text: Behe's Empty Box - Comments Page 1 - RichardDawkins.net d
  Behe's Empty Box - Comments
  Comment 3 by LaTomate
  Behe's box contains NO scientific evidence.His box, however, is like the (lack of) discovery institute filled to the rim with lies for jesus. From that angle, it is definitely not empty.
  Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:21:00 UTC | #183433
  Comment 5 by brian thomson
  Michael Behe? The guy Time magazine saw fit to write about Dawkins in their Time 100 list? I guess somebody thinks he's still important!
  Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:51:00 UTC | #183472
  Comment 8 by LochRaven
  EvidenceOnly - Just to add to that, my bowels aren't empty either, but we all know what they contain. :-)
  Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:01:00 UTC | #183476
  Comment 7 by Oromasdes1978
  LaylaTwin towers behind you in your avatar? Subtle point about religion.
  Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:39:00 UTC | #183488
  Comment 11 by Pythagoras
  The idea of irreducible complexity needs to be hit on the head. The whole idea of irreducibly complex systems as disproving evolution is logically unsound. It just indicates a lack of imagination.If a system is irreducibly complex, i.e. removing any one part will stop it from functioning; does that imply that it could not have evolved? The answer is NO it does not! The whole irreducible complexity argument is invalid from the outset. Since evolution can add and remove parts, and parts can serve multiple purposes, there is no reason that the parts in an irreducibly complex system evolved for the purpose they currently have. The parts may have been part of another system which originally served a different purpose. The system that the parts evolved to support may have changed or disappeared.There are plenty of known examples of this kind of thing. The mammalian ear comes to mind. I'm sure biologists could come up with many more.Regards,Pythagoras
  Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:46:00 UTC | #183490
  Layla,Tried to follow your example.I've never been to Afghanistan, but still...
  Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:11:00 UTC | #183522
  Comment 18 by stevencarrwork
  So Behe was telling the truth? Dawkins would never regard a waving statue as a sign from God, and would prefer an explanation that he himself says that is just so improbable that it beggars belief?
  Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:07:00 UTC | #183613
  Comment 27 by beeline
  Thanks Richard for reminding us about Catalano's website - and a huge thanks to Josh for creating the even more evolved RichardDawkins.net site!