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.

[blaise]

You can construct hypothetical models using mathematics on a computer, but note the term - hypothetical ie hypothesis. It's not a theory til it's been observed, documented and repeated.

Then it would be call a FACT.

A theory is established if, based on its premises, its predictions can be observed. The problem with ID is that it makes no predictions that can later be observed.

The main arguments go along the line of "... oh, things are so complicated, we can't IMAGINE how they came about from a few basic principles..."

Lucky for us all that the Creator is smarter than they..

Trust me, if there were COMPELLING EVIDENCE to dislodge Darwin, a whole generation of biologists would be on it like white on rice.

[SubMareener]

Now that we have established that it is whatever the Catholic Church says, what does the Catholic Church say about the Theory of Evolution or about the Theory of Intelligent Design? As a Baptist, I prefer to think for myself. 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.

The fundamental idea behind Stan Tenen's work is that God hide the truth about his creation in the Bible, other sacred writings, and even the letters of the alphabet, so that they would be passed down from generation even when they are not understood. So "God in Three Persons" could very well have been a way to remember the three dimensions of reality, or some other truth that has been forgotten by this generation. As I remember, Jesus said he spoke in parables for a similar reason.

[Señor Zorro]

I love that book. It amazes me how few people know who GK Chesterton is.

PS-I recommend the Everlasting Man to anyone who has not read it.

[highlander_UW]

We can't replicate a supernova in the lab. Does that mean they can't be studied scientifically?

That's not true...just tell a scientist that evolution is not scientifically provable and they go supernova every time.

[FormerLib]

Your Roman Catholic bashing is better suited to a forum such as the Demonrat Underground.

[MineralMan]

"Your Roman Catholic bashing is better suited to a forum such as the Demonrat Underground."

Ah, so that's what the pulled message was about. Amazing. Christians eating their own, again. And so goes the history of Christianity, full of denominationalism and separation. Seems that Christians, themselves, can't agree on the doctrines of Christianity. Oh, well...

[FormerLib]

Ah, so that's what the pulled message was about. Amazing. Christians eating their own, again.

Wishful thinking, perhaps, as there was nothing in the post to indicate it was written by a Christian.

[MineralMan]

Yeah? Who posted it? Shall we go see their other forum posts. We have an active little group of Catholic bashers here on FR. All that I know of claim to be Christians.

Do ya know Jack Chick? He's got a great tract bashing Catholics. It's called "The Death Cookie." Check it out.

[Thatcherite]

I wonder why it is "Behe vs Darwin"? As far as I could make out from his testimony Behe accepts pretty much everything Darwin wrote as correct; an old earth, common descent, no active intervention by God for hundreds of millions of years. I suppose the difference between them is that Behe says (under oath) that it would be a great idea to teach highschoolers that God may be dead whereas Darwin was silent about God when talking about biology.

[js1138]

pentateuch: This account has been banned or suspended.

[aNYCguy]

I don't know enough about this Meru Foundation's theological perspective but it doesn't appear Catholic, which to me means its in error and their conclusions are irrelevant.

The Catholic church acknowledges evolution as a valid, supported theory. But you know that.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

[ml1954]

"I'm the kind of guy who would rather be at home cutting the grass and drinking a beer," he said. "Or grading papers at the university. Anything but this."

Now I know he's also a disingenuous, misspeaking, 'kind of guy'.

[VadeRetro]

The case of Behe confirms my suspicions. Any drudge in the ranks of real science can be a brilliant general for the creos.

[gcruse]

Well, yeah, except that until the Nicene (?) Council, there was no doctrine of Trinity. So much for God encoding it into the bible, eh?

[Señor Zorro]

While divisions in the Christian church are too many (and, IMHO, often, but not always, petty), I would make this remark:

"In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." 1 Corinthians 11:18-19

More directly to the subject of the article:
"`I never said a word against eminent men of science. What I complain of is a vague popular philosophy which supposes itself to be scientific when it is really nothing but a sort of new religion and an uncommonly nasty one. When people talked about the fall of man they knew they were talking about a mystery, a thing they didn't understand. Now that they talk about the survival of the fittest they think they do understand it, whereas they have not merely no notion, they have an elaborately false notion of what the words mean. The Darwinian movement has made no difference to mankind, except that, instead of talking unphilosophically about philosophy, they now talk unscientifically about science.'" -GK Chesterton (The Club of Queer Trades, ch. 4)

[Dimensio]

That's not true...just tell a scientist that evolution is not scientifically provable and they go supernova every time.

Citation of a specific occurance?

[gcruse]

they now talk unscientifically about science.'

Have you noticed how unscientificness is mostly found where science abuts religion?  No one complains much about the science of constructing buildings that don't fall over in earthquakes,  physics that can propel satellites to other planets, and television that yanks pictures out of the air.  But once science casts doubts on religious mythology, it ceases to be viable.

[SubMareener]

Consider this: Seven letters are written in the Torah with crowns called "tagin" attached to them. These are the letters shin, ayin, tet, nun, zayin, gimmel, and tzadi. Each crown is comprised of three small "zayins" resembling small daggers, and zayin, in turn, has a numerical value of seven, thus implying a connection with Shabbat. Emphasis added. 1

And consider this:

Note the "Tagin" at each vertex of the tetrahedron. Now, consider how the Nicene Council would kept whatever mystery is behind the Tagin alive in a language that was not Hebrew? A mystery that is in the very letters of the Bible! Perhaps the doctrine of the Trinity?

God only rested on the Seventh Day. He did not quit.

[gcruse]

Uh, ok.

[FormerLib]

Ah, so you had no reason whatsoever to assume the poster was a Christian yet you jumped on it as an opportunity to try to bash the Christian faith.

What a truly sad existence this indicates!