|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report") | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
No, he tries to hide it because the DI official line is that the designer doesn't have to be God - when discussing it in public. But it's no secret that the designer they have in mind IS God. They haven't done a good enough job of hiding it to fool anyone who's followed events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: He's in "the same boat" because the ID movement relies on deception. He has to try to pass off his views as something that would be acceptable in the science classroom instead of honestly admitting that he is offering a religious apologetic.
quote: Behe doesn't beleive in special creation - or if he does he's lying when he says that he accepts common descent. And the flaw you see is very common in creationists - because science does not support creation. And if it is equally common in the other side it is hard to tell because the science does support evolution.
quote: Except that we don't see intelligent design. THere is no design theory which even starts to take on evolution. All ID has to offer is (bad) anti-evolution arguments and whining about persecution. (A recent example being a the defence of an anti-semitic preacher convicted of holocaust denial !)
quote: If that's how Behe feels he ought to be honest about it. He shouldn't let the DI make him toe the party line designed to smuggle religion into science classes.
quote: Nobodies ruled it out. It just isn't science - as you admitted. Behe tiptoes around the point not because of the opposition. It's HIS side - the ID movement - that demands that he hides it when talking to the general public.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Oh come off it. Behe is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute ! He's in it with Wells and Dembski and Philip Johnson and the rest. He doesn't shun them at all ! Do you really not know any of that ?
quote: According to the reviews Behe is quite clear that he accepts common descent. Ergo he rejects special creation. It appears that his God intervens by genetically engineering life rather than creating separate "kinds".
quote: Behe's irreducible complexity argument claims that a system which meets the criteria cannot evolve. It fails because Behe relies on the assumption that evolution proceeds only by adding parts. Behe's dismissal of alternate routes is based on an unsupported assertiojn that they are incredibly unlikely - an assertion that has bnever been properly supported. In contrast, decades before Behe, Mueller, taing a more accurate view of evolution proposed that evolution would produce irreducibly complex systems.And that's quite enough for an off-topic digression. quote: Oh there's no doubt that he chooses to support the DI. And he's not a credible source. He's just the least bad one they have who's prepared to write books and go on the road.
quote: Which doesn't mean assuming that the designer is God and paying lip service to the alternative possibilities as is DI policy. Worse for you, detecting design is something that cannot be divorced from the proposed designer. By its very nature it relates to the purposes and capabilities of the designer.
quote: Obviously he isn't. You agree that saying that the Designer is God isn't science. But he's perfectly free to do that. None of his antagonists say that he shouldn't. All he has to do is to admit that it isn't science. The "standard' you speak of doesn't exist.
quote: No, he isn't accused of any such thing. The only reason he keeps quiet about it is because the DI have to avoid religious talk in their attempts to get ID into schools. The whole issue is about the US school curriculum. The more so since the whole plan to get ID accepted as science failed. It's a big deal because the DI regularly lies on the issue. So getting one of their guys to - even accidentally - go against the party line is something unusual.
quote: I don't see any such thing. This "a priori" ruling still seems to be a complete invention. The only thing stopping him talking about God is DI policy. Christians who are scientists can talk about their religious views. Kenneth Miller did. Francis Collins did. Why can't Behe ? Is it because he's a member of the DI and has to follow their party line ? THat's what I think.
quote: What impossible conditions ? I just want Behe to be honest. If you want to say that that's impossible for any member of the ID movement go right ahead and say it. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Because creationism refers to special creation. An independant origin of many animal "kinds" - often thought of as species, especially in earlier times, but now often taken to refer to larger taxonomic groupings - typically the Family level. Evolution in contrast relies on common descent of animal species and thus contradicts the belief in separate origins.
quote:Cosmology is a developing discipline - but ouir knowledge there is still expanding. quote: No it doesn't. The 1 Genesis creation starts with a sea. Then the day/night cycle is set up. Then dry land and only later the sun and stars. The obsevations that support the Big Bang do not indicate the presence of any of these things (and they indicate that many stars are far older than the sea and dry land of our planet !) Science thoroughy contradicts the 1 Genesis story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, it's all the DI's doing. They want to pretend to be doing science, so they try to keep it secret. But they are all about ID as an evangelisation tool. That's what the Wedge document is about.
quote: That would be a contradiction. Perhaps you can empirically show direct evidence fo the proposed designer at work ?
quote: I'm already aware of cosmic fine-tuning arguments. But what "contraction" is Polkinghorne talking about ? Our universe has never contracted - it is still expanding, and the expansion is accelerating. I suggest that you reread Polkinghorne's book because it seems you have mangled an argument that wasn't very good to start with.
quote: That is more typical of your side of the debate. I've seen it in action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I've never seen or heard of any evidence of DNA or RNA or any biological structures actually being designed other than human efforts at genetic engineering. Evolution, on the other hand is known to happen. Evolution explains other evidence too. THe patterns in the fossil record, biogeographical distribution and the nested hierarchy of taxonomy. Design has only ad hoc explanations for those.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So it doesn't matter that he's part of an organisiation dedicated to doing exactly what I said ? Why ask me for evidence when you already know it ? And as you ought to know ID includes creationism. Paul Nelson is a YEC. You can't be a DI Fellow and shun the creationist camp - because part of it is firmly in the ID camp - and the DI would like to sign up the rest, too.
quote: I don't say that they are the same, the more so since I say that Behe, unlike most of the ID camp, is not a creationist. But ID includes creationism and is dominated by creationists. It just allows a few non-creationists to take part.
quote: So you seriously doubt that Behe believes in common descent. Well I'm not going to believe that Behe is lying about that on your say-so.
quote: As I said - and you evidently failed to read - Behe's argument presumes that evolution ONLY proceeds by adding parts. Once you allow for parts being lost or changing - as happens - his argument loses all force. Mueller DID allow for that.
quote: The question I was answering said no such thing ! You aksed for a specific argument made by the ID movement and a specific rebuttal - in the context of my point about the absence of ID theory. Showing that ID relied on bad anti-evolution arguments semed to be what you were asking for. Neither your question or the text you quoted immediately prior to that made any mention of "smuggling in God".
quote: He's got no significant publication record in evolutionary studies - so far as scientific journals go. Most of his arguments are published in popular level books. And they aren't very good - benefit of the doubt only stretches so far and Behe has sold what credibility he has. There are dozens of better-qualified people on the evolution side producing good work. And any of them would be more credible than Behe.
quote: When they don't insist that the designer IS God. Which is really what its all about. Discovering that extraterrestrials engineered life on Earth wouldn't do anything to undermine materialism.
quote: Exactly the point. The ID movement can't honestly succeed in claiming scientific proof of God - which is what they want. Undermining materialism. "Renewing" culture. Those are their goals.
quote:If he actually had good arguments. If he actually did things the scientific way instead of being part of the ID campaign to undermine science education I wouldn't worry. His arguments would still be rubbish, but he'd just be one more crank. quote: The problem is that they don't HAVE an alternative theory. They don't even have good scientiifc arguments against the current theory. I'm not terrified. I just object strongly to dishonest attempts to sabotage science education. If anyone's terrified, it's the DI. They're the ones who make hysterical claims about being "persecuted'. They're the ones who want to skip actually doing science before getting their opinions inserted into textbooks. Why are they afraid of their arguments getting the same treatment that every other science had to go through ?
quote: The whole point about the designer not being God. The Designer IS God to all but a very, very few of them with no real voice. Their arguments are built around it. It's even their reason for NOT producing a theory.
quote: Rubbish. The fearmongering comes from the DI.
quote: The ID movement just hides references to God. Of Pandas and People - the ID school textbook was a creationist textbook with the references to creationism replaced with references to Intelligent Design. Yes, the ID movement has taken a lot of the theology out of its public statements. Yes it embraces a wider range of theological views than the YEC creation science movement. But it's still anti-science. It's still focussing on education rather than doing real science. And by taking the vague view of "a designer diddit" they are in some ways even further from science than the YECs. The differences aren't as significant - or as positive - as you want to think.
quote: No, I haven't. And if I did it wouldn't be an impossible position for Behe. Any more than the refusal of many to accept the possibility that there might not be a designer is an "impossible condition" for those who support evolution. So you are not only wrong about me - even if you were right it would not support your claim.
quote:Has he admitted that his IC argument is a complete failure ? Has he admitted that his work is primarily religous and not scientific ? Not to my knowledge. Has he admitted that ID has failed as a scientiifc enterprise and it's current work is merely an attempt at indoctrination - according to the Wedge document itself ? If not then he ought to do so. That would be honest. Edited by PaulK, : Tidying up typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Surely the question should be how many does it take to get a controversy worth teaching in schools. One loudmouth may make a controversy of sorts - but he can be safely ignored when writing up a curriculum.
If you consider only the scientists directly working in the field there will be proportionately far, far, fewer than the 2 out of 50 in your example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
...Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
quote: 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: 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: 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: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: 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: One of the governing goals of the DI, according to the Wedge document
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
And how are they going to do that with their "scientific" design theory unless they can scientifically prove that the designer is God ?
And I should add that Direct Panspermists also fall under the category of intelligent design which says nothing at all about God or any kind of deity.
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: In the same way that other religionists want the "truth" - they want other people to agree with them. Regardless of the real Truth.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Have YOU ? It doesn't seem like it.
quote: 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: 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: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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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)
By 1870 many of those scientists concerned with the most relevant areas of biology had conceded that evolution was preferable to special creation
By the 1880s a well-entrenched school of Darwinism had become a dominant feature of the scientific establishment
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
...In February, Tennessee enacted a bill introduced by John Butler making it unlawful "to teach any theory that denies the story of divine creation as taught by the Bible and to teach instead that man was descended from a lower order of animals."
quote: 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: 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: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: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:A popular magazine jumped the gun and got burned. National Geographic is NOT a scientific journal. quote: Have you not noticed the actual evidence that has been presented ? Not even the quotes from the Wedge document ? Edited by PaulK, : Tidied up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Behe makes a controversy of sorts. But it isn't really within science, since science has decisively rejected his arguments. His views are not worth teaching in science classes for that reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It's about pushing religious beliefs in school. The ID strategy is based on an alliance of different groups (such as YECs and OECs) who will work together for a common goal (e.g. getting schools to teach that God created mankind) and sort out their differences later. I don't see why Wells presence in the ID movement can be seen as contradicting that strategy. By his own words he's a dedicated enemy of evolution.
quote: Except. fo course, for the fact that you have Christians like Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins and Simon Conway Morris pushing evolution. Moreover we have evidence that the anti-evolutionary motivations of IDists are religious - both for individuals like Philip Johnson and Jonathan Wells and for the DI itself (e.g. the Wedge document). Was it a coincidence that the latest book the DI is pushing was launched at Biola ?
quote: So there you are. You admit that ID is about religion. Of course science offers alternative explanations that do NOT add to 0 + 0 = everything no matter how much the anti-science groups try to misrepresent it. And nobody could truthfully describe evolution in that way. So your "logical deduction" doesn't really add up.
quote: I assume that you mean "modernist" - and not "post-modernist", just as you mean "successors" rather than "predecessors" - although given your record for accuracy that's hard to say. Modernism arrived in the late 19th Century when evolution was pretty well established. The post-modernists are later, of course (starting in the 1960s). In the Kitzmiller trial it was the ID side that drafted in a post-modernist for support.But the rest of your paragraph is just silly. There's a huge amount of science done within an evolutionary framework. The scientific evidence for evolution continues to grow even now. But this philosophy of yours seems largely absent even in this group. To be honest I'd say that the big difference in philosophy is that the evolution side displays a degree of humility and respect for the truth that is absent on the creation side. This is demonstrated both in your claims of fact - where you chose to "remind" others of your completely fallacious view of the Scopes trial as if it were factual and even in your handling of arguments here. I've not forgotten your Message 73 where you accused me of "dishonesty" and admonished me to "follow the dialogue" when if YOU had been following the dialogue you would have known that your accusation was baseless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote:In the same sense that there is controversy over whether the Earth is flat. A completely trivial sense that should have no bearing on educational policy. quote: That is not what I said. I said that they are not SCIENCE and should not be taught in a science class.
quote:It is a fact that if you use General Relativity to "rewind" the history of the Universe then you will get to a singularity. The Big Bang itself is solid scientific fact. If, therefore, you want to use the word "singularity" to refer to the earliest state of the universe (which is a loose usage but seems to be often done) it makes sense. quote: Since there is life now and all the evidence indicates that there was a time when there was no life I suppose some form of abiogenesis must have happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Those are your words, not mine.
quote: I didn't say that it did. You miss out half my argument - the fact that the evidence indicates that there was a time when life did not exist.
quote:Obviously there ought to be something at that point. You might as well call it the singularity. It can't be far off. Please don't try to fish for the answers you want. I'm not about to change my position to suit your arguments.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024