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."
The difference is that every fencepost-IQ dufus who made it through high school thinks (incorrectly) that they understand evolution, but they haven't even heard of quantum mechanics. Anyhow they just call everything that conflicts with a literal biblical interpretation "evolution". So if they ever work out what QM says they'll call that evolution too.
Reflection on cosmological order and design are a natural rational function of the
study of nature. The debate is part of the actual intellectual history of the theories
in question. To try to shut down discussion of this theoretical debate is dishonest.
The deeper problem is that the liberal secular humanists promoting ideological
scientism do not understand the theoretical presuppositions and philosophical
foundations of their disciplines. Or the limitations of their own knowledge.
Aptly named freeper placemarker
Very well said.
But do they not see it, or just deny it, or maybe a little of both?
Wolf
In many cases they simply lack sufficient education (i.e., reading knowledge) in
the subject matter. The modern disconnection of empirical laboratory science
from the philosophical and theoretical background of its origins is a modern
innovation. And part of the legacy of intellectual mediocrity which characterizes
liberal secular humanism.
The history of philosophy is usually not even taught in high school. And when it is
taught in college these days it is usually done very poorly. The result is a complete
lack of awareness of logical and theoretical concepts, where they come from,
what they can and cannot demonstrate regarding ultimate claims. There is no sound logical basis for the primary theoretical assumptions and metaphysical
conclusions of scientific materialism (i.e., atheistic scientism). It is built on
emotion, anti-Christian bias, and a lot of hot air (to be blunt about it).
Hence, some of the ridiculously absurd, contradictory, and emotional statements
about intelligent design coming from wacko liberal secular humanists. If they are
really that afraid of Jesus, they might want to see someone (like a psychiatrist or psychologist) to talk through these feelings.
*** Amazing. Congratulations on being the first defender of slavery I've seen here on FR.***
Rule #1 of posting. "To avoid looking ignorant, read the thread befor posting."
*** You've ignored the fact that modern contracts are willfully entered into, etc. etc***
Some forms of slavery in the ANE were willingly entered into.
*** attempt to reconcile the clearly immoral parts of the bible with your conscience.***
What do you base you morality on?
Placemarker.
To the best of my knowlege there is nothing in quantum physics that conflicts with the Scripture.
In fact the Bible fairly predates your physics...
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." - Hebrews 11:3
"willing slavery" placemarker
***Not without the justice system involvement, you can't. ***
Ancient forms of slavery were dependent on the civil legal structure also.
***It is NEVER the person him or herself.***
I have not made that claim. Filing to meed contractual obligations can deprive you of your freedom.
***You can try to spin the meaning of "own" every which way you choose,***
By using "quotation marks" I have made it CLEAR that I do not mean OWN in the literal sense - a fact you seem to want to avoid. Fight was a straw man if you want, but when you decide to address the substance of my post let me know.
*** No, they do not *own* the other person. And in all such cases both parties freely agree to the contract.***
As posted elswhere - some forms of slavery were willingly entered into (and many are not).
*** He agreed entirely with your views on slavery and capitalism. ***
You are painting with a broad brush. Capitaism is not necessarily slavery - but some forms of have existed in capitalistic societies.
*** "In the current US legal climate, are children the "property" of the state?" No. They are not.***
The how can the State take your children from you and give them to someone else?
*** No, you and your theocratic friends haven't taken over yet.***
You are a slave, but you don't know it. You are a slave to sin. Just take one week of your life to commit no sin - use Matt; 5-7 as a guide for what sin is. Come back and tell me if you can do it.
If you can do that - 1 week without sin, you are not a slave.
If you can't then you are a slave.
***Excepting you, of course, because you are always right in your interpretation of the Bible?***
No, I am sinful and foolish also. I am also prone to be mistaken and am willing to change my opinion when I am shown to be in error.
Would you like to take this opportunity to show me how I am in error regarding the teaching of Jesus on this matter?
You don't need me to point out where you were wrong, several others have already done that.
It's not hard to find fault with someone who uses the Bible to defend slavery in this country. I needn't repeat what others have stated so eloquently.
And not only that but this whole Nazi shtick (my race is better than your race) is only microevolution even according to creationist standards.
Welcome to the FreeRepublic Oxymoron Festival, 2005
Be sure to pick up a copy of the "Willing Slavery" pamphlet on the courtesy table, right next to the complimentary "Jumbo Shrimp" .....
That things degrade, is a common assumption. That it is reversible by man, is not a belief held by Christians concerning the fall.
Wanna take a guess where that idea came from?
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.