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."
***I would call one that tried to make Adam satisfied with an animal as a partner as not completely the human biological urge.***
Are you a person who thinks solely in terms of biological urges???
That's what I said. He made fun of him for taking words literally and missing the point.
And this story is frequently cited as evidence that we must thake every word of the Old Testament literally.
We all think soley in terms of biological urges. That is how we evolved into where we are now. It's all about biological urges.
On another thread, then.
"I would call one that tried to make Adam satisfied with an animal as a partner as not completely the human biological urge."
My omission. Should be:
I would call one that tried to make Adam satisfied with an animal as a partner as not completely knowledgeable on the human biological urge.
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with my post since I don't recall ridiculing anyone, but if this is what Behe believes then I would disagree with him...and if he were here, posting on this forum, I certainly would have no problem expressing that.
That said, I really don't have enough knowledge of the man to judge whether your representation here is correct.
Many threads.
If they read the good book so literally, maybe we can cut a little slack for the others who read nature so scientifically.
"We all think soley in terms of biological urges. That is how we evolved into where we are now. It's all about biological urges"
That's how cows live - from one biological satisfaction to the next.
No wonder systems base on evolution end up treating people like animals.
Sorry, we were created for higher things than that.
You would disagree with him? Since you would disagree with him on such a fundamental issue (evolution) then would you not consider him to be a non-credible witness for the ID movement?
Contradictions? Nah. Only biblical illiterates believe that.
Why Bible Critics Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt
Inerrancy and Human Ignorance Why We Could Not and Can Not Have Inerrant Copies and Translations of the Bible Only the original manuscripts of the Bible were produced inerrant (God-breathed in the autographs).
There is none.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to. Reread what I wrote.
Either Jesus
1. took it literally and factually or
2. he was ignorant, or
3. he knew better and was playing to people's ignorance
or
4. He was using Parables to make a point, as He often did, and wasn't concerned with the specifics of natural history, because that wasn't the point He was trying to make.
People who are overconcerned with the literal specifics of ancient Scripture remind me more of the people that Jesus was angry with in the first place. I surely hope you don't literally hate your mother and father, as Jesus literally demanded in Luke 14:26, and see past the literal words to the deeper point He was conveying.
I don't think God is a liar either. He wouldn't place evidence that points to an 4.5 billion earth and the common descent of life on earth and expect us not to believe it.
Accidental snip
Exactly. Much is lost in translation and the fact that the Bible has been translated and passed on by fallible human beings. The whole point which I'm trying to make.
I believe that God's Word is consistent with an accurate physical description of the natural world, contrary to what creationists want to believe.
I don't know enough about the specifics Intelligent Design to know wether common descent is incompatible with it, but even if I did have an opinion, what difference would it make. I'm not an advocate for Behe or the ID movement, and you certainly seem to think that his reputation is pretty much worthless.
You might want to pick your battles with a little more thought since all you're doing is treading water here.
Explain what you mean by this. What systems are based on evolution. Be specific.
The whole world is bsed on evolutin and, yes, people are animals ...
That would be in this post to this thread: Interesting that the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers like Richard Dawkins or ‘political animals’ like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie Scott
The validity of a scientific theory does not stand or fall on the one's theism, or lack thereof.
[2]what was the logical fallacy you're accusing me of making?
That's a two-fer: The ad hom, quoted above, and the idea, also noted above, giving rise to the notion that the validity of a scientific theory is in some way affected by someone's belief in a deity.
[3]what was the quote you're referencing?
It would be much easier to list the quotes you've posted that aren't distorted, out-of-context, or entirely fabricated.
By the way, I'm not a "madame" in any sense of the word. Just FYI.
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.