An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe (Part 7)

Posted 16 November 2007 by Ian Musgrave

Dear. Dr. Behe I am pleased that you have acknowledged Vpu viroporin represents a real, de novo binding site. Now if you had engaged with this in your response to Ms Smith, my respect for you would have risen immeasurably. To those of you not familiar with graduate and post graduate education, we actually want graduate students to disagree with us, robustly. After all, they are the ones carrying the torch of critical enquiry when we are gone. We don’t want them to accept our say so, “just because”. As scientists and educators our brief goes beyond just those PhD students we supervise, but to all engaged in critical enquiry, regardless of how we feel about their actual mode of delivery [1]. By “playing the man”[2] Dr. Behe, rather than engaging with Ms Smith's arguments, you abrogated our responsibility as mentors and educators. Imagine the difference if you had dealt with Vpu Viroporin straight up. How about apologizing to Ms Smith now? I do hope that you will now publish an erratum for your book, where you acknowledge Vpu viroporin. But again you engage in the “unimpressed” rhetoric. It matters not whether we are impressed or not by the outcome of the binding, the fact is that you have claimed that binding of two (or more) proteins to each other is statistically unlikely. It doesn’t matter what they do when bound (after all, as I have repeatedly pointed out, your own example is the haemoglobin S point mutation, which just glugs things up). Your claim is that protein-protein binding can’t even get started, yet the type of binding that Vpu displays is exactly the type you need to build a proteosome, or the flagellum, which you are impressed by. What you claim is impossible in principle can be seen to actually happen in practice. The Vpu viroporin is a gated ion channel, a mini-“molecular machine”; I know you don’t seem to be impressed by this, apparently because it doesn’t utilize ATP. But I divide my time equally between G-protein coupled receptors and signal transduction systems and ion channels, and you are ignoring the fact that ion channels, such as the Vpu ion channel, are major drivers of cellular activity. Changing ion gradients are critical for things from renal excretion to nerve activity. Everything from nicotinic receptors to renal sodium channels are built on the basic plan of Vpu. I know you are impressed by large complexes such as the flagellum and the protesome, but biology doesn’t run on what you are impressed by. You dismiss a wide range of newly developed binding sites in HIV, such as the casein kinase binding site. Yet this is the canonical example of a regulatory binding site that links together important signal transduction cascades, everything from the binding of G-proteins to G-protein coupled receptors, to the protein kinase C activator cascades, to the MAPKinase regulatory cascades, to the calmoduin kinase binding that underlies nerve activity all rely on the same type of binding sites that you dismiss as “too simple”.

Dr. Musgrave misunderstands my point. I did not say that Vpu acted as a nonspecific wad of chewing gum.

And yes, you did, say the injected viral protein act as a nonspecific wad of chewing gum, its here in your Amazon blog and is quoted from chapter 8 of “Edge of Evolution”.

Like throwing a wad of chewing gum into a finely tuned machine, it’s relatively easy to clog a system — much easier than making the system in the first place. Destructive protein-protein binding is much easier to achieve by chance.

Now, Vpu doesn’t do that, it forms an elegant targeting system that places CD4 into the proteosome queue. Your explanation of the "wad of chewing gum" effect in your most recent post is very different from what you wrote in you book and in your initial post. And while this version is more sophisticated (why didn’t you use that in your book), it is both biologically unrealistic and basically irrelevant. Your major claim is that binding sites need to develop two or more amino acid attachments simultaneously for any selectable binding. You spend ages on the mathematics of this. The probability of thee simultaneous amino acids mutations are the same whether it is a newly injected protein in a new host of opportunity or an established cellular protein. The biological unreality is this:

.. initially, when during the course of evolution a viral or bacterial protein is injected for the first time into a cell, it is encountering a new environment, one it hasn’t adapted to before, and which hasn’t adapted to it.

Of course, in an established viral infection, such as HIV, this is not true. But more importantly, injected viral proteins act under exactly the same constraints as cellular proteins. A virus’s role is NOT to kill cells (although some viruses may do this in the course of an infection, they do it in a coordinated way). A virus is a parasite, its job is to get into the cell, take over the cellular machinery of the host and make many copies of itself and pass those copies on (some viruses release viral particles by coordinated cell lysis, but HIV buds off). It cannot afford its entry and replication machinery and budding machinery to bind to proteins willy-nilly, just like cellular proteins. It needs a coordinated response, indeed the Vpu binding to CD4 and attaching it to the proteosome is such a coordinated response, not willy-nilly jamming things up. If Vpu started out binding to any old protein, the viruses would be stuffed for sure. Lets just repeat that, viral proteins are under the same constraints as cellular proteins. So, you argument is still irrelevant. But it is ironic that you are using a natural selection argument to why new binding sites cannot be found in existing cells. Pointing out that there are few new niches for new molecular machines hardly constitutes an “Edge of Evolution”. In summary, the HIV virus has evolved several binding sites since it first infected humans. The binding sites are representative of a broad range of binding sites that are of key importance in cellular function. They evolved in a short timespan when virus effective population was orders of magnitude below the 10²⁰ claimed necessary for binding site evolution. One of these binding sites makes a novel structure, a viroporin, which certainly out performs the HbS mutation. And that is just VPu, there is also a host of other binding sites which have only just been investigated (TRAIL upregulation CXCR4 binding, LTR binding etc.) Thus Dr. Behe, you owe people an erratum for your book, and an apology to Ms Smith. Yours sincerely
A male featherless biped named Ian Musgrave
[1] Maybe its because I’m Australian, we are a bit more “robust” than Europeans (having been mentored in Prof Mike Rand’s department, Prof Rand was, ahhh, rather direct to all and sundry, the high and mighty got no mercy from him. You can spend time with my PhD student, The Heavy Metal Kid, for a while if you like, if you want “robust”. [2] Australian Rules football jargon, it means attacking the player, rather than playing the game and capturing the ball. It is frowned upon severely (And yes, they still use “man” rather than person or some gender neutral term, it is Australian AFL after all) (UPDATED: I've added some more quoted text to make things clearer)

36 Comments

Joseph O'Donnell · 17 November 2007

No Dr. Behe, it's not called "Restricted Choice" at all, the actual term we should be using is called "Shifting the goal posts".

Tyler DiPietro · 17 November 2007

You can spend time with my PhD student, The Heavy Metal Kid, for a while if you like, if you want “robust”.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

These posts between you and Abbie have been awesome. If they were kicks to the nuts, Behe would've had a rupture by now. Bravo!

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 17 November 2007

And AFAIU HIV evolved this in short time with a low effective population and a small amount of genes and a constrained amount of volume for RNA. Btw, the second quote in the post is from Behe's reply part 5, which is what the post comments mostly on.

But it is ironic that you are using a natural selection argument to why new binding sites cannot be found in existing cells.

Wonderful! In a short series of open letters Dr Behe has given up his arguments from 'irreducible complexity' (since viroporin is a new function with several parts) and 'improbable complexity' (since he has discovered he didn't know about viroporins). He has earlier also found out that not all viruses uses DNA as genetic material, as IIRC he incorrectly refers to HIV as containing DNA in his book. (Another errata object of his, btw.) And now he embraces evolutionary arguments. By golly, he may start studying basic biology any day now. Say again, why did Dr Behe choose to pander to creationist interests instead of science and science education? He can't possibly be worth the money IDC'ers have paid him at this point.

Joel · 17 November 2007

Thanks for posting this exchange. You are certainly doing a service for public education about evolution. If Behe weren't so arrogant, he would thank you too, for guiding him out of the thicket of ignorance he's been trapped in.

Frank J · 17 November 2007

Please allow this chemist to be even more brazen than biochemist Behe, and propose some new terminology for a field other than my own. I propose that, conceptually at least, there are u-mutations and i-mutations. It should be obvious what they mean, but since they don’t carry “design” or “creation” language, it should be legal to teach them. This is especially timely, as Behe’s new book, “Edge of Evolution” departs from the ID/creationist staple of “natural selection can’t form X” and focuses the mutations that give natural selection something to do in the first place.

So far, AIUI, all the evidence suggests that there aren’t u-mutation and i-mutation “kinds,” but just mutations (I purposely avoided “macromutations” because IDers and real biologists define the word differently). All the math in the world, whether faulty or not, about how “u-mutations cannot form X” does not even take the first step at proposing how i-mutations can. Behe has not even outlined what those i-mutations might be, other than some vague words about how several molecular replacements need to be “simultaneous.” But the onus is on him to do just that. Yet every time IDers get to the point where they could provide something scientifically promising they weasel out with “ID is not a mechanistic theory” etc., and bait-and-switch their way back to the “impossibility” of “Darwinism.”

While IDers are never at a loss for (misleading) words about what “Darwinism” can’t do, they say next to nothing about what might have happened instead. Of all IDers, Behe is the most up front. Specifically, Behe unequivocally concedes all of mainstream science’s chronology, and that the processes beyond the “edge of evolution,” occurred in-vivo, much to the chagrin of classic creationist leaders. Since no other IDer challenges Behe directly, even if they seem to disagree, it’s a safe bet that ID, now if not in its “cdesign” days, is all about “i-mutations,” as opposed to the “i-abiogenesis” of classic creationism. Not about finding, describing and testing them, of course, but merely inferring them, and returning as quickly as possible to the safe turf of attacking the strawman of “Darwinism.”

Behe’s reaction to the many criticisms of “Edge of Evolution” are no different from his reactions to many criticisms of “Darwin’s Black Box” a decade ago. He knows that, even if he concedes errors, and apparently he has conceded some for both books, he can always find more examples that will impress most of his target audience. If they can tune out his acceptance of common descent, their very active “Morton’s Demon” can tune out anything they don’t want to hear. There is, however, another segment of Behe’s target audience that might be very interested in what Behe has to say about i-mutations, what they are, and when and where they occurred, and how he plans to test them. Let’s not let him off the hook.

hoary puccoon · 17 November 2007

Just want to say, Ian and Abbie, that I've followed this whole series since Abbie's first post, and I've learned a lot about cell chemistry, even though I haven't felt I knew enough to add to the discussion. I hope there are others out there who have been learning some science, even if the IDers aren't getting it.

SteveF · 17 November 2007

Likewise. Excellent series; many congraulations to Abbie and Ian.

Sili · 17 November 2007

I dunno about other Europeans, but I take exception to the suggestion that we're dainty and delicate.

Secondly, the implication that Behe is European is damn well insulting.

Michael Buratovich · 17 November 2007

Ian,

I have been linking to your posts for my evolutionary biology students. They are getting a first-hand education in science and science policy. Since the vast majority of these students want to be secondary life science teachers, they are seeing, first hand, the inability of ID to offer anything useful to this discussion. We have a fascinating scientific problem (Vpu origin) that direct overlaps with human medicine and even one of the wizards of ID is having a tough time using ID to address and explain a fascinating scientific problem.

Thanks for giving me such a great resource!!

Taylor · 17 November 2007

As one who loves basic science and accepts evolution, thanks for this discussion. Sadly, I must admit the original post in ERV was very rude, unprofessional and totally out of line, even if correct. I personally would have apologized to Dr. Behe for ERV's rudeness rather than blaming him for the tone of the discussion and wondering why he didn't immediately respond to such personal attacks. I always hoped people of science would be above this and just stick to reason and logic. Didn't Flock of Dodo's teach us anything?

Mike Elzinga · 17 November 2007

Just want to say, Ian and Abbie, that I’ve followed this whole series since Abbie’s first post, and I’ve learned a lot about cell chemistry, even though I haven’t felt I knew enough to add to the discussion. I hope there are others out there who have been learning some science, even if the IDers aren’t getting it.

I would like to offer a hardy second to that. This is why a physicist can appreciate and defend what biologists do.

ERV · 17 November 2007

I disagree. Michael Behe has been insulting the entire scientific community for his entire professional career. He proudly spits in the faces of everyone who dedicates their lives to science, and the laymen that support that research, and everyone that benefits from real research.

Coddling Creationists has us where we are today. I have no reason (and still have no reason) to 'respect' Behe or his anti-science ilk, nor have any of my mentors suggested that after reading my essay. Despite the fact you self identify as 'someone who accepts evolution', the only people who have been 'offended' by my 'tone' have been Creationists. The response from 'our side' and from laymen has been almost exclusively "Thank you for calling a spade a spade!"

So why should I fake 'respect' for Michael Behe when he wrote an entire book, arrogantly dismissing my field of research and my colleagues? When his problem could have been solved by a Google search? When he continues to disrespect other scientists? When he purposefully misrepresents research to laymen so he doesnt have to admit error? His entire response to Ian has been one big Behe-ego-puffing joke!

Why do you think coddling Creationists is a good idea, in line with the theme of 'Flock of Dodos'???

Tyler DiPietro · 17 November 2007

"Sadly, I must admit the original post in ERV was very rude, unprofessional and totally out of line, even if correct."

And due to this I sadly must conclude that you are an incredibly thin-skineed individual. Even if Behe avoids overt snarkiness and colorful language he still fails to any respect for his colleagues or his profession. The man has done science no favors in advancing an anti-scientific agenda and deliberately misrepresenting science to the laypublic. So give yourself a pat on the back for your "civility" if it makes you feel better, but as far as I'm concerned your admonishments are a waste of time and energy.

John Marley · 17 November 2007

Taylor:

Why should scientists "stick to reason and logic"?

For decades, science has been under attack by unscrupulous asshats who don't hesitate to use manipulative rhetoric, insults and outright lies to con the public into believing their crap.

Why shouldn't scientists (and anyone who thinks reality matters) be offended and outraged by this?

SteveF · 17 November 2007

If Behe had wanted a nice, happy, respectful exchange, he could have had one in the peer reviewed literature. Instead, he produced a pop-sci book and blogged with comments disabled. Quite frankly, I think Abbie was excessively polite.

Taylor · 17 November 2007

Again, I learned a lot from this and I greatly appreciate it. But, sorry I don't accept the religious notion of people being inherently good or evil. As a skeptic I certainly can accept the notion that I should treat others as I wish to be treated. And if someone does respond to me badly, I should check to see if I may have provoked the response. Look, you can call me anything you want, but Flock of Dodo's showed us that we will never win the debate in the arena of public opinion unless we do a better job communicating without all the arrogance. I would refer you to Randy Olson's recent interview on the podcast Skepticality if you don't think that is the message of his film. Remember, this blog is not written to convince Behe, it is written to convince the public who reads his book.

Tyler DiPietro · 17 November 2007

"But, sorry I don’t accept the religious notion of people being inherently good or evil."

WTF?

John Marley · 17 November 2007

Taylor:

What? Arrogance? You're chastising the wrong side.

Frank J · 17 November 2007

ERV,

I have a bone to pick with you too. Ever since you keep referring to a troubled young celebrity, one that I often confuse with another troubled young celebrity, I can’t get out of my mind the thought of a DI fellow (I won’t mention names, but I’m think of one who prefers to make funny videos instead of doing science) sending you a YouTube video of himself, sobbing hysterically, with "Leave Behe Alone!"

ERV · 17 November 2007

Frank-- Dont tempt me ;)

Taylor · 17 November 2007

Again, I greatly enjoyed this exchange and have learned a lot. I greatly respect all those who do scientific research. But I reject the medieval idea that everything has to be about Good versus Evil. I would refer you to the recent podcast Skepticality with Flock of Dodo's filmmaker Randy Olson. He discussed how his film shows how we have to tone down the arrogance if we ever expect to win over the general public (who ultimately funds basic science). Please remember, this blog is not written to convince Dr. Behe, it is written for the general public who buy his book. They don't necessarily remember what has gone on before.

John Marley · 17 November 2007

Wow, a double post separated by almost an hour and a half. That's gotta be some kind of record.

Mike Elzinga · 17 November 2007

Coddling Creationists has us where we are today. I have no reason (and still have no reason) to ‘respect’ Behe or his anti-science ilk, nor have any of my mentors suggested that after reading my essay. Despite the fact you self identify as ‘someone who accepts evolution’, the only people who have been ‘offended’ by my ‘tone’ have been Creationists. The response from ‘our side’ and from laymen has been almost exclusively “Thank you for calling a spade a spade!”

I am inclined to agree with ERV here. It is time to start calling a spade a spade, or more appropriately, a charlatan a charlatan. The tactics of the ID/Creationists are well-known. Duane Gish is probably the main developer of this set of tactics, but others continue refining them. In fact some of them are being employed by the trolls on this site at this very moment. Here is an outline of the shtick so far. 1. Bate an “evolutionist” with some outrageous and provocative comments. 2. Keep it up until someone gets angry. Then claim that the anger is the result of being exposed. 3. If someone extends professionalism and courtesy, and offers an explanation for your accusations, immediately switch into debate mode and start throwing out more misconceptions and “gotchas”. Keep distorting until you make your opponent angry and use strategy 2 again. 4. Never respond to having your fake claims exposed. Never offer a counter-argument to the argument that exposed you. Simply throw out many other red herrings and then say something to the effect at the “evolutionist” never answered all your arguments. 5. Ride the reputations of honest, productive scientists to build name-recognition for yourself, and then pad your resume by claiming you have debated and stumped the top scientists in the world with your scientific knowledge. 6. Never expose yourself to peer-review in professional journals, but instead seek out naive audiences in venues where you can never be effectively challenged. Choreographed debates on friendly territory with bussed-in hecklers are the preferred venues. Get books published in the popular press and claim they are peer-reviewed. Use a pseudonym on Panda’s Thumb. 7. Quote-mine furiously in a choreographed debate and don’t allow time for someone to check out the proper contexts. 8. Cover every area of science, philosophy, history, and philosophy of science no matter how ludicrous your arguments are. You then appear to your target audience as someone who is in command of a vast store of knowledge that no scientist can possibly keep up with. 9. Get several quick advanced degrees to appear more qualified than any opponent you are likely to encounter. But don’t go through the fires of peer review to round out your training. You might be exposed before you can build your parasitic relationships to working scientists. It doesn’t matter that your degrees are shallow. Your followers will never know. They just see the letters after your name. This is probably not the whole shtick, but it is this kind of behavior what needs to be exposed along with the names of the people who use these tactics. We know who they are.

Mike Elzinga · 17 November 2007

Bate = bait in step 1.

what = that in next-to-last sentence.

Whew!

JimV · 17 November 2007

I am seeing a lot of "they started it", "they deserve it", and similar excuses I am used to hearing from young children for immature behavior. What happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"? The recent addition of "everyone who is truly not a creationist is on my side" completes the picture.

In my case, I had no great objection to the tone of ERV's original VPU post, but saw the subsequent reaction to Behe's "Mean Girls" snark - to the initial exclusion of any technical critique - as hypocritical. I would still be forced to agree that ERV has accomplished much more than, say, me, in a much shorter time, but must classify her along with JFK and Mickey Mantle, as a hero who luster has been diminished in my eyes by personal behavior which I did not expect. I need to stop being so naive about my heroes.

I am done, except to thank Dr. Musgrave for another excellent post, and to make a last request. Could whoever reams me out for this comment please be British or at least pretend to be? It doesn't seem as mean-spirited when they do it, somehow. (In a pinch I'd settle for an Aussie.)

JackC · 18 November 2007

ERV: I disagree. Michael Behe has been insulting the entire scientific community for his entire professional career. He proudly spits in the faces of everyone who dedicates their lives to science, and the laymen that support that research, and everyone that benefits from real research. Coddling Creationists has us where we are today. I have no reason (and still have no reason) to 'respect' Behe or his anti-science ilk, nor have any of my mentors suggested that after reading my essay. Despite the fact you self identify as 'someone who accepts evolution', the only people who have been 'offended' by my 'tone' have been Creationists...

ID is utter fantasy and so is Behe's position (really it's an ideology, with facts twisted to fit into it). But I agree with Taylor that vitriol like I see sometimes from Ms. Smith is not what science needs. I guess it's typical of blogs and forums. If someone disagrees with you, he (or she) is not just wrong, he's disingenuous. If he says something incorrect, he's not just disagreeing with you, he's spitting in your face and insulting you. He's an arrogant bastard. So you attack in kind (you think). Then when he responds that you're being mean, you attack that too. Calm down people. Attack Behe on the science. But if you call him an asshole (http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/11/epic-fail.html) you're crossing a line. I'm not offended, just dismayed.

Science Avenger · 18 November 2007

Taylor said: Look, you can call me anything you want,

OK. How's "whiney pussy"?

but Flock of Dodo’s showed us that we will never win the debate in the arena of public opinion unless we do a better job communicating without all the arrogance.

Bullshit. Arrogance has nothing to do with it. Having a target audience that has been repeatedly lied to and opposes a version of evolution that is complete fiction is what has to change. Part of changing that is exposing these charlatens, unapologetically, for what they are. But ultimately some minds simply will not, or cannot, change, regardless of persuasive technique applied.

Mike Elzinga · 18 November 2007

I am done, except to thank Dr. Musgrave for another excellent post, and to make a last request. Could whoever reams me out for this comment please be British or at least pretend to be? It doesn’t seem as mean-spirited when they do it, somehow. (In a pinch I’d settle for an Aussie.)

Jim: Your concerns are very much understood and appreciated. But in the last 10 years or so (especially in the two terms of the current administration here in the US) we have seen some of the most brazen power grabs by religious fanatics that we have seen in perhaps our entire history. Scientific advisory committees to government agencies are stacked with religious ideologues who edit scientific information out of reports in order to justify their sectarian agendas. We have a president who panders to this crowd. We have seen a rash of attacks on state and local school boards (Dover only happens to be the most public) pressing for the same sectarian agenda. The Discovery Institute gets significant funding from people who have advocated a theocracy. We have television programs and radio talk-show hosts who press the hate agenda of some of these fanatics. We have scam artists who hide under the protection of the religious freedom we provide in our Constitution. They collect and spend millions of dollars on the kinds of propaganda meant to prepare the public to accept their claims even though there is no scientific support for those claims. We have constantly been asked to be civil and professional, and the response to any civility and professionalism given to them has been to leverage that as evidence that they are accepted as legitimate scientific spokesmen with legitimate criticisms of science. We have legislators and US Senators, who have been elected by these groups, slipping riders into legislation that will allow their sectarian views to receive public funding and legal mandates. They are attempting with some success to stack the US Supreme Court with their ideologues. We have groups of these ideologues operating behind the scenes who are affecting US foreign policy. These are serious issues here in the US, and we have been quiet for too long. People are starting to fight back, but the political smear campaigns by these fanatics are well-funded and effective in many parts of the country. I think many of us in the scientific community looked at the claims of these fanatics and saw them to be so stupid that they didn’t need to take our attention away from our work. We were wrong and we were suckered. It is true that showing overt anger would be counterproductive. But these abuses must be carefully documented and labeled for what they are by people who can do it. Dover was a good start. But these characters won’t quit. They are fighting for control. It is not about science; it’s about religion, politics, and power.

Tyler DiPietro · 18 November 2007

"Then when he responds that you’re being mean, you attack that too."

Oh please. His response wasn't about Abbie being "mean" so much as being some uppity bitch for whom a response was something he was above. Snark is fair game, thinly veiled sexism is not.

"Attack Behe on the science. But if you call him an asshole you’re crossing a line."

You are hereby invited to take your arbitrary line and stick it. I'll call a spade a spade, you can sit there and give yourself a pat on the back for your cordial demeanor.

ERV · 18 November 2007

Tyler-- That has already been pointed out to 'JimV'. You see why I question the sincerity of such comments.

Mike Elzinga · 18 November 2007

Tyler– That has already been pointed out to ‘JimV’. You see why I question the sincerity of such comments.

I’m not so sure JimV (if that is to whom you are referring) was being insincere so much as perhaps being a bit naive about the tactics of the ID/Creationist crowd in the United States over the years. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I started out with a more “gentlemanly” approach to the Creationists and got slaughtered by their deceptive tricks. A lot of us did. We learned to rattle their cages to find out what they were really up to, and the results were quite enlightening. I’m not saying that we should stoop to their level, but when someone rattles their cages and calls a spade a spade, the data that come back are very useful. We can then go farther and clearly articulate the sources of their ugly biases and the tactics they are using. So I, for one, found your well-aimed humor very useful. Its timing was good and it wasn’t overdone.

mgarelick · 22 November 2007

Regarding the "tone" of responses to ID (the Taylor topic), the answer depends on the question. If the question is "what tone do they deserve?" then almost no one here would disagree that ERV got it right and did it beautifully. If the question is "what tone would be most effective for focussing attention on the science" the answer is probably different. Either approach is legitimate and has its place.

bowhunter · 29 November 2007

I would like to make some comments addressing both sides.

First of all, I am a member of Dr.Buratovich's genetics class,and I have learned a whole lot about things regarding genetics I have not understood or heard of before.
I am a Christian and a science major in Education. I am older than most of my classmates, and I have come to realize certain truths.

I do agree that the HIV has mutated and evolved over the years.

Heck, even the common cold evolves every year, that is why we have to keep getting those shots--OUCH!!

I have NOT read Dr. Behe's book and probably won't. Why? As my professor has said more than once in class "IDer's don't show credibility with their stupid science".

I have learned to accept science facts with more openness IF they are presented in a scientific manner without insulting my faith or my intelligence.

Do I know everything?? NO WAY!!!! Are some preachers and pastors knowledgeable and truthful in what they say publicly?? NO WAY!!! Some of those guys make us reasonable creationist ashamed!!! But then, Al Gore should make some atheists ashamed.

NOT every "fundie" is as blind to the obvious or resistant to reason. You shouldn't label all of us as such. That just isn't "tolerant" for those of you who keep demanding tolerance.

Main point: the books I used for science in elementary school 40 years ago would be laughed at for the lack of scientific accuracy and deemed out of touch with reality today. As they should. What we have learned in the last 40 years is way beyond what was known then. So.....

why should I Lock onto scientific fact as though it is "gospel" when it is going to keep changing. In 40 years, maybe some of your own "facts you trust" will be just as obsolete.

I do know that however it was done, my CREATOR still exists and is active in my life and that will not change for me.

Can God use creation to make things happen?? absolutely!! Can the same God use some forms of evolution to make things happen?? The same answer---Absolutely!!!! He is GOD, I am not!!!

There is alot of things all of us are going to see as stupid science when the "final curtain comes to a close". Thank you

Henry J · 30 November 2007

NOT every “fundie” is as blind to the obvious or resistant to reason. You shouldn’t label all of us as such. That just isn’t “tolerant” for those of you who keep demanding tolerance.

The problem with that is that the reputation of Creationists (and ID pushers) comes from the most vocal of them, and the most vocal very frequently corresponds to the least reasonable. Henry

Popper's Ghost · 8 January 2008

Heck, even the common cold evolves every year, that is why we have to keep getting those shots–OUCH!!

We don't get shots for the common cold.

But then, Al Gore should make some atheists ashamed.

Al Gore is neither an atheist nor a source of shame.

NOT every “fundie” is as blind to the obvious or resistant to reason.

Ok, some of you aren't quite as pigheaded as others.

Popper's Ghost · 8 January 2008

There is alot of things all of us are going to see as stupid science when the “final curtain comes to a close”.

When the "final curtain comes to a close", we will have neither functioning eyes nor a functioning brain, thus seeing, or any other kind of cognition, will be nonexistent.