Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")

Creationism here at EvC Forum is held to be any theory derived from evangelical Biblical interpretations. YEC-ism, OEC-ism and ID are all just different types of creationism. And ID has not fallen very far from the creationist tree. The ID book, Of Panda and People, was changed from a book about creation science into a book about intelligent design be replacing the words "creationism" and "creator" with "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer".ID was brought gradually to the forefront of creationist efforts to promote creationism in education after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that creation science was thinly disguised Genesis. By conceding to science on most other points, such as the age of the earth and the occurrence of a global flood, the modern formulation of ID places God and Bible at even further remove than creation science. But this makes modern ID difficult for most evangelicals to accept, because it pays too little attention to literal interpretations of Biblical accounts.The vast majority of evangelicals accept the argument from design but reject the rest of ID, which is why we see so many creationists arguing for not just design, but also for a young earth and a global flood, not to mention God, the Bible and Jesus. Behe did begin his ID efforts by declining to identify the designer, but he long ago gave up this pose. He actually testified under oath at Dover that he believes the designer is God. Behe also conceded that (this from Wikipedia), "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." The judge's ruling finding that ID is religion included extensive references to Behe's testimony. Read the Dover Testimony section of the Wikipedia article on Behe - pretty enlightening as to what Behe really believes. Of course Behe believes in common decent. I know this because I've read some of his writings. The Wikipedia article concurs: Behe believes evolution is responsible for much of the diversity of life and for much of the changing panorama of life over time, but that in the case of certain microbiological structures that are irreducibly complex some form of outside assistance was required. No one is saying that Behe is lying about his acceptance of intelligent design as an explanation for the diversity of life. What we're saying is that as an academic, Behe knows that there is no controversy within science about ID, and he understands that it is the scientific consensus that gets taught in public schools, but he nonetheless claims, falsely of course, that there's a controversy within science and that ID should be taught in public schools.By the way, I don't believe Behe is really quite as much the buffoon as he appeared on the stand at Dover. The Discovery Institute picked up their marbles (and lawyers and money) and went home on the eve of the trial, as did Dembski who was scheduled to appear first, leaving insufficient time and resources to properly prepare Behe for his appearance on the stand.Behe is at Lehigh, which provides this disclaimer at their biology department website: Behe's own webpage at the department echos this: This is because ID has not been born out by any research. ID efforts are focused on convincing the lay public, not on conducting research that might persuade other scientists. No. They are not scientists in the sense that we usually think of scientists, because they are actually anti-science in that they use unscientific arguments to promote to the lay public untested and unresearched ideas as being legitimate science, at least when talking about ID.--Percy

OK so all I have to do is exclude them from my membership and then they are not voting members and I can say there is no controversy in the Church.But Percy you said and this is what I was getting at: Yet him and everyone that holds any notion of ID have been ostracized from the congregation.Now before I say another word let me say I know a lot more what you believe than I do about what Behe believes. I do know enough about Behe to think I would disagree with at least 60% of what he believes, and that is just from skimming. My point is if there is a controversy however small it might be he is not putting forth false information.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

PaulK, you are now being dishonest. Your assertion is that Behe is trying to smuggle in God to scientific curriculum. I asked you for specific evidence that he is trying to do that, and you tell me, as a response, that he is a Fellow at DI.

​

My response: So what?

​

Why? Because DI is an Intelligent Design institute, not a creationist organization which you presupposed.

​

Thus, you've provided no evidence for your assertion, but consequently, have defended mine in the process.

---

I'm being dishonest ? I said that Behe was part of the ID movement. The ID movement is all about making the science curriculum more friendly to their religious beliefs - and they are bypassng the processes of science and going directly to educators to do so.I never assumed that he was a creationist or that the DI is a creationist organisation rather than an ID organisation (not that there's a huge difference)Your whole claim of dishonesty is based on misrepresentation.

quote:

---

Because of the assertion that ID is really just creationism in guise, people such as Behe and Dembski keep creationism at an arms length distance, so as not to appear, to crazed people, such as yourself, as catering to specific creation arguments.

​

Obviously, there is much in common about creationism and ID. Most notably, their stance on macroevolution. That alone finds great parity among the two camps, however, that does not automatically include all aspects.

​

Paul Nelson is free to believe in a young earth, just as Hugh Ross is free to believe in an old earth. In fact, proponents of ID don't quibble about age estimates because its inconsequential to the task at hand.

​

You are taking two things and erroneously joining them together to come to a faulty conclusion.

---

Paul Nelson is also a DI Fellow. Behe DOESN'T shun him. Nor does Dembski. YOur claim that Behe and Dembski keep creationists at arms length isn't true.And you're also wrong about the reason that the DI don't discuss the age of the Earth. It isn't because it isn't relevant. It is very relevant in terms of understanding the history of life. It's so as not to upset the YEC contingent. The creationists that you say that they shun and want nothing to do with.

quote:

---

If Behe is not a creationist, as you now say, then what is your objection? Its one thing to disagree with ID, but its another to claim that he is really just trying to get people to believe in God.

---

I've stated my objections - and all of them are based on what the DI has done and said.And yes, they ARE trying to get more people to believe in God. That's their idea of "Cultural Renewal"From the Wedge document.

quote:

---

The point is that science is not theology, and theology is not science. I figured you would appreciate the distinguishing terms. I guess not.

---

Why is it obvious ? Because it seems to me that I understand it just fine. If the designer is God then Design theory HAS to get into theology to produce a real alternative to evolutionary theory, because it needs to deal with the designers intentions and capabilities. That's a real problem if ID is trying to be science - which is why they avoid the question.

quote:

---

How could common descent and irreducible complexity exist in the same function? Common descent says that slow gradations explain how all lifeforms are intimately connected by a single progenitor, whereas IC says that arriving at higher lifeforms from a single progenitor is impossible, being that, the removal of even part of the sum renders it ineffective.

---

It seems that you are now claiming that Behe's beliefs are contradictory. However the answer is the God-as-genetic-engineer concept that I mentioned earlier. God can do all the required mutations at once therefore allowing the generation of IC structures within the framework of common descent,.

quote:

---

As I said - and you evidently failed to read - Behe's argument presumes that evolution ONLY proceeds by adding parts.

Right, so how could Behe also believe in common descent when he asserts that arriving at that possibility does not logically follow?

---

You really ought to edit out irrelevant text instead of quoting it. The part you quote is a criticism of Behe's argument (since it is a false assumption). And your question is answered above.

quote:

---

Paul, please try and follow the dialogue. Your initial sentiment was that ID is really just creationism is disguise. You claimed that Behe is a liar. I asked for specific evidence about how is lying that would justify you for calling him a liar.

---

Take your own advice and reread my Message 8. That was NOT what I said.I stated that Behe was trying to offer a religious apologetic as science. i.e. his arguments are not really scientific - he's not even that interested in the relevant science, which is why he made such a glaring mistake in his IC argument. He doesn't subject much of his work at all to the processes of the scientific community. The point of his arguments is to defend his religious convictions.

quote:

---

Yeah, no kidding. Why do you think that is? Because they don't like what he has to say. Behe has spoken out several times about the bias that exists in mainstream science journals.

---

But he offers very little evidence of it. As usual. And his paper with Snokes was published. So why doesn't he publish more ? Its it because he knows that his arguments are no good ? That's what I think.

quote:

---

Because they aren't trying to insist that God is the Designer. They CANT make inferences like that from science. That is a theological question

---

One of the governing goals of the DI, according to the Wedge document And how are they going to do that with their "scientific" design theory unless they can scientifically prove that the designer is God ? And how many of THEM are there in the ID movement ? Can you name one DI Fellow advocating such a view ? How much use is Direct Panspermia in defeating materialism and showing that humans are God's creations ?

quote:

---

What they want is what every one else wants-- the truth, and nothing but the truth. There interpretation of the evidence suggests that design is indicative of a Designer. Beyond that is up to the discretion of the reader. They aren't telling you that you need to believe in God.

---

In the same way that other religionists want the "truth" - they want other people to agree with them. Regardless of the real Truth.

quote:

---

Why do you insist that you have the patent on science and nature? Who says he is trying to "undermine science?" ID is offering a dissenting opinion as opposed to the current monopoly.

---

The reason for the "monopoly" is a lack of decent alternatives. But the ID crew aren't doing much work - if any - to develop an alternative. They're going right after education.

quote:

---

Obviously they do, otherwise, what are we arguing about?

---

A few years ago Paul Nelson admitted that they didn't have a theory. And how can you have a theory which encompasses YEC views and Behe's Old Earth and Common Descent views ? Surely they are quite contradictory. And none of these ideas has been developed to the level where it could be called a scientific theory.

quote:

---

Ummm, no, they want a fair shot. And you are only fueling and illustrating the very persecution you claim doesn't exist!

---

If they wanted a fair shot then they should try to follow the procedures of science as they currently stand and only complain when and if they have a demonstrable case. They don't do that. They whine about persecution in an attempt to get special treatment. There's not one complaint that stands up to scrutiny.

quote:

---

So they are scientists, who use scientific arguments, because they are 'anti-science?' Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Maybe they just think science was hijacked by people who include philosophical assumptions.

---

Many of them aren't scientists (Philip Johnson and Dembski to name two). In so far as their arguments are science they are usually bad. They don't have a theory and don't seem to be working on one. They don't have a coherent view that could form the basis of a theory. Most of their arguments attack the current theory without offering a viable scientific alternative. They sound pretty anti-science to me.

quote:

---

He obviously doesn't believe that it is failure.

---

Well why not ? Because it is. How could he not know that he had failed to provide arguments to rule out what he calls indirect pathways ?

Well, that's a good thing. Let me clarify what I mean by consensus, though, and I think you'll agree with me. You go on to say: I'll give the answer first and follow it with the explanation.The question is phrased in not quite the right way because you misunderstand what I mean by consensus, but to a rough approximation, yes, acceptance by a majority within the scientific community would mean that ID was scientific.But there's a key distinction to be made here. ID would become scientific not because most scientists accepted it, but because of the process of research and replication exerted to achieve this level of acceptance.A scientific consensus is not formed from a vote of scientists. A consensus forms around the ideas that have proven the most successful through a long drawn-out process of successful research that produces papers and discussions with ideas and results that other research draws upon, and so on and so forth. In the end you have a large body of validated research and results.So if ID were to become widely accepted within the scientific community it could only be by way of this same process of study and research by which all other accepted scientific ideas have achieved this status. Any theory which has passed through the trial by fire of research and replication is well worthy of respect.That creationists do not even subject ID to this kind of study says much about it. It says at least two things prominently. First, creationists can't figure out how to test ID, which makes sense since it's an inherently religious idea. Second, they know that ID is religion and not science.--Percy

Yes having read your fuller explanation I do, broadly, agree. This still does assume that there is a scientific 'community' or 'process' that is ultimately immune to sociological factors and is purely pragmatic in nature.I fully acknowledge that there is no practical reason to doubt this 'process' to date as it has been wholly pragmatic, and empirically successful as a result, so far.However I would qualify your argument by adding that the process you outline is theoretically vulnerable to dogma should adverse sociological conditions make it likely or even necessary.In fact that is exactly what the creationist lobby claim has happened regards the theory of evolution.
So I find myself in the bizzarre position of agreeing, at least in hypothetical terms, with the creationist lobby as far as that which potentially shapes scientific consensus is concerned.................Oh no! AAArrrggghhh. Help!

Have you been reading PaulK's responses? Then by the same token creationism and ID are the same. Just because the word "Jesus" appears in a belief, does not somehow mean they are the same. Islam talk about Jesus too. Would you say they are very similar?Or better, perhaps something more personal. You are a deist and believe in God. I believe in God too. How many parallels exist between your beliefs and mine? No many. So are they supposed to apologize for it? See, these are the impossible conditions I'm talking about. Without realizing it, yourself and Paul are basically saying that I can't believe in the Judeo-Christian God and be a proponent of ID. Because if I do, then I'm obviously pandering.Yet, no mention is made of the countless professing atheists that believe in evolution.You say that to be an evolutionist, it does not require one to also be an atheist. I am saying to believe in Intelligent Design does not require you to believe in a Judeo-Christian God. Then if he doesn't, Paul should simply make the argument that ID is nonsensical, not that its only goal is to push Christianity to the forefront. Are you kidding me? I'll kindly remind you what the Scopes Trial was all about. Proponents of evolution said that schools must make a special dispensation for the theory. They won that case. Now that somebody wants ID to have the same privileges that evolution had, its no dice. Ah, right... Because Darwin or Huxley didn't do that.Behe wrote a book. Millions of people purchased that book. The SOLE factor in many others rejecting that book, is because it contains one forbidden word... "Designer." That is enough to stop the presses within an atheist-dominated arena, which clearly, science now is.The man achieved his PhD and his teaching degree the same way everyone else did. His expertise is no less credible than anyone else's of the same stature. The only reason you say that he isn't credible is because he thinks differently than you. Harvard: Started as a Christian school.
Yale: Started as a Christian school.
Princeton: Started as a Christian school.
Cambridge: Started as a Christian school.
William and Mary: Started as a Christian school.In each one of them, secular influence has eroded virtually all remnants of their past. The point is, high scholarship existed before, specifically under Christian tutelage, and the world didn't implode from it. The point is, God doesn't need to be specifically included in anything, other than, perhaps, a theology classroom.What do you think would happen if ID were to be taught alongside creation?

Which unmistakably infiltrates within the dialgoue no matter what. Creation and ID are not new concepts. Nor was evolution a new concept started by Darwin. Are you sourcing this as something I'm supposed to take seriously? Well, you've convinced me! There is definitely a conspiracy going on which Elvis, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Tupac are masterminding. Even supposing that was the case, why is that evolutionists are allowed to dismiss Haeckle, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Peppered moths etc, for the demonstrable frauds they are, and get to say that those stains do not speak for the majority?I mean really, you have a list of names that haven't been actually confirmed nor denied, compared to people that went to great lengths to take bones from one specie and fuse them together with another, acid treat it to create the illusion of age, and then bury it in a rock quarry, wait three years, and dig it up.... all so they could further an agenda. That's not science, now is it?There IS no comparison, sir. Then what else am I to deduce, Percy? Nobody was particularly outraged by phrenology. But it appears that some people are going to implode at the mere mention of ID. Its real simple. Nothing can't create everything. Nothing that exists within the physical world did not come to exist without causation.Yet, that doesn't stop people from composing all sorts of fanciful theories. Should we dismiss them all from simple discussion because we aren't entirely certain, empirically of our origins?They're called theories for a reason, Percy. It means we don't know fully. And in some cases, things will always be a theory, being that, one of the critical components of science is observation.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

This isn't the thread (and I think we had one before) but one problem is that there isn't anything to teach. If you'd start a thread and list what would be specific to an ID course I'd be interested. One in 5 (Haeckle) of your list involves scientific fraud by an individual which was, slowly, uncovered by the scienticic community itself. Why isn't the Discovery Institute pointing out the flaws that have been show in Behe's IC concept as it applies to evolution.Piltdown and Archeorapter were frauds perpetrated outside of the scientific community and uncovered by the community. The other two are no fraud.You can google EvC and find the discussions on each of those I think. That would be the place to put forward your opinions on them.

quote:

---

Have you been reading PaulK's responses?

---

Have YOU ? It doesn't seem like it.

quote:

---

So are they supposed to apologize for it? See, these are the impossible conditions I'm talking about. Without realizing it, yourself and Paul are basically saying that I can't believe in the Judeo-Christian God and be a proponent of ID. Because if I do, then I'm obviously pandering.

---

No, that's not what anybody is saying. The point being made is that the DI is there to promote religious views. And that they aren't being honest about it.

quote:

---

Are you kidding me? I'll kindly remind you what the Scopes Trial was all about. Proponents of evolution said that schools must make a special dispensation for the theory. They won that case. Now that somebody wants ID to have the same privileges that evolution had, its no dice.

---

You think that a lawsuit against a law FORBIDDING the teaching of mainstream science in science classes is asking for "special dispensation" ? IF ID gets to the status of mainstream science and IF there are laws specifically forbidding it from being taught in science classes THEN you can make that comparison honestly.This is just a typical example of the dishonest propaganda of the ID movement.

quote:

---

Behe wrote a book. Millions of people purchased that book. The SOLE factor in many others rejecting that book, is because it contains one forbidden word... "Designer." That is enough to stop the presses within an atheist-dominated arena, which clearly, science now is.

---

Darwin and Wallace followed the procedures of the scientific community in their day. Darwin spent a huge amount of time gathering evidence and discussing his ideas before publication. He would have waited longer if Wallace hadn't independantly come up with the same ideas.Behe's book is not rejected because it contains the word designer. It is rejected because its arguments are lousy. I know, I've read it. Judging by the reviews his new book is as bad or worse.

quote:

---

The man achieved his PhD and his teaching degree the same way everyone else did. His expertise is no less credible than anyone else's of the same stature. The only reason you say that he isn't credible is because he thinks differently than you.

---

His PhD is in biochemistry. That doesn't make him an expert on evolution - and he isn't. So he is less credible than Gould or Dawkins or Jones. The poor quality of his anti-evolution arguments and his association with and support for the DI all further erode his credibility on the subject of evolution. These are the facts - the facts you want to sweep under the carpet.

quote:

---

Even supposing that was the case, why is that evolutionists are allowed to dismiss Haeckle, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Peppered moths etc, for the demonstrable frauds they are, and get to say that those stains do not speak for the majority?

---

Haeckel's fraud - if fraud it was - was to support his own ideas, rejected long ago. Darwin used von Baer's ideas on embryology, not Haeckel's.The Piltdown man fraud was just one hoax by an unknown individual with unknown motives.Nebraska Man was a mistake, retracted within a couple of years.Archaeoraptor was unmasked as a fake before scientific publication, and it was created by the seller, not scientists.There is some evidence of fraud with regard to peppered moths - on the part of Jonathan Wells. You can't blame evolutionists for his behaviour.

Yes, and I'm as puzzled as Paul about why you think he claimed "ID and creationism are one and the same." Clearly you repeat the mistake replying to me here: Pointing out that you're wrong to say that there's no remnant of Christianity left in the Unification Church is not equivalent to saying that Christianity and the Unification Church are the same. If you can't see that then there are going to be many obvious distinctions in this discussion that you're going to see as barely discernible nuances and we're never going to be able to communicate.You offered Jonathan Wells, a member of the Unification Church which you said has no remnant of Christianity left, as evidence that one doesn't have to be Christian to accept ID, and all I did was point out that the Unification Church is a Christian church based upon the ministry of Jesus which has been taken up and continued by the Reverend Moon. The Unification Church uses the Bible as its primary holy text. Huh? How does that make any sense? Who said anything about apologizing? Huh? These interpretations are springing forth only from your own mind, not from anything Paul or I is saying.What we're telling you is that ID springs from evangelical Christianity, not science. Nor of the countless professing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, not to mention scads of believers in more minor religions, who also believe in evolution. That's because evolution springs from scientific research and not from any religion. And yet the vast majority of IDists are all of a single religious sect, Christian evangelicals. Huh? Are you even reading what you're replying to?Paul isn't arguing that ID is nonsensical. He's arguing that though it is religion it instead claims status as science to gain entry to public education. Are you daft?Scopes was charged with violation of the Butler Act, a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. This is the exact opposite of a special dispensation: it is a *special sanction*. The law wasn't repealed until 1967. Huh?Behe's book is rejected by scientists not because it contains the word "Designer", but because it isn't science. He didn't write a popularization about an area of scientific study supported by much research and study, but about a Christian evangelical view of creation shorn of religious references and drawing upon microbiology for examples of irreducible complexity. Even though he's never published any research papers on the topic, some scientists have gone to of the trouble of rebutting some of his examples, such as blood coagulation and the bacterial flagellum. We didn't simply say he wasn't credible. We said he wasn't credible when making claims about the scientific status of ID because the claim is not supported by any body of scientific research. We further said that he's aware of this lack of research but makes the claim anyway, and further, that he believes it should be taught as science even though it has no research behind it and is not supported by any scientific consensus. I think that would be fine, as long as the venue is Sunday School. You didn't read the Project Steve link, did you? So you didn't notice where it said: I was rebutting ID's claim that there is a controversy within science concerning ID. When the ratio is greater than 100:1 against, as the counts of evolutionists named Steve and evolution doubters named anything clearly indicates (and few evolution doubters are biologists anyway), there is no controversy. My point is that IDists misrepresent the situation when they make this claim to lay people. They try to make it seem that scientists are having a legitimate debate about ID in scientific journals and conferences when no such debate is taking place. I'm only including this to indicate yet another time when your reply appears no bearing whatsoever on what I said specifically or the topic generally. It's as if what people write is only an opportunity for you to say whatever pops into your head, whether it makes sense or not. If you'd like to discuss these topics then open a new thread. This thread is about the misrepresentations of Behe and ID. What are you to deduce? Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe something that makes sense? No one is imploding at the mere mention of ID. The primary objection to ID is that it is religion and not science. Public education treats all religions equally when it comes to science: none get in. Theory is the best that science can do. Nothing in science ever rises above theory. There is no higher status within science. In science, a law is just another name for theory. If research were ever begun that yielded legitimate support for ID, it still would never rise above the level of theory. All scientific theories are tentative, which means they will change to reflect new knowledge or improved insights.--Percy

Then is TalkOrigins promoting atheism by the same rationale? Evolution wasn't a part of mainstream science in those days Paul. That's kind of the point. According to your opinion. Yet you say nothing about "memes," a completely fictitious, unsupported assertion by Dawkins. That makes him qualified to study the very thing he writes about in his books-- biochemistry. If it was? An unknown motive? Its pretty obvious what the motive was-- to further the fledgling theory. As well, we have pretty good idea who did it. In a 1999, an article of National Geographic, a world renowned scientific journal, presented the article "Feathers for T-Rex?" Look, I'm not trying to get this thread to go in to a tit for tat blame game. I'm simply addressing the point that calling Behe and the DI a bunch of liars without any actual evidence.Just say you that don't agree with the theory and be done with it. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

It's when you say things like this that I realize that, outside of the sciences, people really don't understand what is meant by the term "scientific journal." A scientific journal is a publication where scientists publish the results of experimentation and observation in a form that explains, technically, the materials and methods employed in their research, the results, discussion of the results, and generally some remarks that place the research in a wider context. The articles almost always have joint authorship and an extensive bibliography that cites other articles, and the articles are reviewed by an anonymous jury of scientists in that field whom the magazine selects based (often) on their familiarity with the general idea of the research in question.We call these journals "primary" (as in a "primary source"), because they're the closest you can typically get to a scientist's raw data and observations in his own words short of seeing his research paperwork or being out there in the field with him. The articles usually have a certain "look" to them, kind of like this: JSTOR: Access CheckNational Geographic, while a respected publication, is not a scientific journal in any sense of the word. It's articles, as a rule, are not primary research, they're usually a journalist's interpretation of research or of interviews with researchers. As a result we call these "secondary sources", because the scientific information that can be gleaned from them is second-hand, and therefore unsuitable for citation in a primary source.National Geographic does not peer-review any articles, and researchers do not submit primary research to National Geographic, any more than my wife is going to send a copy of her thesis to the Lincoln Journal-Star. They're not primary sources; they're not scientific journals. To the extent that National Geographic is largely marketed to interested laypeople as opposed to professionals in the field of geography, we might sometimes refer to NatGeo as being part of the "popular press", which includes science-for-laypeople magazines written by journalists like Omni, Discover, and Popular Science. Nobody, to my knowledge, is suing to get Dawkin's ideas on memes taught as "official science" in the nation's high schools. If they were, I'm sure you and I would agree that it would be a pretty stupid idea - since there's no scientific evidence. Dawkins doesn't even offer it as a scientific conjecture - more of a philosophical idea.But it's really a spurious objection. I'm sure we could list about a hundred things that you've failed to mention in every single post and then try to pretend that that's evidence of some kind of hypocrisy on your part. I think you've been getting too many debate tips from right-wing websites. It wouldn't have done a very good job. It was actually through evolution - and the Piltdown fossil's inconsistency with it - that the fraud was discovered. Had Piltdown been a legitimate find - an actual hominid fossil - it would have destroyed evolution as we know it.

Mind explaining to me what's going on with this? I know next to nothing about piltdown.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Why don't you give us a break and type the word into Google like any preschooler?Jeez TD, you are a trip, a combination of Rossetti and Jodorowsky.Edited by anglagard, : spelin oopsEdited by anglagard, : same reason, over 0.10

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Piltdown is NOT the topic here!!!I think you'll find the history if you google him.

quote:

---

Then is TalkOrigins promoting atheism by the same rationale?

---

The rationale is what the DI lets slip. Including the leaked Wedge document which openly admits what they are up to - as you ought to know if you have followed this discussion. I am not aware of similar evidence indicating any intention to promote atheism on the part of the group behind the TalkOrigins website.So far as I am aware the TalkOrigins contributors include atheists and theists and the content is consistent with their stated mission to support mainstream science. The same cannot be said for the DI.

quote:

---

Evolution wasn't a part of mainstream science in those days Paul. That's kind of the point.

---

Then your point is completely out of contact with reality. What century do you think that the Scopes trial was held in ? Evolution was rapidly accepted after Darwin and Wallace. Louis Agassiz - widely recognised as the last significant holdout against evolution died in 1873.From Peter J. Bowlers Evolution: The History of an Idea[/B] (2nd Edn) At the time of the Scopes trial it was not creationism that was the major opposition, it was alternative views of evolution - Lamarckism and Orthogenesis (although the former had suffered a major blow in the West).The textbook used by Scopes was an ordinary biology text - one that had been approved by the State before the Butler act - one still on sale in Dayton. It was not one especially written by some Darwinist organisation.The point of the Butler act was to rule out the teaching of evolution - on religious grounds, not scientific.
From An Introduction to the John Scopes (Monkey) Trial

quote:

---

According to your opinion. Yet you say nothing about "memes," a completely fictitious, unsupported assertion by Dawkins.

---

Because it's completely off-topic. Yet we have only your word that memes are "completely unsupported". As far as I am aware memes are genuinely controversial - and there is no movement dedicated to forcing memes into school textbooks. Or even "teaching the controversy".

quote:

---

That makes him qualified to study the very thing he writes about in his books-- biochemistry.

---

And the parts specifically on biochemistry in Darwin's Black Box - as opposed to the parts on evolution - were praised in the reviews I saw.
Unfortunately he also tries to write about evolution - and that is outside his field and he does very poorly there.

quote:

---

If it was?

---

Haeckel's fraud (if it was) wasn't the great success it's made out to be - because the idea it was supposed to support died long ago. Nor did it have any great significance to evolution. von Baer won.

quote:

---

An unknown motive? Its pretty obvious what the motive was-- to further the fledgling theory. As well, we have pretty good idea who did it.

---

Evolution wasn't a "fledgling theory" in need of such support by 1908. So your alleged motive is not likely at all. The idea that it was set up to embarrass Dawson - and that the hoaxer got cold feet and didn't go through with it is more plausible. And there are many "good ideas" about who did it.

quote:

---

In a 1999, an article of National Geographic, a world renowned scientific journal, presented the article "Feathers for T-Rex?"

---

A popular magazine jumped the gun and got burned. National Geographic is NOT a scientific journal.

quote:

---

Look, I'm not trying to get this thread to go in to a tit for tat blame game. I'm simply addressing the point that calling Behe and the DI a bunch of liars without any actual evidence.

​

Just say you that don't agree with the theory and be done with it.

---

Have you not noticed the actual evidence that has been presented ? Not even the quotes from the Wedge document ?Edited by PaulK, : Tidied up