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."
***If science were to show how resurrection were possible, you would be jumping up and down on the side of science, no?***
No, because three or four years later scientist would say they were wrong and that it wasn't possible after all.
I have a surer foundation - the Bible.
I would expect that you would also redicule Mr. Behe, a Darwinian that believes in common descent over millions of years of evolution.
I think that was the line when they were told the earth revolved around the sun ...
I would call one that tried to make Adam satisfied with an animal as a partner as not completely the human biological urge.
StJacques: "No; what is really interesting is that two Popes, Pius XII and John Paul II, have pointedly stated that ..which makes clear that some of the most religious men of recent times have seen evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution as valid, thus debunking the lame argument that the theory is an "atheistic conspiracy," unless you intend to call these two Popes atheists."
What I find interesting is what I find interesting. You tell me "no", I shouldn't find that interesting, but instead should accept your ideas of what is interesting. Hahaha.
Your response negates nothing I wrote, changes the subject, and is a non sequitur.
StJacques: "I consider myself to be a genuinely religious person and I also see the evidence for the Theory of Evolution as overwhelming."
Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
Are you talking about Darwin's theory:
"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." --- Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838
"There was no place in Darwin's world for divine intervention, nor was mankind placed in a position of superiority vis-a-vis the rest of the animal world. Darwin saw man as part of a continuum with the rest of nature, not separated by divine injunction." ~ Encyclopedia Britannica
The Pope mentioned "several theories", and it doesn't appear as if he was embracing Darwin' theory:
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution:
"....What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration... Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
5. The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29)......
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...." ~ ~
Would the "scientists" quoted below (and the evolutionary theory they embrace) be as highly regarded by the pope as they are among their peers --- maybe even you?:
Stephen Jay Gould: "(Darwins's notebooks) include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself: philosophical materialism -- the postulate that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products."
Ernst Mayr: "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ "
Richard Lewontin: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
William Provine: "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. .... Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
Jesus made fun of Nicodemus for attempting to take words literally and ignoring the meaning behind them.
This passage is generally interpreted to mean that we must take everything in the Bible literally.
"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."
Newspapers! Behe is a Darwinian.
I think you meant it the other way around.
Come on. Everyone knows that theories evolve with new information. Just like Newton's theory. Not incorrect, just incomplete. Sort of what Behe says about Darwins theory, not incorrect, just incomplete. Now you are on the side of Behe, correct?
***I truly do believe Christ rose bodily from the dead and that the biblical texts -- this is the Gospel of John -- make that clear.***
Based on the Bible alone - right? Because the secular histories contradict that belief. Josephus, The Mishna, Pliny the Elder all contradict the Biblical account. If you can trust the Biblical witness for the resurrection then why can't you trust Jesus' witness as to the historicla nature of Genesis?
***You present Scripture within a rational scientific argument, a tactic I abhor.***
Someting is either rational or irrational.
***Your argument blurs the lines between science and metaphysics, ***
If the Bible is wrong in it's historical facts then there is not reason to trust it's "metaphorical, spiritual" pronouncements.
*** It's all over the place.****
Any examples?
*** To say otherwise is to deny that allegory is used in biblical.I won't even bother to argue with one who denies that.***
The Bible contains the literal and the allegorical, the historic and the poetic. But it is also fairly clear in distinguishing when what type of form is being used. Hebrew poetry has distinct literary characteristics. The NT makes it clear when Jesus is presenting a parable.
Genesis is presented as a historical fact.
I meant it exactly the way I said it.
Madame, so that I may respond to your complaint, you will need to be specific. To wit:
[1]What was the ad hominem attack you're accusing me of making?
[2]what was the logical fallacy you're accusing me of making?
[3]what was the quote you're referencing?
Jesus helped Nicodemus out to understand that he didn't have to literally go back into the womb.
Would it be dangerous to your physics career to identified as a Big Bang skeptic?
***I think that was the line when they were told the earth revolved around the sun ...***
I am not a Catholic and will not defend the Catholic Church's mistakes.
As to the foundation...
"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."
- Jesus, Matthew 7
From your explanation it is clear that "descent of man" needs to be clarified to show that man is a dual nature and that only one part shares biological descent. But scientific naturalism doesn't want to take this step. It prefers to only consider one side, the animal. The same goes for the science of nature in general.
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.