peer reviewed-int. design?

i don't have behe's book sitting around anymore, as i returned it to the library, but i'm certain that he does not claim the eye as an ic system.i'm also reasonably certain that he in fact addresses the eye, and the fact that it is not ic, saying that both darwin and dawkins have sufficiently answered the claim, which was made by a contemporary of darwin's.behe's book is called "Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." pay attention to the second part of the title. he's talking about systems that are much smaller than gross anatomy: the systems things like the retina are made of, not the eye as a whole.he's still wrong, but it makes johnpaul even more wrong if he's using behe to back up a claim even behe refutes. if johnpaul is indeed doing that, i haven't really been paying attention to this thread.

i have.he's not credible. happy? "gross" means "large." gross anatomy talks about organs and bones and big features. behe states clearly in his book that he is not talking about gross anatomy. pick up a copy of "on the origin of species by means of natural selection" by charles darwin, he covers it quite thorooughly. as does richard dawkins, in "the blind watchmaker"and for that matter, so do michael j. behe in "darwin's black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution"

i don't think people read close enough, as the argument seems to get attributed to him quite a lot.he does however argue that the light sensitive cells of the retina are ic systems.

it certainly is.i didn't mean to imply that i thought he was RIGHT, he certainly isn't. i was just pointing out what his argument actually was.