Dolt! They're shabby copies of the Nazca Indian lines.
Posted on 11/05/2005 11:47:03 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Wow you're a fast reader!..oh wait I get it
Looked like something from the TimeCube guy....
Looks like a simultaneous rotating 4 day time cube
It was obvious that the post had nothing of substance as soon as the author referred to evolution as an "ideology". Creationists spend a great deal of effort on attacking evolution for what it isn't because they lack the understanding or honesty to address it for what it is.
lol missed your post
And this is a problem for you? What, can't you handle change? You expect a newborn theory to spring forth fully formed? Theories are born, grow, evolve, and sometimes die. That's the way science operates. We can discard theories that are disproved and move forward.
The way it is now, you could apply his theory to any similar or disimilar structures that exist in the Universe.
Sorry. False. See PatrickHenry's List-O-Links for a little background, then try again.
They don't want the understanding. Most of them just don't seem interested in the subject, as most people are not. But they have a strong viewpoint on it nevertheless.
There is more basic agreement about the nature and origin of the cosmos among religionists than there is about the nature and origin of the cosmos among cosmologists.
However, in both spheres one can disagree without being disagreeable.
The human yearning to see patterns in chaos is prolly responsible for most of technological progress, alchemy, and voodoo. The trick is to know which is which.
And does anyone see the irony in an ID advocate complaining about lack of experimental results? LACK OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS? Has ID ever produced an ATOM of experimental results? Don't make me laugh.
http://www.meru.org/contin.html
ROTFLMAO!
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes! So this is what psychotic obsession must be like....
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes! So this is what psychotic obsession must be like....
Wow, Aladdin's Lamp is a key part of 'Creation'. Imagine that. Who'd a thunk?
I think there was a kitchen sink in there somewhere, too....
His illustrations look suspiciously similar to that website.... the only thing missing from the latter is the title: "Emperor of Antarctica"!
Dolt! They're shabby copies of the Nazca Indian lines.
The Cult of the Tetrahedron
A two-fer: bogus science and bogus religion combined.
Scientists cling rabidly to other things that cause their own jihads amongst each other, but anyway...
But once science casts doubts on religious mythology, it ceases to be viable.
99% of the time when science "casts doubts on religious mythology", it is because it has overstepped its bounds. At any rate, there is an explanation and that is that for most scientists, science is their religion. They weave their theories into a cult as real as any of the 1st Century Mysteries. It is the #1 religion in America today--and no religion likes competition. Furthermore, I think you'll find, the times it "casts doubts on religious mythology" it does nothing pracitcal (and don't you dare suggest genetics--that was begun by a MONK!) and cannot be proven.
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.