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."
""...Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. ... Here's why:"
In other words, "Shut your mouth (and mind) and believe what I say!!"
You are blowing smoke.
And it was God Who commanded the Israelites to slaughter entire towns, wasn't it?
I always find the best way to win an argument is to remind my opponent that disagreeing with me will cost them an eternity in the lake of fire.
****The words in the Bible are His words, right? God couldn't figure out a word for "cud"?***
The Hebrew is not the same as out precise term "chew the cud". It is a Hebrew>English translation issue not a factual issue.
No. it says He will greatly multiply her sorrow COMMA and thy conception. But, the bottom line is she had no sexual urges till he commanded her (after the fall) to have desire for Adam.
Great way to run the science program, isn't it?
That isn't true. There are secular accouts confirming the resurrection.
No. Only the men and the elderly ladies. The women were to be taken as slaves and the little girls as "wives" to carry their seed and thus destroy the purity of the conquered city population. That was a big thing back then. Making sure you messed up their gene pool with your seed.
In an earlier version of the Dover trial, creationists opposed anesthesia for women on the grounds that it violated the direct orders of God.
Oddly, Scientology has resurrected, so to speak, a version of this.
Why is abuse and subjugation of women such a common thread in religion?
But whatever. If you're willing to connect Darwinism to Nazi racism, even though Darwin never advocated anything remotely resembling Nazi policies; what would you have us infer from the Nazis seizing on a major CHRISITIAN theologian who DID, in his time, advocate policies that precisely prefigured Nazis policies (short of outright mass murder)?
I have in mind, of course, Martin Luther. In On The Jews and Their Lies, a book which explicitly sought to advise the rulers of Europe on necessary and appropriate policies, Luther advocated removing Jews from their professions, making them work at hard labor, denying them the protection of the police on the highways and byways, burning their holy books and synagogues, and etc.
If you intend the more indirect connection between evolution and Nazism (which had nothing to do with the direct intentions of evolutionary theory) to reflect negatively on the validity of evolution, what should we infer about Christianity based in its connection to Nazism in respect to the explicit and correctly understood intentions of Luther?
My answer, btw, is nothing. But your logic, and your rhetorical standards and tactics, are clearly different from mine.
The reason I asked if Adam had a belly button is that if he did, then it was evidence that he was born, not zapped into existence.
Adams belly button would have been evidence of his origin. Just as fossils are evidence of species origin.
We have fossils, and DNA evidence of common ancestry. How about Adam's belly button?
I always assumed they were doing it all day long, as soon as Eve made her appearance. If not, what kind of paradise was it?
Whatever. He's multiplying it. Therefore it must have been possible before.
But, the bottom line is she had no sexual urges till he commanded her (after the fall) to have desire for Adam.
It doesn't say that. That's you reading into the text.
I assumed they spent all day arranging furniture.
Maybe she was always asking: "Does this fig leaf make me look fat?"
That was just moments before the couch was invented.
Sure. And so is genocide, including the slaughter of whole cities and their entire population (everything that breathes) if God directly commands it, as he did several times of Moses and Joshua.
Now, remember, PM demands no fancy-schmancy leftist-elitist "interpreting" is allowed when it comes to the Holy Bible! Slavery is slavery and genocide is genocide!
300?
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.