Pa. professor [Behe] to testify in landmark case [Dover evolution trial, 16 Oct]

The Wichita Eagle ^ | 16 October 2005 | MICHAEL RUBINKAM

[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."

[b_sharp]

Do you have your VI turned off?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***even though Darwin never advocated anything remotely resembling Nazi policies;***

The ideas are implicit in his though. Man is an animal. Only the stong and well suited survive. Hitler thought his race was the superior race. etc.


***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***

I am only vaguely familiar with Luther's supposed anti-semitism.



***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?***

All I can say is that if Luther was guilty of what you charge then he was wrong and Paul would have wrung his neck for it. But thanks be to God that Jesus Christ is the standard of truth and not M. Luther. The Bible clearly teaches thet the Jews are still God's chosen people and that He will curse those who curse them - so if Martin did the above then he was going AGAINST the teaching of Scripture.


***But your logic, and your rhetorical standards and tactics, are clearly different from mine.***

Are you saying ideas have no relation to actions?

[b_sharp]

"Why did He create them man and women if he didn't intend for them to engage in the man-women thing?

You mean fighting?

[Doctor Stochastic]

If not, what kind of paradise was it?

Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!

[RunningWolf]

That was a big thing back then. Making sure you messed up their gene pool with your seed.

??

Turkey... sigh... Wolf thinks you need to reconsider that statement son

Wolf

[narby]

Even in the modern era, if I sign a contract with you, you "own" me for the terms of the contract.

I think you have a very weird interpretation of the word "slavery". With that in mind, I think discussing issues such as science and evolution with you is a dicey prospect. How can one be sure exactly what you mean by what you say?

[furball4paws]

" modern economic servitude..."

My, right out of Marx and Engels.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[narby]

if he didn't intend for them to engage in the man-women thing?

Man-women thing? You mean polygamy? Them mormons up in Northern Arizona still do that stuff ya know.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***No, that's not true***

If you sign a contract with me to work for me for 3 years you can not break that contract (depending on it's exact nature) without consequences. You are not "free" to walk away without further obligation.


**** Slavery isn't a contract; it's ALWAYS a violence against the individual. ***

Wrong. Some people became slaves willingly because it was in their best economic interest.



***Again, we see creationist apologists for slavery. ***

Wrong again. Not an apology - just historical clarification. Slavery has taken a multiplicity of forms down though the ages - some horrible, some relatively mild.

[Dimensio]

Very well. As I specifically asked about Germany, I read the article attempting to connect Nazi Germany with the theory of evolution. I'll point out a few problems that I had with the article where it attempts to blame the theory of evolution for what occured in Germany in the 30s and 40s.

These differences gradually produce new groups, some of which have an advantage in terms of survival. These new groups became the superior, or the more evolved races.

This is a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. There's no absolute measure of "superior" or "more evolved". Superiority within evolution is a measure of reproductive succes, and it is entirely relative as to the environment wherein a population exists. It is possible for one group of individuals within a species to be "superior" in terms of reproductive ability within one environment, while in another, different, environment a seperate subgroup is better able to consistently reproduce. There's no measure of absolute "superiority" and "more evolved" is a strawman inveted by those who don't actually understand the theory of evolution.

Hitler and the Nazi party claimed that one of their major goals was to apply this accepted ‘science’ to society.

Which of course has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution. Evolution speaks of what inevitably occurs within a population of imperfect self-replicators. It does not say anything whatsoever as to what constitutes good social science. Even if this is an accurate representation of what Hitler did, it has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the theory of evolution. Attempting to claim that a scientific theory is false because someone attempted to implement part of a natural process to a completely different subject is an excercise in utter stupidity. Anyone who tries to blame evolution for Hitler's actions is an idiot.

As the one race above all others, Aryans believed that their evolutionary superiority gave them not only the right, but the duty to subjugate all other peoples.

But this isn't based in the theory of evolution either. The theory of evolution says nothing about any rights to subjigate others, and it certainly doesn't declare any "superiority" of Aryans over all others. Once again, the article attempts to blame evolution for something that the theory does not say or imply at all.

Hitler believed humans were animals to whom the genetics laws, learned from livestock breeding, could be applied.

And humans are animals and genetic principles that apply to livestock apply to humans as well. Not liking this doesn't make it false, and it doesn't falsify the theory of evolution. Moreover, the fact that this is true does not in any way make what Hitler did "right".

The Nazis believed that instead of permitting natural forces and chance to control evolution, they must direct the process to advance the human race.

And now the author all but admits that Hitler's actions weren't really based on the theory of evolution. Evolution isn't something that must be directed deliberately; evolution occurs whether you like it or not as long as you have populations of imperfect replicators. It certainly does not say "go out and kill a group of people that you deem, by artifical standards, to be inferior.

Thus far the author has made a good case that Hitler's society was not based on the actual theory of evolution at all. If you really think that this article makes a good case against evolution, perhaps you could pull out some passages that I might have missed, but thus far it looks to me like any attempt to blame Darwin or the theory of evolution for any acts of mass genocide is nothing more than an act of desperate stupidity.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***My, right out of Marx and Engels.***

I though you would like the reference to co-evolutionists!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If you sign a contract with me to work for me for 3 years you can not break that contract (depending on it's exact nature) without consequences. You are not "free" to walk away without further obligation."

It would only be binding if I FREELY entered into it. The idea that capitalism is slavery is Marxist drivel.

" Wrong. Some people became slaves willingly because it was in their best economic interest."

So says the slave master.

"Wrong again. Not an apology - just historical clarification. Slavery has taken a multiplicity of forms down though the ages - some horrible, some relatively mild."

An apology. Arguing for a kinder and gentler slavery.

[RunningWolf]

God made Adam and found him to be lonely so he offered all the animals to Adam inorder for Adam to have a suitable partner. Adam said (after trying all the animals), God, please, I am a man. I don't want no stinkin' animals, I want a woman!

Sadly Turkey..., sigh..., as I predicted you have now played card #2 out of your playbook. I hoped you would not.

Wolf

[WildTurkey]

Man-women thing? You mean polygamy?

Adam, Lilith, and Eve.

[narby]

The Nazis believed that instead of permitting natural forces and chance to control evolution, they must direct the process to advance the human race.

In other words, the Nazi's were Intelligent Designers.

[WildTurkey]

Sadly Turkey..., sigh..., as I predicted you have now played card #2 out of your playbook. I hoped you would not. Wolf

Then you may have noticed that Havoc and radioman are totally silent after going all in and being busted out of the game by me.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"As the one race above all others, Aryans believed that their evolutionary superiority gave them not only the right, but the duty to subjugate all other peoples."

Hitler NEVER thought the Aryan race was a product of evolution, but instead he believed it was the special creation of God.

"Hitler believed humans were animals to whom the genetics laws, learned from livestock breeding, could be applied."

Animal husbandry the ROOT cause of the Nazis. lol

Crevo's will distort anything to make their points, such as they are.

[RunningWolf]

Who is radioman? I have not seen him
Maybe Havoc is busy somewhere I don't know.

[WildTurkey]

There is a constant one-sidedness to the rules they want to play with. Evolution is bad since Hitler believed in evolution. But if one mentions an evil "Christian" they say there is no link. But the one I really like is this one on why non-creo's cannot discuss the Bible!:



...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."

306 posted on 10/16/2005 8:04:14 PM PDT by Matchett-PI