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."
Did you misspell something again?
You're a physics-career type too, huh? There seems to be a disproportionally high number of us hanging around the crevo threads on FR, I noticed.
Interesting that the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers like Richard Dawkins or ‘political animals’ like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie Scott
Podkane...at the end of your post #7 you stated, "Good thing for the universe that the Creator wasn't as mentally limited as this crowd"....Thank you for saying that....It was something I had thought for a long time, but was just too timid to post...I had always thought that those who insisted on Creationism, or ID, and would refuse to explore other avenues, had put God in a box...they had tried to limit God by granting Him only their way of doing of things...I find those who accept evolution to be much more open minded....I just dont find evolution to be in competition with the Bible, or in conflict with God...evolution and natural selection may very well be Gods own way of 'creation'...
PatrickHenry...if you have a ping list, I would appreciate being put on it...this is my first post ever on an evolution thread, and will probably be my last...I just dont have the expertise that many of the posters have, and feel my input would probably be rudimentary and perhaps to some, just plain silly...
But I would like to be on the ping list, as I do enjoy reading these threads, contemplating everyone elses input(people from both sides, both evolution and ID, are of interest to me), and making my own decisions...
Thanks...
I'm just waiting for the fundies to figure out how "unbiblical" particle physics and cosmology are... it's a wonder to me we've gotten a pass so far..
"I just dont find evolution to be in competition with the Bible, or in conflict with God...evolution and natural selection may very well be Gods own way of 'creation'... "
That's exactly my point of view. One does not have to "choose" between creation and evolution; they can coexist peacefully.
"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.
Do not be surprised if Behe is a very effective witness for the defense.
My hat's off to you.
ROTFLMAO
Needed that, thanks.
Relax, mom. I don't have any expertise either. But it doesn't take all that much when dealing with creationists.
Not very much intelligence, true.
Seriously, Behe is worth reading. Interesting stuff.
Why the name "PatrickHenry" PatrickHenry?
"During the last years of his life, he became increasingly alarmed with the spread of deism and atheism coming from France's "godless revolution." Henry came out of retirement in 1799 to run for public office in Virginia. As a contemporary put it, he warned against the doctrines of the French philosophers who were at war with "the majesty of Heaven and the welfare of earth, and which were poisoning the minds and morals of the most talented youths of Virginia." ... In his will, he reminded Americans that "Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation."
BTTT
***Theory of Evolution as valid, thus debunking the lame argument that the theory is an "atheistic conspiracy," unless you intend to call these two Popes atheists.***
No true Christian takes the word of science over the words of Christ - pope or not.
Washington and Jefferson were already taken when I registered. And I like ol' Patrick's spirited opposition to the Constitution during the ratification debates in Virginia. I've always been an admirer of the Articles of Confederation.
Welcome to the monkey house. Do not worry about your posts, there is enough information at Darwin Central via PatrickHenry's List-O-Links that you will get up to speed quickly. You might also pop over to talkorigins.org.
***I'm just waiting for the fundies to figure out how "unbiblical" particle physics and cosmology are... it's a wonder to me we've gotten a pass so far..***
And I'm just waiting for some hard-headed materialist to explain why their "miracle" singularity isn't a miracle.
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.