Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2018 9:48 AM
255 online now:
herebedragons, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (6 members, 249 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,582 Year: 10,405/29,783 Month: 1,069/1,583 Week: 87/451 Day: 19/68 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
11NextFF
Author Topic:   Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 1 of 152 (414275)
08-03-2007 5:45 PM


Behe made an appearance last night on The Colbert Report. During the interview, Stephen tried a couple of times to get Behe to admit that the I in ID = god, but he wasn't having much luck. Behe side stepped the questions both times.

At the very end of the interview, tho, Stephen asked a long and confusing question about IC and god along the lines of (paraphrasing here) "Doesn't IC show god's handiwork?" Behe immediately said "Oh but it does! He ...!" The minute the word "he" slipped out, Behe shut up and put his hand to his mouth. Stephen lit up like christmas tree. "What?!" He said. "What did you say?" Before Behe could think up an excuse Stephen stuck out his hand and thanked him for the interview.

Has this happened before? Has Behe shown his creo leanings?

Edited by molbiogirl, : typo

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")" part to the topic title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rob, posted 08-03-2007 6:14 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded
 Message 3 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2007 6:35 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 7:03 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded
 Message 17 by anastasia, posted 08-03-2007 10:47 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 2 of 152 (414282)
08-03-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by molbiogirl
08-03-2007 5:45 PM


:laugh:

He tries to do what you guys ask... put it all in 'secular language' that you can understand all the while being PC.

But even that is not good enough. You guys (and gals) will not even accept 'genuine scientific inference to the best explaination'.

There must be some motive...

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.
" (Aldous Huxley / Ends and Means)

Roland Barthes, would agree... “Refusing to assign a ‘secret,’ ultimate meaning” to text “liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law.” (Barthes / Death of the Author)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by molbiogirl, posted 08-03-2007 5:45 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2007 6:39 PM Rob has responded
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2007 6:39 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-03-2007 6:55 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 312 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 3 of 152 (414298)
08-03-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by molbiogirl
08-03-2007 5:45 PM


Has this happened before? Has Behe shown his creo leanings?

I'm tempted to say that if Behe had never showed his creo leanings, we would never have heard of him.:)

However, I know what you mean. I don't know of an incident of him actually saying "goddunnit", but here's an example of the usual party line when questioned, from an interview in the U.K. Guardian when he was over here (proselytizing!).

quote:
JS: It's no secret that you are a Catholic. But, as I understand it, your scientific theory does not predicate God in any form whatsoever. You've suggested that the designer could even be some kind of evil alien. Is that right?

MB: That's exactly correct. All that the evidence from biochemistry points to is some very intelligent agent. Although I find it congenial to think that it's God, others might prefer to think it's an alien - or who knows? An angel, or some satanic force, some new age power. Something we don't know anything about yet.

JS: But you're not reinserting God into the mix?

MB: No, we focus simply on the observation of design. We don't say the designer is God.


Not all the Discovery Institute scientists are so cautious. I remember watching a geologist (name of Meyer, I think) about a year ago in a T.V. debate saying that he thought the designer was the Christian God in a very definite way, as if trying to appeal to Christians in the audience. No one had asked him who the designer was.

I remember thinking at the time that perhaps they had pretty much given up on getting past your church/state laws and getting I.D. into the public schools, because the video wouldn't have looked good in any future trials.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by molbiogirl, posted 08-03-2007 5:45 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14198
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 4 of 152 (414301)
08-03-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rob
08-03-2007 6:14 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rob, posted 08-03-2007 6:14 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rob, posted 08-03-2007 10:27 PM PaulK has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6439
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 152 (414303)
08-03-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rob
08-03-2007 6:14 PM


Aldous Huxley / Ends and Means

If Aldous Huxley ever joins us here for a debate, you are free to bring that up.

In the meantime, if the motives of anyone else is ever relevant to the discussion, you can always ask them.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rob, posted 08-03-2007 6:14 PM Rob has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5547
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 6 of 152 (414305)
08-03-2007 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rob
08-03-2007 6:14 PM


No problem at all
He tries to do what you guys ask... put it all in 'secular language' that you can understand all the while being PC.

That's how I see it too. No matter what Behe says, whether he tries to accomodate the opposition or not, he will inevitably be in the same boat in their eyes.

I have a similar stance as Behe does. I believe in special creation, however, I object to science attempting to conform to belief. This is a bad character flaw that I see in many avowed creationists. But I should add that evolutionists are just as indictable, only in the opposite direction.

Aside from which, there are practical reasons for how I have deduced what I have. There are limits to what the physical world can explain. Science is only equipped in dealing with the natural, not the supernatural. In my estimation, we are only able to see design. From a scientific standpoint, you cannot assume God when detecting design. All you can assume, is design.

This is why I say that I am an ID'ist, not a creationist.

Unfortunately, that's all you need to say to get the atheistic community up at arms. That's because they understand the implications. If there is design, then obviously there is/are designer(s).

My belief says that design is God. And I know Behe feels the same in his personal life.

Behe's detractors, though, want to believe that he is smuggling in God through the backdoor. What they fail to realize is, if there really is a God who is responsible for all of the laws of nature, at some point, there is no way of getting around that point.

So why must Behe be expected to walk around eggshells when they have automatically ruled design and/or God out of bounds as an a priori rule?


"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 message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rob, posted 08-03-2007 6:14 PM Rob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2007 7:15 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 106 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-07-2007 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 567 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 152 (414309)
08-03-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by molbiogirl
08-03-2007 5:45 PM


!!!
i hope they show this again tonight, on the re-run hour (7:30?). either way, this'll be a youtube classic
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by molbiogirl, posted 08-03-2007 5:45 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-03-2007 7:31 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14198
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 8 of 152 (414312)
08-03-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
08-03-2007 6:55 PM


Re: No problem at all
quote:

That's how I see it too. No matter what Behe says, whether he tries to accomodate the opposition or not, he will inevitably be in the same boat in their eyes.

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:

I have a similar stance as Behe does. I believe in special creation, however, I object to science attempting to conform to belief. This is a bad character flaw that I see in many avowed creationists. But I should add that evolutionists are just as indictable, only in the opposite direction.

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:

Aside from which, there are practical reasons for how I have deduced what I have. There are limits to what the physical world can explain. Science is only equipped in dealing with the natural, not the supernatural. In my estimation, we are only able to see design. From a scientific standpoint, you cannot assume God when detecting design. All you can assume, is design.

This is why I say that I am an ID'ist, not a creationist.


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:

Behe's detractors, though, want to believe that he is smuggling in God through the backdoor. What they fail to realize is, if there really is a God who is responsible for all of the laws of nature, at some point, there is no way of getting around that point.

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:

So why must Behe be expected to walk around eggshells when they have automatically ruled design and/or God out of bounds as an a priori rule?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-03-2007 6:55 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-03-2007 7:47 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 3:08 AM PaulK has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5547
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 9 of 152 (414317)
08-03-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
08-03-2007 7:03 PM


Re: !!!
either way, this'll be a youtube classic

I just looked and they had it, but it was removed by the user. Eh, someone else will post it eventually I suspect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 08-03-2007 7:03 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5547
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 10 of 152 (414322)
08-03-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
08-03-2007 7:15 PM


Re: No problem at all
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.

What credible evidence are you basing your suspicions on, especially in light of the fact that he shuns the creation camp simply because the perception of such would give him a bad name?

Behe doesn't beleive in special creation - or if he does he's lying when he says that he accepts common descent.

I'm pretty sure that he does, unless, of course, he has no opinion on his origin.

Except that we don't see intelligent design. THere is no design theory which even starts to take on evolution.

Give me a specific argument they support, then offer a specific rebuttle. Its pointless arguing over semantics without specifics.

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.

He seems to have been appointed as a credible source whether he wanted to or not.

Nobodies ruled it out. It just isn't science - as you admitted.

I said that the study of God is not a scientific endeavor, nor could it ever be by the very nature, or rather, the supernature of it. What I said, quite clearly, was that detecting design is.

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.

I think he is conforming to the standard set forth by his antagonists. For years, evolutions luminaries have made the argument that you can't make pronouncements about God from a scientific standpoint, being that science deals solely with physical evidence. Now that he obliges their objection, he is now accused of smuggling God through the back door.

Well, which is it? Or is Rob right?-- that no matter what they choose, they will always be trapped by contradictory and paradoxical regulations and conditions that prevent it from actually being achieved.

This is the a priori ruling out I speak of. Its damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Can you at least appreciate the unfair circumstance-- that you're presenting impossible conditions to meet?

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add


"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 message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2007 7:15 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2007 6:20 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3864
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 11 of 152 (414327)
08-03-2007 8:17 PM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2007 8:22 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6439
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 12 of 152 (414329)
08-03-2007 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Adminnemooseus
08-03-2007 8:17 PM


Is this the right place?
I'm not sure Creation/Evolution In The News is the right place for this thread either. Isn't this supposed to be a non-debate forum?

I would have thought that Intelligent Design or Is It Science? would have been better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-03-2007 8:17 PM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-03-2007 8:50 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3864
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 13 of 152 (414337)
08-03-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Chiroptera
08-03-2007 8:22 PM


Re: Is this the right place?
I was against the creation of the "In The News" forum, thinking that the topics would better belong in the other forums. Admin and a lot of the other admins thought otherwise. Topics can be started here directly, without having to go through the "Proposed New Topics".

Being that this forum does exist, this seems the place for the topic.

I view it as a debate forum.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2007 8:22 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17431
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 14 of 152 (414357)
08-03-2007 10:02 PM


TiVo Ad
My TiVo records The Colbert Report every night. I rarely watch it, too little time, but the last 5 shows are always there if I want them. So I see Message 1 about Behe's appearance last night and immediately go watch it.

YouTube's great, but TiVo's better!

--Percy

PS - The interview actually ended like this:

Colbert: We used to see mystery everywhere and explain it with God, but now everything science explains God gets smaller, and I think it's time for God to fight back.

Behe: Well, it turns out he has, because you were wrong, the more and more that science discovers...

Colbert: I was what?

Behe: <covers mouth with hand>

Behe is looking very Darwinesque these days.


  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 15 of 152 (414361)
08-03-2007 10:25 PM


Colbert available at comedycentral.com
Comedy Central has Colbert and Stewart available online:

Colbert Interviews


  
1
23456
...
11NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018