Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pa. professor [Behe] to testify in landmark case [Dover evolution trial, 16 Oct]
The Wichita Eagle ^ | 16 October 2005 | MICHAEL RUBINKAM

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dover; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 481-485 next last
To: Gumlegs
*** Mark still doesn't specify the creation of what.***

The "beginning of the creation" couldn't be more clear.



***why [would] God gave us brains and the ability to use them, and then covered the earth with false evidence.***

When God created Adam, He create a fully formed, mature male human - not an embryo. Would it be any surprise that He created the universe in a mature state?


***Are you saying here that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally? You must believe, then, that locusts have four legs****

For starters...

Leviticus 11:20-23 is discussing what types of locusts/grasshoppers are kosher/not kosher and may not/be eaten. Now, we all know that all insects have six legs, not four. Thus, the expression "that goes on all fours" is, in fact, a Hebrew idiom - the original Hebrew says: ha holekh al arba, literally "which goes on four".

The Torah in Vayikra/ Leviticus ch 11: verses 20-23 says: "Every flying insect that uses four legs for walking shall be avoided by you. The only flying insects with four
walking legs that you may eat are those which have knees extending above their feet, [using these longer legs] to hop on the ground. Among these you may only eatmembers of the red locust family, the yellow locust family, the spotted gray locust family and the white locust family. All other flying insects with four feet [for walking]
must be avoided by you."

The four types of locusts stated in the Torah are known according to Yemenitetradition to be the following: The "red locust" ["Arbeh" in Hebrew] is called "Grad" in
Arabic. The yellow locust ["Sa'lam" in Hebrew] is "Rashona" in Arabic. The spotted gray locust ["Chargol" in Hebrew] is "Chartziyiya" in Arabic. The white locust ["Chagav" in Hebrew] is called "Gandav" in Arabic.

According to Yemenite tradition as recorded in the work Arichat Hashulchan, the locust called "Al j'rad" is Kosher, and has three Kosher sub-species all known by that
name.

The Halachah/ Jewish Law regarding locusts is that one is allowed to eat a specific type of locust only if there is a "continuous tradition" that affirms that it is Kosher. It is
not enough that the locust seems to conform to the criteria mentioned in the Torah. This does not mean that one must possess a 'personal tradition' in order to eat
locusts. If one travels to a place where the people do have a tradition, the new arrival would also be allowed to eat them. Interestingly, the author of the Arichat Hashulchan
points out that locusts were never really considered a 'delicacy' -- rather they were generally food for the impoverished.




*** Oh, and you must also believe that bats and birds are the same thing.***


It may help clear things up to note that the Hebrew owph (rendered as "fowl" or "birds" usually) may be more precisely rendered as "flying things," in which case the references to "owph" which go on all fours = references to winged insects which use four limbs to walk.

The above identify insects which fit that description.

(Btw, the broadness of the word "owph" also explains how the bat is included in the list in Lev. 11:19.)
241 posted on 10/16/2005 7:06:15 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Adam didn't 'know' Eve and Eve didn't conceive till Genesis 4, AFTER they were kicked out of the garden.

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.

242 posted on 10/16/2005 7:08:19 PM PDT by curiosity (Cronyism is not conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Scientific rationalism also gives rise to horrific uses. The fact that our human experience gives evidence of evil is no small joke.

What's your point? People who lust for power will use any means they can to get it.

243 posted on 10/16/2005 7:08:31 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
["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.]

This pretty much sums up the defense case.

True, which is really pitiful, when you think about it.

244 posted on 10/16/2005 7:09:04 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

Not of much use when the argument turns on specialized knowledge and skills.


245 posted on 10/16/2005 7:09:18 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

***By nature, religion gives rise to horrific uses. Remember 9/11.***

Correction:

Any lie gives rise to horrific uses.

Like evolution or Islam.


246 posted on 10/16/2005 7:09:34 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
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.

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.

247 posted on 10/16/2005 7:10:10 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
"..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?"

Who was it that said, "Ignorant, biblical illiterates can be cured with education - but stupid is forever"?

248 posted on 10/16/2005 7:10:47 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
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.

Then anyone that leaps to the conclusion that they were sexual beforehand is just making something up, right?

249 posted on 10/16/2005 7:11:36 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

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.


250 posted on 10/16/2005 7:13:15 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Matchett-PI
Don't you know, only the *specialists* can ever know what the Bible says, and the rest of us better just shut up and accept it. No matter how stupid the *specialist's* interpretations.

As far as I can tell, the only specialty that Matchett-PI has mastered is the art of the ad hominem and making up false quotes and attributing them to evolutionists.
251 posted on 10/16/2005 7:15:07 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Does your mommy know you're playing on the computer?


252 posted on 10/16/2005 7:16:29 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
When God created Adam, He create a fully formed, mature male human

Did Adam have a belly button?

Did Eve?

253 posted on 10/16/2005 7:16:58 PM PDT by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

*** 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.


254 posted on 10/16/2005 7:17:25 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
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.

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.

255 posted on 10/16/2005 7:18:14 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
When God created Adam, He create a fully formed, mature male human - not an embryo. Would it be any surprise that He created the universe in a mature state?

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.

256 posted on 10/16/2005 7:20:22 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
As far as I can tell, the only specialty that Matchett-PI has mastered is the art of the ad hominem and making up false quotes and attributing them to evolutionists.

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.

257 posted on 10/16/2005 7:22:03 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
Any lie gives rise to horrific uses.

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?

258 posted on 10/16/2005 7:22:28 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
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.

So as long as we follow the Roman model of slavery, and not the American, then slavery is fine?

259 posted on 10/16/2005 7:22:49 PM PDT by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Then anyone that leaps to the conclusion that they were sexual beforehand is just making something up, right?

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.

260 posted on 10/16/2005 7:23:09 PM PDT by curiosity (Cronyism is not conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 481-485 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson