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."
ping a ling
Darwin recognized the moral implications of his theory. If man is an animal then anything goes and the stronges will decide what is moral or immoral...
"Darwin neatly summed up his view of ethics and morality in his Autobiography, stating that one who does not believe in God or an afterlife-as he did not-"can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best one."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140397201X/103-6006591-6925412?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
I can show you a link to a book that illustrates in great detail how the Pope aided and abetted Hitler, with full knowledge of his motives and actions, out of a shared anti-Semitism and desire to maintain power. Doesn't necessarily make it so.
Books like those are dime a dozen, and only reflect the writer's opinion. Nice try.
Follows a small sample. More available at the Medieval Source Book:
What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blaspemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must pratice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengenance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly - and I myself was unaware of it - will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuternomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Thoses villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the righ to teach.
Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.
>>Shrug<<
The Muslims think that you're going to hell because you blaspheme God by claiming that Jesus was more than just a man. And for believing that Jesus wasn't just a prophet, you will be damned to hell for eternity.
I'll give your religious beliefs the same consideration which you give the Muslims' religious beliefs.
The singularity is not a miracle. It's just an admission that our current understanding of the laws of physics doesn't allow us to say anything about the universe at times less than 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. The current laws yield answers for calculable quantities, such as temperatures and forces, of infinity, which indicates that the laws as we currently understand them cannot be used for this situation.
Not to mention that computers depend on transistors, which would not work were it not for quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics implies that there are certain things that cannot possibly be done, even by God, such as measuring with infinite precision the both the momentum and the position of a particle. Clearly this is contradictory to the Bible, so computers must be satanic and no true Christian would ever use a computer.
Yes, but we should read the Bible literally, except where we shouldn't. Only the True Christians know when not to read it literally, though. </sarcasm off>
If the Bible is written in words that are simple and easy to understand, then why isn't there just one Christian church? If it's so obvious what the Bible means, why is there such dispute over what the Bible means?
***That's all you could get out of that post?!?!***
What more did you have to say?
You said...
"Christ is wrong. (...that is assuming he even existed, that he said this, that he meant it to be a historical statement, that the people who heard it accurately passed it on to those who wrote it down, and that it is being interpreted by you in the manner intended.)"
To question whether he existed is the remark of someone who has been propagandized by the Left - or someone who is ignorant of history.
Interesting that you bring up the Muslims, for, excepting your first statement, you are using their arguments almost word for word.
Let me ask you this, have you ever read the Gospels?
***If the Bible is written in words that are simple and easy to understand, then why isn't there just one Christian church? If it's so obvious what the Bible means, why is there such dispute over what the Bible means?***
Because sinful men are foolish and childish and are drawn to disagreements.
Capiche?
***Quantum mechanics implies that there are certain things that cannot possibly be done, even by God, such as measuring with infinite precision the both the momentum and the position of a particle.***
"Implies"! Ha!
Since you seem to know the secrets of the universe, tell me how many hairs are on your head.
Tell me khow many days you have left to live.
if I sign a contract with you, you "own" me for the terms of the contract.
__________
No. They do not "own" the person. That is silly and I believe you know it. They own the rights to the restitution as called for in the contract, and failing that, the state may put the person in jail, but they will NEVER turn that person over, as property, to the holder of the contract.
Kinder, gentler slavery placeholder.
Genocide is ok if someone says God said to do it placeholder.
Morally corrupt infants and fetuses deserving to die placeholder.
OK, you're a bit of a moving target.
First you say this "Even in the modern era, if I sign a contract with you, you "own" me for the terms of the contract."
Second, you say this "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."
The consequences would NEVER rise to the level of turning the individual AS PROPERTY over to the holder of the contract. Your second statement, very true, the first one, entirely false.
***No. They do not "own" the person. That is silly and I believe you know it. ***
Hence my use of "own" in quotations - they metaphorically "own" the part of you coverd by the contract - whether that be property or liberty - and can deprive you of that via the judicial system.
The supposed "chain" linking Darwin and Hitler is nonexistent in reality. You can force a connection, as the creationists do, only by asserting that the misapplication of a theory is the responsibility of the author of that theory or the natural result of the theory.
Was Hitler and the Nazis influenced by the Eugenics movement? Yes. (At least in part. The [ultimately religion-based] Jew hatred in Germany and Austria were a larger cause.) Eugenics, however, was not an application of Darwinian theory, but a misapplication. It strove to derive moral distinctions by using a theory that was not only morally neutral, but which was incapable of granting a moral imprimatur to begin with.
So the "Darwin to Hitler" chain is as false as the "Jefferson to KKK" chain is.
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.