Carl Zimmer said what????
Recently Dr Behe was interviewed on BhTV (bloggingheadsTV).
The regulars there didn't like it that an IDist was given the opportunity to talk.
Can't have someone talk about their ideas.
But anyway the clip was aired, then taken away, and then put back up.
Now a couple of guys- cosmologist Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer- have said they will not appear on bloggingheads again.
Kooties and all. Gotta stay away from ID kooties.
But anyway in departing Carl said the following:
My standard for taking part in any forum about science is pretty simple. All the participants must rely on peer-reviewed science that has direct bearing on the subject at hand, not specious arguments that may sound fancy but are scientifically empty. I believe standards like this one are crucial if we are to have productive discussions about the state of science and its effects on our lives.
This is not Blogginghead’s standard, at least as I understand it now. And so here we must part ways.
The problem is what is being debated isn't in peer-review. That was/ is Dr Behe's whole point.
I am sure Dr Behe would love to discuss the peer-reviewed papers on the evolution of the/ any bacterial flagellum via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
The origin of information, the origin of living organisms, the origin of our universe- not much beyond we know that the universe had a begining, that living organisms exist at least on one planet, as for information.
If we limited our discussions to existing knowledge how could new ideas get introduced?
Reference existing knowledge yes. Use it to refute or confirm, sure.
Also use it as an impetus to reach the truth- there is only one reality behind our existence.
If you really think this all the result of a bunch of accidents/ sheer dumb luck, put it in peer-review- describe the methodology used to make that determination.
Tell us how to test the premise. Give us some EXAMPLES.
But don't act like a wussy.
Unless of course that is your true nature...