The Case of Behe vs. Darwin

The Los Angeles Times ^ | November 5, 2005 | Josh Getlin

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Case of Behe vs. Darwin An unassuming biochemist who became the lead witness for intelligent design is unfazed by criticism but glad he has tenure.

By Josh Getlin, Times Staff Writer

HARRISBURG, Pa. — As he took the witness stand in a packed courtroom, ready to dissect Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, biochemist Michael J. Behe looked confident and relaxed. Then he learned what it felt like to be under a microscope.

Isn't it true, an attorney asked, that Behe's critique of Darwin and support for intelligent design, a rival belief about the origins of life, have little scientific support?

Yes, Behe conceded.

Isn't it also true, the attorney pressed, that faculty members in Behe's department at Lehigh University have rejected his writings as unscientific?

Behe, a slight, balding man with a graying beard, grudgingly answered yes.

"Intelligent design is not the dominant view of the scientific community," he said. "But I'm pleased with the progress we are making."

After two grueling days on the stand, Behe looked drained. He was also unbowed. In a nationally watched trial that could determine whether intelligent design can be taught in a public school, the soft-spoken professor had bucked decades of established scientific thought.

Behe (pronounced BEE-hee), one of the nation's leading advocates of intelligent design, challenged Darwin's theory that life evolved through natural selection and a process of random variation. He argued that living organisms are so highly complex that an unseen, intelligent designer must have created them. That designer, he said, is God.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

He argued that living organisms are so highly complex that an unseen, intelligent designer must have created them. That designer, he said, is God.

So he's changed his mind again.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker and plug for The List-O-Links.

[Señor Zorro]

Indeed. Like when "scientists" tried to show that the Sun was not driven around the earth by Apollo's chariot.

No, like when they attempt to assert knowledge beyond that which can be ascertained by the scientific method. Even if you sat down tomorrow in a lab (and I don't think this is possible, but even if it was) and recreated the big bang and and evolved every species that ever was, you will have proved nothing about the past. Science is the study of what is, not what was.

You ever do science, señor? Sure doesn't sound like it.

Check my profile. Most of my background is in an applied science. I probably have a greater than average exposure to science (though I admit that there are many who know more). It is, however, quite interesting that your only response to a valid point was an ad hominem attack. Last I heard, logic was relevant in science...

[Dimensio]

Even if you sat down tomorrow in a lab (and I don't think this is possible, but even if it was) and recreated the big bang and and evolved every species that ever was, you will have proved nothing about the past.

Science isn't about "proving" anything. Science is about coming up with the most likely explanation for observations given available evidence. Yes, it is impossible to prove that the universe and everything within it was not created Last Thursday, however all available evidence suggests that the universe is in fact much older, so it is not unscientific to say that the universe is older than Last Thursday.

If you had actually done any work in science you would know that.

Science is the study of what is, not what was.

Guess you've never heard of forensic science.

[Elyse]

Also, this may come as a shock to you, but the early Christians believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. I am not sure, but I think the Catholic Church still thinks that.

I thought ALL Christians believed that Jesus was/is the Jewish Messiah. His life fulfilled the prophesies of the Jewish Messiah. The early Christians were Jewish. Are you saying their is a different Messiah for the Jews and the Christians?

[SubMareener]

No, I was trying to convey mild derision of the comments expressed by kjvail who denigrated Stan Tenen's work as being too Jewish, but admitting to not knowing much about Jewish theology. To kjvail, if it wasn't Catholic, it couldn't be correct.

[Elyse]

Doh! I missed your point. :)