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."
As far as education is concerned, we should watch out for any extremes, any -isms incuding scientism, especially as those exclusive views tend to diminish the dignity of human freedom.
No. First it was Adam and then the animals and then when God found out that the animals did not satisfy Adam, he said all is not good and put Adam into a deep sleep while God went back to the lab to revise his grand plan.
*** You inserted that "from the beginning of the world."***
Mark 10:6
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
as in...
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." - Gen 1:1
ID is the opiate of Nature.
No doubt died at the hands of radicals.
I admit I'd prefer a woman over a skunk, most days.
The Millers of God grind exceedingly fine?
Er, huh??? He got in trouble, and eventually fired, by his university because he was an open (assassination threatening, uniform wearing and sometimes weapon carrying) advocate of violent revolution. (Not that this is necessarily a bad thing if you're French.) Then he died in a duel apparently fought over a love affair.
How do you see this as all about academic backstabbing?!?
Science isn't about dignity. It neither denies nor affirms dignity.
Mark still doesn't specify the creation of what.
Your demand that the Bible be inerrant gives rise to the question of why God gave us brains and the ability to use them, and then covered the earth with false evidence.
You still haven't replied to this part of my post 146 to this thread:
Oh, and you must also believe that bats and birds are the same thing.Are you saying here that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally? You must believe, then, that locusts have four legs, that rabbits chew their cud, and that wearing linsey-woolsey shirts and rounding the corners of your beard are offensive to God. You must believe that slavery is okay as long as you follow the rules outlined in the Bible for the treatment of slaves. You must believe that witches not only exist, but you must kill them whenever you find them.
" And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. " Genesis 2.
(only God made the animals for a help meet - turned into a disaster of a plan)
Sexual, since sexuality is an intrinsic part of human identity.
Adam and Eve had no interest in sex prior to the eating the apple.
Not true. God told them to be fruitful and multiply before the fall.
How can you say they were sexual before since Eve had no desire or capacity to bear children.
Your premise is incorrect. See above.
If they were sexual, it must have been for their pleasure only.
Sexual intercourse has two purposes: the reproductive and the unative, which includes pleasure. There is no reason to think this was any different before the Fall.
EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm
"Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power."
-- Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich
But education is. And education should temper the isms.
***I admit I'd prefer a woman over a skunk, most days.***
But would they prefer you?
Taken strictly literally, Genesis contradicts Jesus. Man and woman were NOT created in the beginning. They wern't created until the 6th Day.
Gee ... a scientific theory can be twisted into horrific uses. How utterly unlike a religion.
Ah, Pepe, a Frenchman's hero.
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.