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

To: PatrickHenry
Michael Behe, a Lehigh University scientist, wrote “Darwin’s Black Box” — a touchstone text of the intelligent design movement. He testified in Pennsylvania, and before the Kansas Board of Education when it held hearings on the science standards.

“I think having students hear criticisms of any theory is a great idea,” Behe said. “I think in one respect, it’ll mean it’s permissible to question evolution. For odd historical reasons, questioning evolution has been put off-limits. If Kansas can do it, it can be done elsewhere.”

What a moron this Behe is. It is totally permissible to question evolution, but you have to do it with science. And that's where these knuckleheads like Behe fly off the tracks. I don't understand how someone can be so (dumb? brainwashed?) as to expect that the scientific community should renounce the pursuit of science in order to accommodate someone's religion. It's astounding.

56 posted on 11/08/2005 7:32:42 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: WildHorseCrash
And that's where these knuckleheads like Behe fly off the tracks. I don't understand how someone can be so (dumb? brainwashed?)

Behe ain't dumb. I think his statement translates to: "It's great to question prevailing theory, especially if it involves spending some amount of school district money on my book, or otherwise keeping my name in the media so that aforementioned book stays prominently displayed at Barnes and Noble."

63 posted on 11/08/2005 7:43:38 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: WildHorseCrash; PatrickHenry
What a moron this Behe is. It is totally permissible to question evolution, but you have to do it with science.

Well, you don't "have" to question it with science. From a religious vantage point it's certainly valid to question evolution (or anything else) with religion. And it can be questioned with philosophy, or from an ethical standpoint, etc.

How far you might get in that approach is another matter, as is whether you're going to make any headway with someone who doesn't share your premises.

The real problem, however -- and I think this is the point you're actually making -- is that Behe et al are *pretending* that they're using science to challenge evolution, when they're actually basing their objections on something else. They're dishonestly trying to give their religious misgivings about evolution the procedural authority of real science, in order to deceive the public about the validity of their "rebuttal". They're falsely claiming that their religious/philosophical dissatisfaction with evolutionary biology has met the high standards of scientific discovery and validation, when it most certainly has not.

67 posted on 11/08/2005 7:58:46 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

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