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."
*** That isn't true. There are secular accouts confirming the resurrection.***
Thought there is certainly a lot of "smoke" there is no "fire". The passage in Josephus seems to be the clearest testimony - but it seems clearly to be redacted.
That something happened, there can be no doubt. The secular record is clear on that count. If you have other sources I would love to know of them.
Happy now?
It doesn't say that. That's you reading into the text.
It says "and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband,"
That means either she had no previous desire OR if she had a desire it was for someone / something other than Adam.
***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.***
I figured.
*** We have fossils, and DNA evidence of common ancestry. How about Adam's belly button?***
We do not know Adam's hair color, eye color or the state of his belly button.
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.
My recollection is that there were some instances in which they were directed to do that, but others in which they were commanded by God to kill everyone (and even all the animals) and were also prohibited from taking most booty. These cities were to be an "offering of destruction," that is basically a (human) sacrifice to God.
BTW there are factual as well as moral contradictions here. Not specific ones, admittedly, but VERY different general accounts. Some books in the Bible paint this very severe picture of the Israelis wiping out whole cities and engaging in existential battle with every city and king as they conquered and settled in the promised land. Other books give the impression that they settled in among the existing population with only sporadic and often minimal conflict.
"In other words, "Shut your mouth (and mind) and believe what I say!!" You are blowing smoke." ~ CarolinaGuitarman
Is that what you thought I posted? Let's see if any logical person would think your translation is accurate, or just blowing smoke. Here it is again:
It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields.
Obviously the vast majority of believers spend their entire lives doing little more than reading the Bible in English (or whatever native tongue) and importing into its words whatever ideas they derive from their own experiences. This process is very often one of "decontextualizing" -- what I have here called "reading it like it was written yesterday and for you personally." Of course if the church as a whole is locked into this mentality, you may well suspect that critics (whether Skeptics or other) and those in alternate faiths are no better off.
Let's anticipate and toss off the obvious objection: "Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?" It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved; where the line is to be drawn is upon those who gratuitously assume that such base knowledge allows them to be competent critics of the text, and make that assumption in absolute ignorance of their own lack of knowledge -- what I have elsewhere spoken of in terms of being "unskilled and unaware of it."
Adam would have but only Lilith had any desire for Adam but she was a feminist aggravated by Adams chauvinistic attidudes. Eve was asexual and found happiness with the the animals and flowers in the garden, totally rejecting Adams advances. Lilith, fearing that Eve would succumb to Adams' advances, decicded to take the apple in her own hands and get Eve kicked out of the garden so Adam would have to come crawling to Lilith on his knees. Unfortunately for Lilith, God kicked both Adam and Eve out of the Garden.
You might have a point if we're talking about injury purely by arbitray means, but not execution, and especially not in the era of the Romans.
Your desire to believe what you want impedes your ability for rational thought, at least in this instance.
***now it's the Roman Catholic Church.***
No. I condemend an idea within the RCC, specifically that they rightfully inherited Roman imperial power.
***And it was God Who commanded the Israelites to slaughter entire towns, wasn't it?***
See post 307
After we get past that part where someone "owns" someone else, then what other "forms of slavery" are there?
***Explain, in your own words, how Germany in Hitler's time was made to "conform to the theory of evolution".***
On this thread I have give reference to enough material to fill up several of your hours with reading. That should suffice.
*** After we get past that part where someone "owns" someone else, then what other "forms of slavery" are there?***
Even in the modern era, if I sign a contract with you, you "own" me for the terms of the contract. Additionally, you may deprive me of property and or liberty should I fail to fulfill the terms of the contract.
I think we are far more knowledgeable on the Bible than you are on evolution. Fairs fair. If you mean what you said, I expect to never see you post on evolution again. Thank you.
"Even in the modern era, if I sign a contract with you, you "own" me for the terms of the contract. "
No, that's not true. And contracts are only valid if freely entered into. This is a pitiful attempt to equate capitalism with slavery. Very Marxist. Slavery isn't a contract; it's ALWAYS a violence against the individual.
Again, we see creationist apologists for slavery.
What was their opinon of "natural tooth extraction"?
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.