Posted on 10/16/2005 1:28:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Marginalized by his university colleagues, ridiculed as a quack by the scientific establishment, Michael Behe continues to challenge the traditional theory of how the world came to be.
For more than a decade, the tenured Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author has been one of the nation's leading proponents of intelligent design, a movement trying to alter how Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school.
This week, Behe will testify in a federal courtroom in Harrisburg in a landmark case about whether students in a Pennsylvania classroom should be required to hear a statement before their evolution classes that says Darwin's theory is not a fact.
"The fact that most biology texts act more as cheerleaders for Darwin's theory rather than trying to develop the critical faculties of their students shows the need, I think, for such statements," Behe said.
In papers, speeches and a 1996 best-selling book called "Darwin's Black Box," Behe argues that Darwinian evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.
His life on the academic fringes can be lonely. Critics say the concept is nothing more than biblical creationism in disguise. He long ago stopped applying for grants and trying to get his work published in mainstream scientific journals. In August, his department posted a Web statement saying the concept is not scientific.
"For us, Dr. Behe's position is simply not science. It is not grounded in science and should not be treated as science," said Neal Simon, the biology department chairman.
Behe said he was a believer in Darwin when he joined Lehigh in 1985, but became a skeptic after reading Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."
Behe's big idea, published in "Darwin's Black Box" and the one that catapulted him to academic fame, is irreducible complexity. It is the notion that certain biochemical systems are incapable of having evolved in Darwinian fashion because they require all of their parts working simultaneously.
Behe uses a mousetrap to illustrate the concept. Take away any of its parts - platform, spring, hammer, catch - and the mousetrap can't catch mice.
"Intelligent design becomes apparent when you see a system that has a number of parts and you see the parts are interacting to perform a function," he said.
The book "put the positive case for design on the map in a way that some of the (previous intelligent design) work had not done," said Steven Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute [http://www.discovery.org]. Most of academia panned it.
Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education [ http://www.ncseweb.org], said that he believes Behe thought he discovered something astonishing. "But no one is using irreducible complexity as a research strategy, and with very good reason ... because it's completely fruitless," he said.
Behe finds community in a Web group that he says includes like-minded faculty from other universities. Most keep their views to themselves, Behe said, because "it's dangerous to your career to be identified as an ID proponent."
He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which lets him express his views without the threat of losing his job.
"Because of the immense publicity that's mushroomed around this issue in the past six months, more people are getting emotional about the topic," Behe said. "And it's generally not on my side."
|
How embarrassing. I've misspelled "evolution" in the title of the thread. Could you correct it please?
Thank you.
That's ok, PH. You've seen it spelled "evilution" so many times that your mispelling it is not unexpected. ;-)
Euginie Scott
Has Michael Rubinkam discovered an ... unusual story? In the article, he writes, "Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education [ http://www.ncseweb.org], said that he believes Behe thought he discovered something astonishing. 'But no one is using irreducible complexity as a research strategy, and with very good reason ... because it's completely fruitless,' he said.
And it would be dangerous to my physics career to be identified as a gravity skeptic.
The reality is, scientists chomp at the bit to find something that is a breakthrough or goes against conventional wisdom. A recent example in biology was the notion of "punctuated equilibrium", that became a fad among the mavericks for awhile (including Stephen Jay Gould) claiming that it challenged Darwin.. After years of serious debate, it is know acknowledged that it did nothing of the kind. Most people were so eager for something new, that they had overlooked some flaws in the arguments.
If Behe and colleagues ever out forth serious evidence against Darwin, they would be spearheading a major revolution. Unfortunately, most of their arguments are along the lines of "...well, off the top of my head, I can't possibly IMAGINE how the eye could have evolved twenty separate ways, etc....".
Good thing for the universe that the Creator wasn't as mentally limited as this crowd...
Well, biology is confusing.
The Prof might consider evolution to be the expression of a force, that is, the derivative of change. Something like an acceleration. An acceleration does not mean the speed must increase, but the direction would change. We see several positions [from the few fossils that remain] on the evolution tree and infer a speed of change, but that doesn't account for branching. Acceleration would account for branching, and evolution would be acceleration as the relation of the force to the biomass. Explain that to the jury, Prof.
Yeah, and someone who didn't understand economics could consider capitalism as a force, one that mysteriously changes corn fields into shopping centers. But that's not quite what's going on.
I suppose my post will be leaped upon as an example of ID, which it isn't. Ah well ...
"Irreducible Complexity" = "We haven't fully explained the origins of biological complexity yet, therefore we must give up trying."
There is intelligent design in shopping malls. Not omniscient intelligence, though. Getting from the car to the building is a life or death challenge, which shouldn't be part of an intelligent design.
Hey, put yourself in the other guy's shoes. If your entire literary output consists of a book that trumpets "They haven't figured out X," then you darn well have a vested interest in halting any further work in the area.
Shouldn't this be filed under "bloggers"?
He buttons his shirt funny, too.
I'm eagerly awaiting Behe's testimony, but more eagerly awaiting the cross-examination.
It's fascinating that the very department in which he holds tenure feels it appropriate to disavow his "theory."
Isn't tenure a wonderful thing? I wish I had tenure...oh...wait...I work for myself, so I suppose I do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.