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."
Thanks for that link...I need to catch up, and that may be a good place to do so...
I guess PatrickHenry has a little gap of his own in his research; just like the evolutionists.
I will take a breath, relax, and try to get myself informed...thanks...
*** And Christ never attacked Darwin either.***
Jesus taught that God created man male and female "from the beginning" - not a billion years down the line.
Either Christ is wrong or Darwin is wrong.
Which one is it?
Actually, Behe has stated publicly that he believes in evolution, ancient earth and common descent. ID's main witness is a Darwinian! He just believes that Darwins theory is "incomplete".
And No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Patrick Henry was a grumpy old man. Usually there is good reason, and in this case seeing the power torn from the states and put into the hands of a grasping all-powerful federal government was not limited to PH. New York [Clinton] also viewed the new Federal Constitution as unnecessary and a bad idea even though it automatically put the value back in the national debt certificates.
Is this a variant on the "No true Scottsman" fallacy?
So it would appear. I bring up Pope John Paul II frequently on these threads, and usually include a disclaimer that runs something like this, "Note to the bloody minded: I mention the Pope's position on evolution not as endorsement of the Catholic Church or the Pope, but rather to show that a person who takes religion very seriously can accept the Theory of Evolution.
Can you demonstrate that your interpertation of "the words of Christ" is correct, and all the others are wrong?
***And No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.***
The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian:"
Similarly, no true Christian will knowingly disagree with or reject as inferior, outmoded or incorrect the words of Christ.
The accepted definition of Christian is "follower [disciple or student] of Jesus Christ - the Son of God.
Nice try though.
Well don't you know
That's the sound of the men
Workin' in the quote mine,
That's the sound of the men
Workin' in the quoooote mine
As I've pointed out before though, I really don't see a conflict between any scientific theory and the spiritual meaning of the Bible, though.
ping to post #53
Which one is it?
I think it's your false dichotomy that is wrong.
The accepted definition of Christian is "follower [disciple or student] of Jesus Christ - the Son of God.
Well, you've settled it, then. How much of science shall we toss out?
*** I think it's your false dichotomy that is wrong***
That would be convenient.
Jesus took the account of Genesis literally (as he did the rest of the miracles in the OT).
Darwin directly contradicts the account of Genesis.
Both can't be right.
As to the nature of the universe and it's creation, I'll trust the words of the Man who rose from the dead.
Darwin rotted in his grave.
Darwin's theory directly contradicts your interpretation of the account of Genesis. I'll concede your point if you can demonstrate you have a direct link to God.
What are you doing on the internet, by the way? The Electromagnetic Theory is just as atheistic as the Theory of Evolution.
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.