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."
Ah, but I am talking about people who claim to live by the dictates of pure reason and the disinterested pursuit of the truth! Was Galileo ever threatened with being burnt at the stake? I think you are confusing the Roman with the Spanish inquistion.
Relativist sighting
I don't know. I thought he always had some very insightful things to say about faith and science. With his in-depth knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, he made all these discussions much richer. Something he said must have ticked off the moderators.
Other FReeepers believe Property Rights are the basis of the Right to own individuals.
Why can't we all get along?
No. Just prison.
Well, there is the penal vs. chattel distinction. In the Roman Empire, slavery was sometimes punishment for certain crimes. I don't see anything morally wrong with penal slavery, provided the crime was sufficiently bad.
Which, in his case, would have been more like a monk's cell. His crimer was more lese majeste than anything else. He pissed off a pope who fancied himself an intellectual. No, Pope Urban WAS an intellectual!
If you want to save face with critical thinkers, you need to be specific and show us what particular "truth" you perceive that others are dictating to you that flies in the face of physical evidence. Pin it down exactly. Otherwise, you'll continue to just look foolish.
What are you drinking tonight?
You nailed it again. That is exactly what I have been trying to get across to the creos.
Ummmmm.. scuse me; but, isn't Eugenie Scott a "she". And isn't the National Center for Science education a little hole in the wall? LOL
Ok, guess I was actually beat to it.. lol.
There is a reason we have admins. And, sir, you seem to be one of them at the moment. That is revolting, disgusting, blasphemous, perverse and beneath contempt. I haven't read beyond this to see who else has taken you to task or how; but, this seems unsurprising in my short experience around you.
He didn't cover the world with "false evidence". He covered the world with people who, having independance of will, decide to spin the evidence rather than dealing with it honestly. Whether that amounts to lying, or speaking from ignorance would be the deciding factor. Evidence you see one way is explained readily in a Biblical fashion with no problem. That isn't exactly false evidence. What is false is the claim that the evidence is misleading. It isn't. Your theories get in the way of an objective analysis. Your theories and blind following of them pigionhole you into a position that can't lead you down any other path but the one you prefer. By cutting off your options, your tree of knowledge is a wreath. It may be shocking to you that it has produced club foot in your circles; but, to us, it's an expected end result.
Didn't Jesus use the parable periodically as a means of making a point?
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.