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."
Actually, you could be traded for two draft picks and a player to be named later.
In return I ask you to note that I didn't call you a "hypocrite" but stated you were being hypocritical. One can act like a dog without being a dog.I so note. I think this is a false analogy, and although I do not agree with the distinction you were trying to draw, I do accept your good faith in drawing it. (N.B., I think this is a false analogy, because a hypocrite is one who acts hypocritically or who displays hypocrisy. "Acting like a dog" is just a simile.)
So do you "prove" those assumptions in every post you make???...So you do not include that material in your post as you asked me to do! That is hypocritical.Again, this is where the "consider" part comes into play. I consider them, and understand that if challenged, it is my obligation to put up or withdraw.
Ultimately, my point in my original post was this: many professed Christians do not believe that there is any problem harmonizing Christianity and evolution, even in light of the text you've cited. It may be that Christianity is incompatible with belief in evolution. I don't know, nor do I really care much (except to the extent it impacts my First Amendment rights). But if you are going to make the assertion, especially in light of the record evidence of Christians by the bushel saying the opposite, then the burden is on you to prove it. I was just laying out some areas which could prove interesting to those who doubt you, that's all.
That Jesus existed not reputable scholar will disagree.
Question: does "reputable" automatically disqualify any scholar that doesn't believe he existed?
That the gospels accurately record Jesus teaching is a fact that has been validated by over 150 years of adversarial higher and textual criticism. Only liberals, leftist, feminists and homosexualists dispute this fact.
In other words, the fact that the gospels are accurate is accepted by everyone except those who don't accept it???
That Jesus is quoting Genesis as factual and as an objective basis for the rest of his argument is clear from the context. If God did not actually make man as male and female then there is no basis for his teach about divorce.
Then how do you explain the fact that many others (a majority, for all I know) read the same exact text, in the same exact context and come to a completely different conclusion?
That Jesus was correct is based on the accuracy of the Scriptures - if he is who he claims to be, God in human form, then he is in the position to know the truth or falsity of the Genesis account.
That's just circular bootstrapping. The book is inerrant because the authenticator of the book has unimpeachable knowledge. How do we know he has unimpeachable knowledge? Because the inerrant book tells us so.
I asked because you seem to be familiar with leftist anti-Bible propaganda, and I have found that those who are, very often have a simplistic, cursory knowledge of the Bible.I am familiar with Biblical criticism because I am reasonably well read.
You seem ready to dismiss one of the foundational, if not the foundational, theological, literary, legal and philosophical works of western civilization as trash.Not at all. I am well aware of the benefits (and the drawbacks) that Christianity and Christians have had on history and civilization, especially Western civilization. I just don't want to live in a country where religious considerations supersede secular ones in education, government, civic life, and the law.
You, and those who hold similar opinions, are sawing off the branch of freedom upon which you stand.Well, given that this very post is the fullest discussion of my opinions on this thread, I doubt that this statement is at all accurate. But, more to the point, I think that it is the tendency to turn our backs on the philosophical advances from the Renaissance through the Enlightenment to the Age of Reason which is the threat to freedom which we face. (And I think we face these threats both from (to some degree) the right as well as, obviously, from the left.)
You must have missed the other thread.
Interestingly, no creationist ever criticized the endorsement of slavery.
Wouldn't that move all particles from Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statisticts into Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics?
***Question: does "reputable" automatically disqualify any scholar that doesn't believe he existed?***
No. You will find scholars that doubt the historical existence of Julius Ceaser - but not reputable ones. The historicity of Jesus is accepted fact by the majority of historians and biblical scholars.
***In other words, the fact that the gospels are accurate is accepted by everyone except those who don't accept it???***
No. It is mainly people with agendas who will not accept the accuracy of the Bible.
" The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.
There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent MSS of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century."
From : THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: THEIR DATE AND ATTESTATION
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm
***Then how do you explain the fact that many others (a majority, for all I know) read the same exact text, in the same exact context and come to a completely different conclusion?***
If you want to count heads, the historic position of the Church for 2000 years has been that the Genesis record is literal and historical.
***That's just circular bootstrapping. The book is inerrant because the authenticator of the book has unimpeachable knowledge. How do we know he has unimpeachable knowledge? Because the inerrant book tells us so.***
Every major system of though is allowed certain primary, self referential assumptions. Without these there could be no basis of rational communication. Imagine if I asked you to prove every statement you made was true - then additionally asked you to prove that "truth" was true, or that "truth" existed, etc... No, you assume (rightfully) that there is such a thing as truth - and you are allowd to do so without proving it.
The primary assumption of historic Christianity is that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
***Well, given that this very post is the fullest discussion of my opinions on this thread, I doubt that this statement is at all accurate.***
As an American, who grants your your rights?
-placemarker-
Wrong.
Good point. It isn't. I hereby abandon thread!
As God would say - You can count on it.
Definitely worth repeating.
No, that would be "Patriot University".
Patrick Patrick..,, sigh
Wolf
Ayn Rand warned about what she called "Definition Switching". Seems prophetic and rampant in the ID camp.
Hence their desperate desire to redefine science so as to include supernatural as well as natural phenomona. Sort of like the North American Man/Cow Love Association and it's efforts to redefine marriage to including animals.
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.