Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Case of Behe vs. Darwin
The Los Angeles Times ^ | November 5, 2005 | Josh Getlin

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: behe; creationism; darwin; evolution; id; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last
To: balrog666
What a waste of two minutes. Next time don't bother.

Wow you're a fast reader!..oh wait I get it

41 posted on 11/05/2005 4:02:02 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Uh, ok.

Looked like something from the TimeCube guy....

42 posted on 11/05/2005 4:07:50 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

Looks like a simultaneous rotating 4 day time cube


43 posted on 11/05/2005 4:11:16 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

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.


44 posted on 11/05/2005 4:11:20 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

lol missed your post


45 posted on 11/05/2005 4:11:43 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
Technically, I suppose it's a Time Tetrahedron..... but it still looks like something Gene Ray would have dreampt up.
46 posted on 11/05/2005 4:15:42 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: willyd
Every time new science emerges that isn't consistent, his theory is tweaked just a little bit to account for it.

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.

47 posted on 11/05/2005 4:16:25 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
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

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.

48 posted on 11/05/2005 4:17:39 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

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.


49 posted on 11/05/2005 4:18:02 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The Cult of the Tetrahedron.

Stan Tenen,
Director of Research,
Meru Foundation

http://www.meru.org/index.html

They have almost as many PhD's listed on their web site as DI.

Take a look at this.

http://www.meru.org/contin.html
50 posted on 11/05/2005 4:28:28 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

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.


51 posted on 11/05/2005 4:32:54 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
We can't replicate earthquakes or subduction either. So much for that wacky plate tectonics theory.

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.

52 posted on 11/05/2005 4:34:24 PM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Take a look at this.

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....

53 posted on 11/05/2005 4:41:33 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

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?

54 posted on 11/05/2005 4:52:24 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
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....

55 posted on 11/05/2005 4:54:23 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
It just dawned on me what this stuff looks like.... did you ever watch the program on John Nash (I forget if it was "60 Minutes" or a documentary on PBS)? They showed the post cards and letters he used to send home during his world travels whilst he was in the grips of schizophrenia.....

His illustrations look suspiciously similar to that website.... the only thing missing from the latter is the title: "Emperor of Antarctica"!

56 posted on 11/05/2005 5:07:36 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
t just dawned on me what this stuff looks like....

Dolt! They're shabby copies of the Nazca Indian lines.


57 posted on 11/05/2005 5:18:40 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

The Cult of the Tetrahedron


A two-fer: bogus science and bogus religion combined.


58 posted on 11/05/2005 6:04:48 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Have you noticed how unscientificness is mostly found where science abuts religion?

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.

59 posted on 11/05/2005 6:14:59 PM PST by Señor Zorro ("The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"--Qui-Gon Jinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Señor Zorro
99% of the time when science "casts doubts on religious mythology", it is because it has overstepped its bounds.

Indeed. Like when "scientists" tried to show that the Sun was not driven around the earth by Apollo's chariot.
60 posted on 11/05/2005 6:21:07 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson