User login
Recent blog posts
- Three Dawkins Quotes
- A(nother) rational response to rationailty
- How to survive in today's recession...
- Einstein's Buddhism?
- Isaac Newton, a Creationist?
- Judge Jones III, may I approach the bench?
- Michael Behe's response to science journal (peer review continued...)
- Enough with the "Peer Review" argument already
- Michael Behe, ID, and "intellectual dishonesty"
- Grace, Blood and the idea of a proxy sacrifice
A little...
I'm back up early, getting ready for church.
Wanna come? :^D
Back on point, and the main point I want to make.
Behe defined "peer review", and he defined what he meant by saying it was "probably" more "critically, fully (detailed, whatever...)" peer reviewed. His testimony matched that statement. The details match his definition. Other scientists who know the definition of "peer review" testified that it was peer reviewed.
Now, let's try to further avoid getting pulled aside into other points, since this blog is about whether Behe lied, not whether his definitions match yours, or the validity and meaning behind peer review. Behe defined exactly what his statements meant, and the details match his statements. Other scientists testified in support of such, but disagreed with the fact that he published anyway after their negative peer reviews.
In the context (the intent of this blog) of whether Behe lied, well, no. That is FAR from established.
Again, the details match the testimony that Behe gave.
Now... On to a much more important topic.
Today is communion Sunday. Wanna come? :^D
(Actually, I have to make the most important point of the morning in closing. I DO NOT WANT this missed through our discussion.
I love you, man. I really do.)