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."
And while we're at it, what kind of Intelligent Designer(tm) would create a man first, by himself, then make him a bunch of animals to serve as his "helpers", and then only later create a woman as an afterthought when the animals didn't work out? How intelligent *is* that? And just what *were* the original plans for how Adam was to reproduce?
No really. Pascal did a perrty good book on conics when he wass, what 15? Remember: the number of people involved was a few hundred, not the tens of thousands of today.
A feathered mouse? Wow!
After religion is injected into science class, the question then becomes, "How do we shut off all the scientific questions?"
Gumlegs: "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'
So you think that my accurately referring to those two activists as atheists is an ad hominem attack? Reeeally?
"The validity of a scientific theory does not stand or fall on the one's theism, or lack thereof."
That's true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Ding! Ding! Talk about fallacies!!! Hahaha
Matchett-PI: [2]what was the logical fallacy you're accusing me of making?"
Gumlegs: "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."
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. (see above)
Matchett-PI: "[3]what was the quote you're referencing?
Gumlegs: "It would be much easier to list the quotes you've posted that aren't distorted, out-of-context, or entirely fabricated."
Strike three - you're out!
Talk's cheap. You couldn't put up, so let's see if you can figure out the next step. Hahahaha
Or a furry bird. Take your pick.
Lilith, the Snake ...
As in liberal arts? The liberal arts model of collegiate education is undermined by specialization.
Well, there goes the dinosaur/bird transition.
Uh...how is that proof? Even if they had marital relations at exactly the right time of the month, there's still a good chance she doesn't get pregnant. And the Bible doesn't say whether they had marital relations before the fall.
In other words, Behe is the only tenured IDer. Because if any of his correspondents got tenure, they would have no reason to keep quiet.
I've got to assume that there are very few IDers on tenure tracks.
Scientific rationalism also gives rise to horrific uses. The fact that our human experience gives evidence of evil is no small joke.
You don't remember those days in Sunday School when the instructor gave those evil looks when 'little Johnny' started to raise his had in the middle of the Jonah and the Whale story?
Only one?
When you inject "atheist" and use it as a perjoritive, into a discussion of a scientific theory, yes, it's ad hominem.
That's true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Ding! Ding! Talk about fallacies!!! Hahaha
Really? Then what you wrote would appear to be utterly pointless. Sorry. I'm won't make the mistake again of assuming you have a point.
I will also not make that mistake with the rest of your post.
When you inject "atheist" and use it as a perjoritive, into a discussion of a scientific theory, yes, it's ad hominem.
That's true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Ding! Ding! Talk about fallacies!!! Hahaha
Really? Then what you wrote would appear to be utterly pointless. Sorry. I'm won't make the mistake again of assuming you have a point.
I will also not make that mistake with the rest of your post.
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.