDS in Biochemical Sciences Vol.32 No.7 (July 2007) by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross, who – so far as I can tell – make a career out of opposing the intelligent design theorists.

Squawks about the alleged threat posed by the ID theorists are nothing new – this one (“Biochemistry by design”) is aimed mainly against Mike Behe – but my friend called my attention to the fact that it mentions me (and my colleague Mustafa Akyol) – and in a most curious context too …

Comments
If any of these full-time anti-ID tinfoil-hat conspiracy fanatics had the least bit of brain or honesty they would stop viewing ID as a threat and see it as a challenge. In any other domain an opposing theory is viewed with welcome as a challenge to be answered and an opportunity to delve further into the truth about nature. Of course these low-life wieners can't do that because it isn't about science in the 1st place. It's about world views. That's it that's all. Unfortunately they are so blinded by the fear they feel that ID just might be true, (demolishing their world-views and threatening their life-styles), that their personal depth of insecurity pushes them to neurosis and inane, illogical actions - such as we witness in this controversy. Poor souls. What shall they do when the last of their feeble defenses crumble under the onslaught of information theory applied to biological systems and the ever growing discoveries of the previously unfathomable complexities of DNA? Perhaps, for the 1st time in their miserable lives, the light will dawn on them.Borne
July 31, 2007
July
07
Jul
31
31
2007
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
IDnet, I bet Mike Behe could help you with your enwquiries. - d.O'Leary
July 31, 2007
July
07
Jul
31
31
2007
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
You should consider it an honor. Every great scientific theory has it's share of cranks and charlatans who's sole purpose in life is peddle what ever criticism they can dredge up, no matter how absurd.rrf
July 31, 2007
July
07
Jul
31
31
2007
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Is this blog associated with Donald Norman's tremendous book on intelligent design?
There are innumerable books on design, most of them pedestrian or horrible or both: and almost without exception, even the very best of them are written from the point of view of designers.
The Psychology of Everyday Thingsmarion_delgado
July 31, 2007
July
07
Jul
31
31
2007
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
I mean the review is a rip off, not Mike's book!idnet.com.au
July 31, 2007
July
07
Jul
31
31
2007
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Does anyone have a PDF of this piece? It might be welcome. They want to charge $30 for this "review" when you can buy the real Behe book at the store for $20. What a rip off! We can see who is making money out of ID.idnet.com.au
July 31, 2007
July
07
Jul
31
31
2007
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
"Biochemist Michael Behe is a major figure in this effort. His contention that certain cellular structures and biochemical processes – bacterial flagella, the blood-clotting cascade and the vertebrate immune system – cannot be the products of evolution" I really get sick of misleading drivel like this. That is a very poor summary of Mike's position and to paint it this way is just dishonest. Though I guess if they are honest they give the game away.Jason Rennie
July 30, 2007
July
07
Jul
30
30
2007
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
(O’Leary is a Canadian journalist with no scientific background, who typifies the ID movement’s support base [77–80].)
This pompous attitude is completely counterproductive to their cause. People really don't like to be told that they're too ignorant to express an opinion, or that only establishment-approved insiders should be heard.russ
July 30, 2007
July
07
Jul
30
30
2007
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
...scientists...have refuted Behe's claims.
I thought ID was not science because it is "unfalsifiable". Have they officially abandoned this line of attack?
...and a decisive defeat in a US federal court case...
I think she overestimates the confidence that Americans have in judges when it comes to issues of science--or the law, for that matter.russ
July 30, 2007
July
07
Jul
30
30
2007
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply