Behe the Expert Again
“Intelligent design” creationism advocate Michael J. Behe is once again an expert witness in a court case, this time appearing on behalf of Wendell Bird’s side in ACSI v Stearns. So far, there are two documents available detailing his participation, his expert report, and his deposition by opposing counsel.
I haven’t had a look yet; I’ll try to get back to these later. In the meantime, you may want to have a look of your own.
Update: I’m looking at the deposition, so I’ll make some notes here as I go.
Behe was brought into the case by Wendell Bird. Bird was the guy who wrote a draft “balanced treatment” bill that was modified a bit by Paul Ellwanger, then became Act 590 in Arkansas in 1981, leading to the McLean v. Arkansas case. Another version of Bird’s proposed bill became law in Louisiana, eventually leading to the SCOTUS decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. Bird argued that case before the Supreme Court, IIRC.
Behe’s job assigned by Bird was to show that the textbooks on biology and physics met the educational standards of the state of California. This puts him behind the eight-ball three ways: Behe is not a biologist, is not a physicist, and is not credentialed in education. I wonder if the rest of the deposition will bring that out.
Behe notes that biochemistry students often do not have a biology background, since the biology courses are not required of chemistry students who are the typical people enrolled there.
Bird has to rescue Behe on distinguishing between the documents that cover high school criteria and those for UC admission.
Behe’s method for comparing texts and declaring them satisfactory was simply that they addressed, in some form, the majority of items in the standards. In other words, pretty much completely a subjective evaluation, only as good as Behe’s own credibility in this task.
Behe also states that he expects to offer testimony significantly beyond the content of his expert report.
Behe states that his method of comparison was not completely presented in his expert report, which says that he looked for, essentially, the mention of a concept in each textbook. Behe says that he actually did evaluate the presentation as to whether a high school biology student would understand it from its presentation in the textbook at hand.
Behe has not taught high school biology. His understanding of what high school students understand, or don’t, comes from haphazard experience in teaching college freshman.
Behe was asked about having looked at high school textbooks previously. He says he did, and that he looked at entire books, not just sections of particular interest. He also says he gave testimony before the Texas state board of education about 5 or 6 years ago, and may have said something about his opinions of them at that time. I think that deserves some digging to see if his exact testimony can be located.
Behe’s experience in learning the limits of knowledge of former high school students was limited to his “popular arguments on evolution” course and a technical writing course.
Funny, he doesn’t seem to have mentioned his expert testimony in Dover…
Whatever else you might want to say about Michael Behe -I don’t think anyone can accuse him of having biased scientific opinions arising from his particular religious beliefs. It is his intellect that informs his science not his beliefs.
Tina, if you are right, then something crippling happened to Behe’s intellect about the same time as he got involved in the “intelligent design” creationism movement, for his scientific output took a huge nosedive right at that time, and has remained minimal ever since.
Perhaps then its a case of quality rather than quantity for Behe! Richard Dawkins has produced volumious writings based on his interpretation of Darwinian evolution and has only succeeded in turning popular science into popular fiction. Good grief! What does a “selfish gene” do to explain the mechanism behind gene survival? Or what does an insest know of “altruism”? What sort of science uses personification, metaphor and human moral/value judgements to explain amoral and impersonal nature. Don’t get me started on this issue Mr Austringer …!
After Behe and Snoke 2004, I didn’t think anyone could say of Behe “quality rather than quantity” with a straight face.
What does the output of Richard Dawkins have to do with evaluating Michael Behe? Why is it that antievolutionists when criticized seem to instinctively launch into full-scale relativism? Even given that discussing Dawkins is a complete red herring, one need only check Google Scholar to see that Dawkins’s book (not a paper) has yet been incredibly productive of discussion and technical work in evolutionary science and computer science.
As for getting you started, feel free to get back to “this issue”, which, I should note, is Behe’s expert testimony.
OK – the export report is (and indeed logically should be from a Christian perspective). Why would you get a non-Christian to represent a Christian perspective? Expert witness’ are chosen to bolster your case not deny it.
So yes – the report is written from a Christian perspective. But it is respectful to the Christain point of view while at the same time deliniates the boundries of faith beliefs in the realm of scientific enquiry. He states that faith beliefs s.a. angels, hell etc have no place in scientific enquiry and discovery.
Lastly Behe states the role of science as basically one of discovery in order to have dominion over the natural world without destroying it. Of course to him this is initially decreed from God. But God or no God we can at least agree with the sentiments of “dominion”. Science and the subsequent technological advances are afterall
what has allowed our survival to date
Hmmm. Did I say anything about Behe being a Christian having some bearing on the validity of his expert report? Go ahead, read my post again… I’ll wait.
OK? Notice that what I commented upon was the simple fact that Behe does not have expertise in the fields being examined, and what I’ve seen of his procedure in evaluation looks like a whole lot of subjective assessment and handwaving. None of that has a thing to do with what he does or does not do of a Sunday morning.
Notice that in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, the plaintiffs had at least three Christian believers as expert witnesses: Miller, Pennock, and Haught. Now go and compare the quality of expert reports for each side. There is a clear quality difference in favor of the plaintiffs. Now ask yourself that if that isn’t a matter of discounting the opinions of Christians, why it should be the case that the Christians objecting to the Dover ID policy did better jobs of making their points than did those arguing for the defense?
Your points will need some time to examine. Will consider and get back to you ASAP.
Don’t rush on my account. This is something that deserves your full attention and consideration.
Just to underscore what Wes said, Behe is not an expert in biology, physics or education. Biochemists usually do come from a chemistry background. Indeed, that’s my own background. Behe’s undergraduate degree is in, no surprise here, chemistry. So his opinions that the subjects are covered well enough for the intended audience need massive substantiation. Of which he provides little to none beyond his feelings. What his faith is is irrelevant to the quality of his “expert” opinion.
Unfortunately I do not have time to address the issues you raised because I discovered the background reading is immense. I’m in another country and am not farmiliar with these legal cases.
But please let me clarify the following:
I am not anti-evolution.
But I AM opposed to Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
I’m happy to discuss my reasons for this.
If you look back on my comments (6.54pm) I was giving on overview to Behe’s approach in his current Expert Report and that necessitated addressing his Christian position. A position which brought ID unstuck in the previous legal case – but now he seems to have avoided the problem by clearly seperating religion from science. I did not mean to accuse you of blaming his christianity.
I have read Behe and Dawkins extensively. The bottom line for me is that Behe makes more scientific sense and consequently I want to defend him just as you would defend Dawkins.
Yes, the background reading is immense. I’ve done it, though, at least so far as having familiarity with the KvD expert witness reports goes. I’ve collected and read a lot of books, too; I even have autographed copies of “The Genesis Flood” (Whitcomb) and “Icons of Evolution” (Wells).
I’m concerned with the particulars of the situation in the USA, which has some specific things going on that make it a bit different. First, of course, is that the government got out of the religion business a long time ago, and in fact made it part of the rules of government here that they would not get back into the religion business.
Some religion businesses, though, desperately want the government to spend tax dollars promoting their narrow sectarian views. This is especially true of a variety of fundamentalist Christian factions who have issues with evolutionary science. These folks for a while had things going just the way they wanted: in some states, it was illegal to teach evolutionary science. Consider provisions of Tennessee’s Butler Act:
Eventually (forty-some years later), the US Supreme Court overturned those laws, saying, in essence, that a scientific topic could not be excluded from the curricula of public schools to privilege a narrow sectarian religious view.
What happened then? The folks who objected to any mention of evidence “that man has descended from a lower order of animals” went for subterfuge, and that basic strategy continues here to this day. They said, oh, look, what we believe is science, too! You’ve got to teach our viewpoint in the public classrooms!
This transparent sham has been addressed in the courts at least four times, one of those going all the way to the US Supreme Court. The antievolutionists have lost all such outings. It is my opinion that they are going to lose the next outing, which is likely to be based upon “teach the weaknesses” type labeling for the same old, tired, bogus antievolution arguments. The thing is, one can recognize that all those old, tired, bogus antievolution arguments come from religiously motivated antievolution, and are not part of current scientific endeavors. If you cover all but one song off of Harrison’s “All Things Must Pass” album, no court will agree that what you are doing is entirely different from Harrison’s work, even if you can say, “But I didn’t sing ‘My Sweet Lord’!”
I suspect that you don’t have “reasons” for not liking evolutionary science; I suspect that you have a set of apologetics that you have picked up from various sources. As for being in the “antievolution” class, if you are going to deploy the same old, tired, bogus antievolution arguments, I’m going to class you as an antievolutionist, even if you think that you’ve got some distinction that makes a difference. If you have the same issue with evolutionary science as was codified in the Butler Act quoted above, for example, I think that there is no argument that would justify not classing you as an antievolutionist. Let’s keep redundancy to a minimum, though. I’ve heard a lot of antievolution arguments. Although Mark Isaak’s list is not complete, it is pretty extensive. So check there, and you can skip writing out any objection that you find addressed in Isaak’s list.
Tina Ryan says:
I’d be curious as to how you define “evolution” and “Darwinian evolution”. Indeed, I’ve heard every Creationist stripe from IDist to Young Earther state much the same thing.
As for Behe, you might find him more to your tastes, but that doesn’t make his case more scientifically sensible. In fact Behe has no case to present at all, much less a scientifically more sensible one. He merely attacks a strawman of evolution and assumes that this must mean design. Nowhere does he positively support this notion of design. This is true for all other IDists too.
The definitions I will beworking with when I discuss are:
Evolution = The process of succession/development of organic life.
Darwinian Evolution = A theory of how this succession/development of organic life came about.
A theory which operates on the fundamental principles of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest.
The problem is that those are connotations, not denotations. “Darwinian evolution” as described is seriously misleading if it is supposed to convey the meaning of “evolution as Darwin conceived it”. Darwin held that natural selection would be found to be the main, but not exclusive, mechanism of evolutionary change. You’d probably also be better off reading Ernst Mayr’s “One Long Argument” concerning the content of Darwin’s work on evolution. Mayr discusses five theories that Darwin expounded in “Origin of Species”. There’s essentially a summary that relies upon Mayr by Joel Hanes at the TalkOrigins Archive. It includes the list:
Given that list, to say that you oppose “Darwinian evolution” is actually to say that you oppose quite a chunk of evolutionary science, not just the mechanism of natural selection.
In other words, I am not on board with accepting whatever connotation happens to be presented. If you want to use the phrase, “Darwinian evolution”, I’m going to expect it to be deployed in a scholarly and accurate sense.
Please for the meantime could you provide your definition or description of Natural Selection process?
Please if we are going to discuss in “scholarly and accurate” manner please revise ideas re: denotation and connotation.
The definations I provided are “denotative” in that they describe the thing signified – the bare meaning.
The “connotations” are the meanings which go beyond the matter-of-fact meanings (denotitions) to the finer details of the things we hope to discuss.
My definitions are denotative to set the frame of referance so that we are clear that we are talking about the same thing when we say “evolution” or “Darwinian Theory” etc.
I think my understanding of the distinction between denotation and connotation is on the mark, and yours corresponds roughly to Humpty-Dumptyism. There’s glory for you…
Well as W B Yates put it “The falcon cannot hear the falconer”. I’d like a second opinion on the connotation/denotation question. But this is not going to happen…your tone – let alone your childish taunts show me this is a waste of time. If you want to continue grow up a bit – lets talk seriously.
Tina writes:
There’s the rub. As Wes writes, Darwinian evolution actually encompass a family of several theories of which natural selection forms but a part. Your definitions seem unclear and incoherant to me. When you say for instance “A theory of how this succession/development of organic life came about.” do you mean biogenesis? What’s the difference between “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest”? Is “Survival of the Fittest” a scientific principle at all? Why “organic” life? Isn’t all life organic?
I’m sure you think this is just being picky (admitedly the last one probably is), but definitions are supposed mean something. It’s little point in discussion when one person is thinking about evolution as one way and someone else another way entirely. It just wastes a lot of time.
For me:
Evolution: The changes in inherited traits in populations over generations.
This gets the essentials. Evolution involves chnges in inherited traits (not those acquired after birth), these changes occur from generation to generation over time, and they concern populations (not individuals).
Natural Selection: The (non-random) differential reproductive success within populations of inherited traits.
I’m not a biologist, but these are the definitions I go by.
I tend to stay away from the term “Darwinian” except in the historical context related explicitly to Darwin’s ideas, because too many people use it too sloppily.
My birds hear me just fine.
Well, Tina, since you didn’t have a grasp of what Behe has done, what his actual expertise was about, or even what to call whatever-it-is that causes you distress in evolutionary science, I’m not sure exactly what about your participation here was supposed to clue me in that you were a mature commentator looking for a chance to soberly discuss, well, real topics. Instead, we got a couple of unfounded cheerleading routines about how great Behe was, an irrelevant bit about Dawkins, an irrelevant bit about persecution of Christians, a demurral from actually getting up to speed on the topic at hand *before* commenting on it, an incorrect description of “Darwinian evolution”, some terminological inexactitude about “denotation” and “connotation”, and a hissy-fit over my quite apropos Lewis Carroll allusion.
All in all, there seems to be no evidence that the topic is going to be diminished in any sense by your strategic withdrawal.
Word for the day: projection.
Is “Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest” a scientific principle at all? Why “organic” life? Isn’t all life organic? (I’m trying to quote – don’t know how to get text)
Dave S:
Natural selection and survival of the fittest are fundamental principles (ie primary elemental ideas) of Darwinian theory of evolution. I assume these expressions are simply principals – I did not qualify them as anything else.
No not all “life” is organic!
The need to qualify “life” with the adjective “organic” is necessary to distinguish the type of “life” we are discussing.The word “Life” can express many things:
The good life, a still life, nite life, eternal life and so on. Yes sure, all organic life is organic.
Stop nit-picking you guys. Make valid criticisms.
But now I have to address Wes’ complaints.
It seems our potential discussion is getting caught up with pendantics. SUGGESTION: How about we discuss one particular issue/point regarding Darwinian theory of evloution – you name it – you define it. That way I won’t get so confused.
“Stop nit-picking you guys. Make valid criticisms.”
Tina, can you not see that this would be far more appropriate if you addressed it to your mirror?
I think that a valid criticism of Behe’s expert report is what I’ve already said: he isn’t an expert in biology, physics, or education. Let’s see the argument that makes that an invalid criticism, hmm?
Do I take it then that I’ve been thrown out of your cyber living room or was it lounge room. Forgive me if I used the wrong expression. I could go and check but then you would call that a ruse of some sort.
Indeed, we have a valid criticism already, if that’s what you want Tina, then let’s start with that. How can Behe offer credible expert legal testimony in areas where he not an expert?
If you’d rather discuss a different criticism, then by all means supply one yourself.
In future, you can use the quote function as follows. Type [blockquote] before and [/blockquote] after the desired text. Use angle brackets instead of the square ones I just used.
Since I asked just how you make out that my criticism identified above was invalid, Tina, it would seem that I’m still hopeful of receiving your answer.
Believe me, if I do give you the boot, you will not be in doubt about it.
Telling me the best thing I could do is address a mirror made me think you thought that’s what I should do as opposed to talking to you. This is why I thought I’d outworn my welcome. Silly me!
Re Behe Testimony: Well obviously someone thought he was a credible witness! But you think he hasn’t got the credentials – OK I understand that.
Now I’d like some clarification re: denotation and connotation – What is the definition of these words in America?
Tina writes:
Well yes, obviously “someone” thinks he’s a credible witness. I’m sure there are even some who find Kent Hovind “credible”. But that’s beside the point. The question is, do you (not a “someone”) think he’s qualified as an expert in biology, physics and high school education? That after all, is the focus of this thread.
RE BEHE: Look my only concern, and I’m sure its yours too, is that high school students are not disadvantaged as a result of his “expert report” …and if he failed to deliver I’d be protesting like any one in their right mind would.
I know America has a major problem with Christian Fundameantalism. I understand why you are concerned.
Tina –
My concern is that high school students are not disadvantaged by their instructors feeding them garbage like the biology text in question and told that that represents a fair introduction of the field and that it will allow them to proceed to a higher education. One small aspect of that is to determine if Behe’s report is “expert” at all.
If you’re not here to defend Behe as an “expert”, then I fail to understand what your point is supposed to be. Are you defending some of his conclusions, and if so, which ones and why?
I’m not concerned with Christian fundementalism in America. There are far too many good Christians and America is far to great a country to fall for that. I’m concerned with good education.
For the record, I’m not American myself, but these issues are universal and effect us all.
If you guys don’t know the differance between “denotation and connotation” then I think you should be worring about your own level of education before you worry about the education of others.
Golly, Tina, I’ve known that since 6th grade. It’s you that has the problem with those terms.
Define denotation and connotation – I might learn something!
Actually, it would be pretty ironic for me to offer a personal definition of denotation. So pick up a dictionary and look.
Prefer to use “Handwook for Literary Terms” here because it gives more detail than dictionary:
‘The dictionary tells one the bare and factual meaning of a word, this is its DENOTATION. Thus the word ‘sea’ is a geographical term denoting a ‘large body of water’.But beyond this matter-of-fact significance of the word….is a multitude of associations that give it wider meaning or CONNOTATION.”
Now the way I see it is you wanted to discuss connotstive meanings when I was just first attempting to establish denotation of terms we could have been discussing. Instead we played silly little games of who is right or wrong. I was under the impression this site was for discussions about science. I can’t discuss Behe case for lack of time re background.I like the guy – just forgive me for that at least. If other discussions are not permitted then tell me. Read over comments to fully realise how badly you have treated me because I don’t agree with you.
Tina, I had a look. I stand by everything I’ve said. Your provided “definition” of “Darwinian evolution” was a misleading and inaccurate view straight out of antievolutionist sources. It is by no stretch of the imagination a “denotation”. I told you that you were wrong on several points because what you stated here was incorrect. Ignorance, such as that that you have displayed here in this thread, is curable. Unfortunately, the first step is learning that one is ignorant, that one has been in error, and it appears that you would rather castigate the messenger than set about learning.
Discussion certainly can occur here, but don’t get the impression that errors — even those due to simple ignorance — will go unremarked.
Tina writes:
It is.
But fundamental errors do not simply get accepted as fact.
That’s hardly inducive to fruitful discussion.
Uh, OK. Isn’t this thread about Behe and the case though? What’s left?
I’m sure his wife likes him. I’m sure his kids and his dog and his neighbours like him. That’s neither here nor there with regards to his expertise. We get that you like Behe … and?
This is nothing. It’s kid gloves stuff compared to how actual scientists treat each other.
As they say, given N scientists in a room, they will have N+1 opinions…and not be shy about expressing them.
Research teams are usually in agreement and actually achieve something. Current research has determined conclusions that contradict Darwinian evolution. It is at the biochemical/microbiological level (DNA transfer between organisms/DNA sharing/egg cell transfers of foreign DNA/ organisms “number crunching” to bring about what is necessary when they need it – natural selection has nothing to do with it. You will soon hear how organisms achieve camoflage as a result of “imbibing the environment” and more – much, much more. It’s beautiful for the new understanding it brings. Darwin has done his job – we have to move beyond him now because we know so much more now.
Genetic Assisted Design (GAD)has nothing to do with religion/creationism/Behe. Just pure scientific discovery.
Since I doubt that GAD has anything to do with Behe, I’m going to suggest, Tina, that you open up a “Genetic Assisted Design” topic over at the After the Bar Closes discussion forum.
That said, it seems that even if GAD actually is something that can be considered distinct from the process of natural selection (which the Google #1 hit for the term seems to say not), that at best one is talking about another evolutionary mechanism, something still within the ambit of evolutionary science, and not anything to put in doubt the Darwinian idea of common descent.
Try {GENOMIC ASSISTED DESIGN}
(bulk of this research is not readily available – abstracts)
PASTED THIS QUOTE FROM ABOVE
The definitions I will be working with when I discuss are:
Evolution = The process of succession/development of organic life.
Darwinian Evolution = A theory of how this succession/development of organic life came about.
A theory which operates on the fundamental principles of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest.
WHAT WAS SO WRONG WITH THIS – YOU GUYS COMPLAINED AND COMPLAINED ABOUT EVERY ASPECT OF IT – many days later- how do you feel – good? We could have chatted, excahanged ideas, learnt new things, had a few laughs. For some reason you just want to have a good stouch. I’m not interested. Why get your fun resenting me because you think I’m like some lunatic over there.
This is good-bye…I’ll come back one more time to give you the pleasure knowing I read your cracious good-bye. note.
GAD doesn’t seem to contradict Darwins theories any more than breeding does. And it doesn’t seem to have anything much to do with Behe.
Tina, I’ve already stated what was wrong with it — it is inaccurate antievolution claptrap, not a description of “Darwinian evolution”. I listed out a number of theories which are part of Darwinian evolution, and apparently you don’t want to recognize that that happened.
The one and only hit Google returned for “genomic assisted design” was in a comment that it seems might have been left by you on a YouTube video of straightforward Islamic antievolution talking points.
So, yes, please feel free to continue with the strategic withdrawal thing. I still feel just fine standing behind everything I’ve said in this thread.
Well strategic withdrawl it is then? But this does not change the facts of the re-evalutation currently underway regarding Darwinian theory.
You are not having much success researching the subject of genetic/genomic assisted design! But maybe the you can find is current research re “junk DNA”. Now finding it is coding…not just some useless by-product (as Richard Dawkins would say) of our evolutionary past. I think a healthy approach to biology is if it a biological given – then there is a bloody good reason for it. Good-bye!
Ha Ha Ha – the anti-spam word is AUGER! Isn’t that a thing for boring holes (in arguments perhaps). But whose arguments your’s or mine. Time will tell.
Tina, I welcome facts about the way biology works. You don’t seem to be having much success at pointing at any of them; the facts that would support your arguments exist, you say, just not where they can be seen.
Yeah, and it isn’t like the junk DNA antievolution argument is anything new.
Still trying to figure out what any of this has to do with the topic of Behe posing as an expert on stuff it is obvious that he is no expert on.
So your sum total defense of Behe and his status as an expert is ‘eh, I like the guy and I believe him’.
Oh golly Tina. I can’t believe you dragged up the old ‘they’re finding uses for junk DNA’ argument. This argument only goes to show you haven’t read any of the actual biology. You’ve simply assumed whatever anti-evolution source you read did the reading and are accurately portraying it. Surprise, but they aren’t. If they did do the reading, they either failed to comprehend what they read or are being less than forthright with the truth.
The fact is that biologists have known since the very beginning that some (although not all) of the DNA given the name ‘junk’ may have function. For ID advocates to pretend that this is a ‘prediction’ of theirs and that evolutionists had to be corrected is laughable.
Wes has supplied a link. Another source I found useful was T. Ryan Gregory’s Genomicron blog. Be sure to check out the links posted at the bottom of this posting for a deeper look at the history of this bit of biological jargon.
The onion test –
For those of you who believe every bit of the genome must have a function…why does the onion have a genome 5 times the size of a human’s? Do onions have 5 times the complexity we do?
Boy I just typed a whole box full of my defence of the humble onion – sent without entering anti-spam – and consequently wiped it all!. I’m crying now – but that is good because I’m currently researching tears(reflex tears) and that is why I’m so up to speed on onions (ie as irritants to Basal tears).
DAVE IN ANSWER TO YOUR ONION TEST;
Onions are scientifically proven to have the following properties; Anti-oxidants – chelation of harmful modern day toxins cigarette smoke, traffic fumes. Have memory boosting and maintaining benefits, help maintain hippocampus for the processing of emotions. Aid to treatment of neurodegenaritive diseases, effective against common cold, heart disease, diabetes, osteoperosis. Increases circulation and lowers blood pressure. High energy food yet low in calorie.Rich source of vitamins B1,B6 and Folic acid. Wonderful in cooking and when lightly heated arouma probably there to make us want to eat the things because they are good for us. Cook too much and loose sulfur nutrient benefits etc.Plus wards off Vampires too. Yes onions might have DNA 5 x humans but its also has complex benefits for humans…
Austringer what can I say to you other than I am a total ignoramus – not much I can do about it though. You can accept me how I am or reject – your choice.
Ego-involvement isn’t pretty.
Telling falsehoods about the content of terms in science isn’t pretty, either. I’ll continue to call ’em as I spot errors. Like I said before, ignorance is curable. That doesn’t mean that we have to accept statements made in ignorance while the cure is in progress.
I don’t think utilitarianism concerning the onion is responsive to the point Dave S. made, either.
Tina –
I have no doubt the onion is a perfectly fine food with many benefits. I eat them myself with many meals. They are great with burgers. They don’t need defending.
All this is completely beside the point and has nothing to do with what I wrote. That was about junk DNA, a term that you brought up Tina. The question is, WHY does the onion have 5X our DNA? If anything, its the human that needs defending. Are we only a fifth as complex as an onion? What accounts for that?
I should say here that the Onion Test is not mine, it’s Dr. Gregory’s. A fact which would have been evident had you clicked the link I posted and looked at the other links contained therein.
One more thing.
There’s nothing wrong with being ignorant. We are all ignorant of a great many things. I don’t know much about jazz. Ask me to solve a diffential equation and I’d flounder. What the main agricultural products of Senegal are, I can only guess.
But ignorance is curable.
As the man says, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, by no-one is entitled to their own facts.