If Behe's ears aren't burning, he's either deaf or not listening.
Here's the original FR thread on Behe's "Design for Living" op-ed.
Ping
BTW, today is Darwin's 196th birthday!
They want to make Republicans/Conservatives look bad, That's why
"How does this crap get published in the NY Times?"
I realize the author was asking a rhetorical question, but the likely answer is illuminating.
The NYT is a statist, big-government advocate. Conservatives generally oppose big, intrusive government. To the extent that the NYT can paint conservatives as a bunch of snake-handling, knuckle-dragging, anti-science goons, the easier it will be for Hillary and other left-wing scoundrels to get elected and get their big-government programs passed.
So along comes some useful idiot like Behe, with his creationism masquarading as science nonsense, and the NYT is more than happy to publish it because it furthers the political agenda of the NYT and it's like minded friends by making conservatives look like anti-science religious fanatics who want to sneak religion into the science classroom of public schools via the back door.
And that, gentle reader, is how "this crap get published in the NY Times".... Better get used to it, because there will be much more of this coming our way.
There is a large body of research substantiating Intelligent Design, and the work stands up to scrutiny far better than evolutionism does. It fits the evidence!
That's it. That's pathetic.
And what an excellent summary of the entire ID wedge nonsense.
It sounds impressive, but I've read several articles by Behe, and they make excellent sense. I say that not from a religious perspective but as someone with an interest in science.
Reducing the whole theory to the length of a NY Times OpEd piece is bound to produce a simplified argument which has to leave a lot unsaid. But he has argued it in greater detail elsewhere.
I don't expect any agreement on this issue, because Darwinists have a stake in evolutionary theory and they don't want to hear anything different. But sooner or later Darwin will go the same way as his two major nineteenth century colleagues in modernist mystification, Marx and Freud--into the dustbin of history.
Excuse O'great Snarks, but PZMeyers is who?? Is what??
I am a biologist, but I do not bow before Darwin. Let us search for truth, not Your interpretation of it.
Check it out.
"Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don’t bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed.
Everything about ID can come down to that. There is an implied threat to the scientific community. That no matter how ID is unaccepted by the experts and scientists, no matter how thoroughly evolutionists defeat them in debate and results, a non-scientifically trained entity, the public through the courts, can impose its will on the instruction of science. All Behe and IDers do is demagogue this issue to the gullible public. This is an outrage. In no other academic field can outsiders dictate to academic insiders how their field is to be run. You can't have the inmates run the asylum.
But the IDers are doomed to fail. The longer this is prolonged, the greater will be the attention upon this issue. Once that happens, the resistance by the imposed upon scientific community will increase, leading to a more dramatic and humiliating ID defeat.
Ah I just love how 'conservative' atheists magically turn into flaming liberals when confronted with anything that questions their religion. I seem to recall a pharisaic attitude that once said the earth the center of the Universe. Wasn't Galileo a Christian? Ah, yes, he was. Hmm... So we have Christian Scientists vs. the 'religious' establishment. Sounds like a familiar story going on today.
It might have been nice if you had added that Behe is a professor at Lehigh University, and not just a Fellow at the Discovery Institute.
29+ arguments for macroevolution??
if they were right, one would be sufficient, einstein!!
Er, precisely because it is the New York Times. Presumably Behe accurately pegged them as the sort of incompetent journalists who would find his twaddle worthy of publication.
He had an op-ed in the NYT? Cool!
Behe jumped the shark, perhaps. Big deal. Darwin is worm food.