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."
The Bible says they had relations after being kicked out, but it doesn't say anything about what happened before. Maybe they had relations beforehand, and maybe they didn't. There's no way of knowing. Maybe Adam was rounding third when she brought him the apple.
However, we know that God intended for them to have relations before the fall.
What's your point? People who lust for power will use any means they can to get it.
This pretty much sums up the defense case.
True, which is really pitiful, when you think about it.
Not of much use when the argument turns on specialized knowledge and skills.
***By nature, religion gives rise to horrific uses. Remember 9/11.***
Correction:
Any lie gives rise to horrific uses.
Like evolution or Islam.
Ah, the so if it isn't in the Bible, we are free to assume that it probably happened, event though Genesis 4 is the first mention that Adam knew Eve. Besides, Genesis 1 is a summary written much after the more historically correct Genesis 2, 3, 4, ...
Gensis 1 is to be taken only as an overall description of things that happened, not the sequence or order. Sort of like a forward to a book. Something to get you warmed up before you start the actual Bible in Genesis 2.
Who was it that said, "Ignorant, biblical illiterates can be cured with education - but stupid is forever"?
Then anyone that leaps to the conclusion that they were sexual beforehand is just making something up, right?
I think I'm pretty much making your point. We don't compare the horrors of a monarchy and democracy once we understand there's an anterior cause for evil called people.
Does your mommy know you're playing on the computer?
Did Adam have a belly button?
Did Eve?
*** Nonsense.****
It's not nonsense - look at my other posts for reference.
***that in NO way counts as evidence against the theory from a scientific standpoint.****
You can know a tree by it's fruit.
***And the fact the voices of the other creationists condemning him were deafening in the silence.***
Slavery is a complex issue historically in that some slaves had more money, authority and power then most free men. Some slaves were the tutors of kings. American slavery was an abomination.
Here is proof that Eve was asexual prior to the fall:
-----------------------------------------
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Uh-huh. With fake fossils all positioned exactly where we'd expect to find them if life on earth had gone on for billions of years, stars light-years away already visible on earth, a Grand Canyon that could only have been formed over millennia, and no evidence whatever of a world-wide flood. Please.
That was an awful lot of interpretation to get four legs on locusts. I'm glad that Yeminite tradition clears the matter up -- to bad it's not actually, you know, right there in the Bible itself for people to read.
And it's interesting how God couldn't be troubled to tell His chosen people know something along the lines of "You might want to figure out different words for things like 'birds,' 'bats,' and certain types of insects which really aren't related at all, especially when you're writing down binding rules that your descendants are going to bash each other over the head with."
I suppose it's futile pointing out that Electromagnetic Theory, which is one of the main reasons you're able to post to the internet, is just as "atheistic" as the Theory of Evolution.
That's all covered in CREO-101. Required before proceeding into the regular CREO curriculum. However, based on documented life experience of at least 25 FR posts containing a minimum of 14 lies of which at least one is not discovered by other FR'ers, you may be exemptet from the course.
Like evolution or Islam.
Which one gave rise to the Inquisition?
Or are you one of those posters who's convinced it really wasn't all that bad?
So as long as we follow the Roman model of slavery, and not the American, then slavery is fine?
No. Someone who leaps to the conclusion that they actually had realtions is making something up. However, it is clear in the text that they were capable of having relations.
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.