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."
That may be so about Julius Caesar, but there are some legitimate historians and scholars who question the historicity and true nature of Jesus.
*** *** ***
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,...
That is an interesting piece on biblical history. It does appear to establish the faithful preservation of the text. But it does only date from a number of years after the fact which it addresses. Even if I were to agree that the scholarship is sufficient to establish that the text has remained the same since that time, it is impossible to state, based solely on this material, that what was preserved is actually what was said, however.
*** *** ***
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.
The historic position is irrelevant, because most or all of those historical personages had none of the up-to-date knowledge from science and other fields to inform their opinion of the world. In other words, they approached the text in a different context than modern readers. (For example, historically, the church believed the Sun revolved around the earth and, therefore, the terms "rising" and "setting" of the sun was viewed literally. That is, until science changed the context and then the text was read figuratively.)
*** *** ***
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.
True, and if all we were discussing was theology, then you get your primary, self-referential assumption. But if you are using the words of Christ as support for the historicity of the ex nihilo creation of man, you don't get that primary, self-referential assumption, because you are making a historical and scientific statement, and "assume there is a God as set out in the Bible" is not a valid presumption in either history or science.
*** *** ***
As an American, who grants your your rights?
In what sense? Pragmatically? Legally? Theoretically? Realistically?
I don't profess to be an expert in this area by any means, but I do know that there is a ton of material out there on the so-called "Jesus Myth." Again, it may be that not only people such as Herb Cutner and Acharya S, but the authors of all the other books that I've seen that do question his historical existence are all cranks. I don't know. But I'd say that there is no unanimity among commentators on the subject. That's for sure.
* * *
He shows the hypocrisy of those who accept the integrity of Ceaser's "Gallic War" yet demure over evidence for the NT that is tenfold stronger.
Under the maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary support," I don't think that this is hypocrisy, but good scholarship. It is infinitely more logical to trust 4 accounts of a mundane event (and, yes, a war is, relatively speaking, a mundane event) over 40 accounts of a supernatural, miraculous or fanstasical event.
* * *
Then by your definition, it is impossible to study history - period.
Not at all. In fact, professional historians are loathe to study anything but original sources, for exactly the reason I mentioned. The accounts of Jesus' words in the New Testament are, to use legal jargon imprecisely, hearsay. They are not the account of either the speaker or the listener, but of a third party at a later time. They are, by their very nature, secondary sources. (Which is why, I believe, the tradition of "divinely inspired" writing originated. Only divine inspiration is powerful enough to overcome the inherent and unavoidable reliability issues in secondary source material.)
* * *
Then your statement that "many professed Christians do not believe that there is any problem harmonizing Christianity and evolution, " is also irrelevant because many of those in your "survey" are also lacking "up-to-date knowledge from science and other fields" - correct?
No, it just means that they might be wrong. It very well may be that Christianity and belief in evolution are incompatible. But that being said, there are those -- self-identified Christians, no less -- who have asserted that there is no such conflict. They, presumably, are versed in the science and the religion enough to at least identify the key issues and evaluate the situation.
They need not have a biologist's knowledge of the science or a theologian's knowledge of the faith, in my mind, but merely be aware of the background facts from which the purported conflict arises. The historical personages were not even aware of those background facts. That is the difference. (And, in retrospect, "up-to-date" was probably a sloppy word choice, because I didn't mean to suggest a mastery of the subject, but merely passing competence with modern science.)
* * *
What this or that Christian believes on any topic should not be the standard by which the truth of Christianity is judged. The Scripture stands or falls on on its own sword.
But the point I am making is that the Bible is language. As such, it is inherently symbolic and therefore open to interpretation, to a greater or lesser degree. (The word "mug" is not a mug.) One of the elements which determine to what degree and in what manner that interpretation is made is the scientific knowledge of the reader.
* * *
Having said that, persuasive arguments have been made that the Bible presupposes a heliocentric system.
Leon Morris cites Luke 17:34-36, which speaks of Jesus' second coming, "In that night, there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women will be grinding together...Two men shall be in the field." "
In other words," says Morris, "this great event will take place instantaneously at night, in the morning, and in the afternoon. Such a combination would be possible only on an earth in which day and night could be occurring simultaneously, and that means a rotating earth."
This is not an argument for heliocentricity at all, but of the spherical nature of the earth. Even if the (spherical) Earth were stone-still in space, at the center of the solar system, with the Sun revolving around it, there would be morning, noon and night, somewhere on that globe.
Conversely, a flat-plane Earth in a heliocentric solar system would still be fully day or fully night on each plane, depending on its rotation.
* * *
Neither is ""assume there is no God" [a valid presumption in either history or science.]
I'm not too sure about that. I think, it is probably a valid rebuttable presumption. In other words, if one is going to invoke the deity in those fields, then the burden is on him to prove the deity's existence.
* * *
Where do your rights come from as their primary source.
Rights exist or do not exist solely to the extent that I am able to force my fellow man to respect them. Sometimes that requires a sword, sometimes a pen. I am lucky in that I was born in a society where that fight is now limited to battles in the legal or electoral arenas under well-defined and respected rules and does not involve risk of prison or worse, as is the case with people around the world, for doing that which I believe I am entitled to do as a human being, such as to express my opinion as I choose, to worship or not according to my own beliefs, be secure in my property, be not subject to another's use of force absent legal process, etc.
The ultimate font for these desires, such as for freedom and autonomy, is, I believe, simply that these things are part of the human "extended phenotype," an evolutionarily generated set of behavioral features which have proved, historically, to be reproductively successful, genetically speaking.
***but I do know that there is a ton of material out there on the so-called "Jesus Myth."***
Shattering the Christ-Myth
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
*** Under the maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary support," I don't think that this is hypocrisy,****
Well, waht then would you call the evidence of 10-15 manuscripts (Gallic War) vers 4500 manuscripts (Gospels)????
***The accounts of Jesus' words in the New Testament are, to use legal jargon imprecisely, hearsay. They are not the account of either the speaker or the listener, but of a third party at a later time.***
That is not true. Two gospels are believed to be 2nd person (Matthew & John) the other two are 3rd party. The author of John specifically claims to have seen the events with his own eyes. Many of the events in the NT are recorded first person - by the person they occured to (Last half of Acts, Pauline epistles etc.)
***But the point I am making is that the Bible is language. As such, it is inherently symbolic and therefore open to interpretation, to a greater or lesser degree. (The word "mug" is not a mug.)****
I think your are trying to hide your eyes from the truth behind a veil of obscurant puffery! You sound like a Clintonite lawyer (depends on what the meaning of "is" is!) No amount of wrangeling over word can cloud the straightforward meaning of "Love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself." These are things children can understand - but "intellectuals" can't!
I wonder why!
**** Rights exist or do not exist solely to the extent that I am able to force my fellow man to respect them.****
So you do not believe that you are endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights?
Like I said, there is a ton of material out there on this subject on both sides of the question, as your cite proves.
Well, waht then would you call the evidence of 10-15 manuscripts (Gallic War) vers 4500 manuscripts (Gospels)????
I would say that it's probably enough to say that its enough to prove faithful reproduction, but not enough to prove content.
That is not true. Two gospels are believed to be 2nd person (Matthew & John) the other two are 3rd party. The author of John specifically claims to have seen the events with his own eyes. Many of the events in the NT are recorded first person - by the person they occured to (Last half of Acts, Pauline epistles etc.)
I was specifically referring to the Gospels, although I was unclear. My understanding is that scholarship questions whether John was written in the first, second or even third centuries. Obviously, if the later, it could not be in the first person.
I think your are trying to hide your eyes from the truth behind a veil of obscurant puffery! You sound like a Clintonite lawyer (depends on what the meaning of "is" is!) No amount of wrangeling over word can cloud the straightforward meaning of "Love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself." These are things children can understand - but "intellectuals" can't!
Oh, please. We're talking about passages that make explicit scientific claims or which are said to make such claim. We definitely are not discussing passages like the one you quoted. Further, if you deny the fact that logic is symbolic, you are simply denying reality.
And, contrary to what you might believe, people with different religious beliefs than you are not "shielding their eyes from the truth [as you believe it, of course]" but simply do not believe what you believe. I understand that you use your religion as a baseline of "truth," but other people don't.
So you do not believe that you are endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights?
Since I don't believe that I have a "Creator" then the answer is a pretty obvious "no" to that part. I think I have rights, as I have defined them.
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.