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."
And what is your justification for "tossing out" things in science?
But that's not where the argument resides. At least it very rarely does. This doesn't concern human nature, it concerns nature. A unity of disparate causes might work well for a Catholic view of human nature. But what about nature itself. Does the Catholic view still entertain the Aristotelian first cause?
But that's not where the argument resides. At least it very rarely does. This doesn't concern human nature, it concerns nature. A unity of disparate causes might work well for a Catholic view of human nature. But what about nature itself. Does the Catholic view still entertain the Aristotelian first cause?
Yes, but don't forget divine incomprehensibility. To use an argument a fortiori, if we are not in the complete now of our own nature, or that of the universe, can't expect that we got a handle on God.
Between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 there are all kinds of conflicts. They were written in different periods. Gen. 2 was written before Gen. 1. Go figure.
I don't know (I never thought of that one...). However, I do always find it ironic that it's generally the exact same crowd who insists that Genesis must be taken exactly literally does the exact opposite with the book of Revelation, reading allegory into almost every verse (i.e. referring to America as "Babylon") to twist the meaning enough to make it look like a prophecy for the immediate future.
I really think there's more of an agenda of control and self-advocation for many of these people than what the true meaning of the Word of God is. (Christ warned us about such people...)
***Which begs the question, which one?***
Thank you!!! Good question!
Both!
Matthew 19:3-5
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, (Genesis 1:27)...
... and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh' (Genesis 2:24)?
If science were to show how resurrection were possible, you would be jumping up and down on the side of science, no?
Now there's a good way to start an article. Really inspires me to delve more....
The crucial difference between this and a literal six-day Creation is that God has provided us with direct physical evidence that the latter is not a literal fact. The revelation that nature provides us is just important as what Scripture provides. Unless you believe that Satan is responsible for planting all the geological, cosmological, paleontological, morphological, biogeographical, and genetic evidence that contradicts the archaic creationist model of the universe.
If the story of a talking serpent and the two sacred trees in a secret garden isn't an obvious example of a Parable, I don't know what is.
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.