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."
"To question whether he existed is the remark of someone who has been propagandized by the Left - or someone who is ignorant of history."
So it's wrong to question what the Bible says? Have you ever questioned anything you found in it?
***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.
Excepting you, of course, because you are always right in your interpretation of the Bible?
Hence my use of "own" in quotations - they metaphorically "own" the part of you coverd by the contract
__________
And metaphorical "owning" is NOTHING like actual "owning", so your entire comparison of "owning" in a contractual sense with "owning" in a slavery sense is made meaningless. Unless you are suggesting that slaves, in Biblical times, were only "owned" metaphorically.
...or someone with an elementary grasp of logic and rhetoric. Your statement implied a string of assumptions, only a few of which I pointed out. Any one of these would eviscerate your conclusion. The burden is on you to consider and prove those assumptions.
Interesting that you bring up the Muslims, for, excepting your first statement, you are using their arguments almost word for word.
Not really. Their argument is that God recited the Koran to Mohammad through the Angel Gabriel, revealing the fact that Jesus was merely a prophet, not God incarnate, and that the Christians blasphemed God by corrupting Jesus' words and life. Their basis for disbelieving Christian doctrine is based on the tenets of Islam, not on a logical and rhetorical analysis of the statement.
Let me ask you this, have you ever read the Gospels?
Yes. Why?
What I am showing through that illustration is that even in our free society, people are not always truly "free". It is still possible to "own" part - maybe even a large part - of another person.
***(not your Marxist version)***
I think Marx would find himself much more alligned with your atheistic, materialistic philosophy than my Christianity.
****slaves ARE the property of the slaveholder.***
In the current US legal climate, are children the "property" of the state?
BTW - Are you a slave?
Friedrich Nietzsche Didit placemark
***And metaphorical "owning" is NOTHING like actual "owning"***
Wrong - because you can still legally deprive a person of their liberty.
See post 426
Yeth, but that doethsn't mean he'ths a bad perthson...
Cordially,
Not without the justice system involvement, you can't.
The person holding the contract owns the rights to that which is described in the contract. It is NEVER the person him or herself.
You can try to spin the meaning of "own" every which way you choose, but there are NO contracts in these United States that proscribe the handing of the person over to the holder of the contract for failure to live up to terms. Many other things can be proscribed, yes, even jail time (deprivation of liberty), but NEVER turning the contractee over to the contractor AS PROPERTY to be owned.
*** ...or someone with an elementary grasp of logic and rhetoric.***
Elementary - at best.
Do you use the same principles ever time you quote from a source?
Do you first proove their historical existence...
Then prove they were correct...
Then prove they were recorded correctly...
Then prove that you have correctly interpreted them?????
Please point me the posts which show your history of doing that!
If you can not then you are being hypocritical and are using an empty epistemological flourish to hide your lack of an argument.
***Not really. ****
Yes really. I've debated with Muslims enough to know that they alway go to:
1. Jesus didn't really say that
2. His disciple quoted him wrong
3. You've misinterpreted him
You can try to spin the meaning of "own" every which way you choose, but there are NO contracts in these United States that proscribe the handing of the person over to the holder of the contract for failure to live up to terms. Many other things can be proscribed, yes, even jail time (deprivation of liberty), but NEVER turning the contractee over to the contractor AS PROPERTY to be owned.
Excellent point. Only by redefining the word "own" could it possibly apply to parties to a contract.
Just like only by redefining the word "science" could ID possibly qualify.
C'mon, improve your reading comprehension before calling anyone a hypocrite. I said, "to consider and prove those assumptions."
And yes, before I discuss a historical matter I do ask myself whether my source is discussing someone whose existence has been proved; I ask whether their words were recorded correctly; and I ask myself whether I've correctly interpreted the words. If I am challenged on my point, thereafter, I understand the burden is on me to prove those factors or withdraw the claim.
Obviously, if there is no challenge on these points, then there is no need to lay it all out. But, you cannot seriously suggest that other people, especially other professed Christians, do not challenge the assumptions you've made in your post. As such, the burden is on you to prove them.
Yes really. I've debated with Muslims enough to know that they alway go to:
1. Jesus didn't really say that
2. His disciple quoted him wrong
3. You've misinterpreted him
Okay. (I see now you are talking about the arguments themselves. I misread your first post. I was talking about why they make the arguments they make.) Well, of course, when your God-inspired, inerrant writing conflicts with their God-inspired, inerrant writing, they try to come up with a rational, reasonable answer for why you are wrong instead of just saying that the devil makes you believe the blasphemous gibberish you believe (although some just go the devil route); just as Christians come up with their own rational, reasonable answer for why the Muslims are wrong (again, although some some Christians just claim that Islam is devilish death cult...)
You never answered why you asked about whether I've read the Gospels.
It is funny how many creationists come out as closet marxists when confronted with the slavery issue. The "employment is slavery" argument must be on an apologetics website somewhere.
Defending slavery is routine for creationists on FR. I've seen it half-a-dozen times now. We shouldn't be surprised. It is the only consisent position for them. If you get your science and history from a text that is supposed to be about morals and law then it would be astounding not to get your morals and law from the same text.
As the bible codifies slavery and Jesus speaks approvingly of beating slaves for inadvertant errors (so they don't do it again, I think) creationists have to ignore our modern namby-pamby secular humanist horror of slavery.
Not a very good answer. What you should have said was that God spans all universes so observes all possible outcomes of the wave function collapse. This enables him to observe the same particle in both states.
But of course you instead go on about some claim never made by Stremba. Lost opportunity.
Yes, Petronius, you missed my point, which was not to state that there's no possibility that QM might be false or that I have all the knowledge of the universe, but rather that there are areas of science that are or can be twisted to be in more direct conflict with the Bible than can evolution. Why don't Biblical literalists complain and fuss about these areas of science and leave evolution alone for a while?
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.