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

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.

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

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:

---

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

---

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:

---

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

---

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:

---

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

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

I think he is conforming to the standard set forth by his antagonists.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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

---

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.

quote:

---

If evolution does not begin until after life is on the planet earth what is it doing in the same sentence with creation which equals beginning?

---

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:

---

Science does not support the singularity yet.

---

Cosmology is a developing discipline - but ouir knowledge there is still expanding.

quote:

---

Science does support the Genesis 1:1 creation with the same exact observations made that you guys claim supports the big bang theory.

---

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.

quote:

---

Of course it's no secret... duh!

​

But you boys are the one that insist we use a particular kind of language to prove the case. We have! It's called the design inference.

---

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:

---

Perhaps you can show (emperically) an example of design that does not have a designer?

---

That would be a contradiction. Perhaps you can empirically show direct evidence fo the proposed designer at work ?

quote:

---

You could read John Polkinghorne's book 'One World' for some insight. He says, 'Did you know, that the ratio between the expansion and contraction of the universe had to be so precise, that it would litterally be like taking aim at a one inch square object on the other side of the universe, and hitting it bulls eye.... There's no free lunch, somebody has to pay'. (paraphrased)

---

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:

---

But you won't read it... it doesn't fit your agenda.

---

That is more typical of your side of the debate. I've seen it in action.

quote:

---

Therefore, we can do the same with DNA, RNA and biological structures.

​

You expect me to believe that structure and language can arise from natural causes that (as you said are expanding and coming apart)?

​

Then you show some emperical evidence without resorting to 'theo'ry, that is nothing but unemperical... 'thea'trical... 'speculation'.

---

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.

quote:

---

Of course I know he's a fellow at the Discovery Institute. Actually, come to think of it, he might even be a Senior Fellow at DI. But all of that doesn't matter since the Discovery Institute is about Intelligent Design, not creationism.

---

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 should also add that when people say ID and creationism are one and the same, how is that Percy, an evolutionist, distinguishes the forums as pertaining to Intelligent Design or creationism?

---

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:

---

I seriously doubt that is the case, being that his argument with flagellum, and more broadly, irreducible complexity, is based on how it is impossible to have arrived at even the simplest compounds without something necessitating the action thereof.

---

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:

---

It has to, as you said, add parts. How can you have nothing create something, albeit relatively simple, and arrive at higher more specified complexity if it is not actually adding?

---

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:

---

But aside from that, how was that supposed to answer my question? You calimed that Behe is only trying to smuggle in God, specifically. I asked you why you are so sure, aside from speculation. And this was your response. I'm not seeing how IC automatically assumes the Judeo-Christian God.

---

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:

---

Is his PhD less credible than anyone else's? You can't just say that he isn't a credible source simply because his view differs from yours.

---

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:

---

No kidding. Who said that Discovery Inst doesn't say there is a Designer? They readily assert that. What I'm saying is that assuming the Designer does not mean that you must assume the Judeo-Christian God.

---

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:

---

I'm saying, and apparently him to, that there is no direct link between God and available evidence. How many times have I said that God, by the very nature of it, is not proveable? I've said it multiple times.

---

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:

---

Behe is free to have whatever personal belief he wants. What he is also free to do is show evidence that supports the design inference. But really, what do you care? Why does it bother you to no end whether someone deduces that a Designer(s) exists?

---

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:

---

What DI would like to see, is an alternative theory available for students to surmise themselves, instead of the monopoly that currently exists. You must secretly be terrified at the prospect that someone might actually believe his argument.

---

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:

---

What do they regularly lie about?

---

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:

---

There is a palpable fear among the masses that God not be let out of a box. This fearmongering by a certain group, of its own party line wants desperately to keep anything that might remotely be interpreted as God out of the way.

---

Rubbish. The fearmongering comes from the DI.

quote:

---

ID simply says that a Designer must exist, and that evidence of the design illustrates a Designer. Will most people likely assume God? Probably. But they don't need to be made sorry for that. They aren't teaching theology mixed with science as AiG or ICR. Science isn't interested in theological questions anymore than mathematics would be. Nor should I expect it to, unless it so happens to corroborate a claim.

​

What I abhor is trying to find scientific evidence that can be manipulated into conforming with the Bible which some creationists are apt to do.

​

Do you see the difference now?

---

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:

---

That you've ruled out a Designer before the inquiry even began. Its like you're looking for the answer of 2 + 2, all the while denying the possibility of 4 as a credible answer.

---

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:

---

What is he not being honest about that you can pinpoint? If you say that he's dishonest, give me some reason to assume that.

---

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

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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.

quote:

---

The disparity is what I was trying to distinguish. Reason being, it was basically said that the ID movement is about pushing Christianity in schools. But that isn't true, and I gave an example.

---

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:

---

So what, though? If you get to say that ID is pushing Christianity, then I get to say that evolutionists are pushing atheism by the same token.

---

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:

---

It springs from looking around you and surmising that 0 + 0 = everything doesn't add up. Its a logical deduction with or without Christianity. Heck, these teleological arguments predate Christianity and are well attested for in virtually the entire pantheon, albeit, however crude their arguments may have been.

---

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:

---

t springs from a philosophical view just like most everything else. Darwin's initial observations follow science. I make a point not to demonize the man, as he was just doing his job. His predecessors have taken on all of the trappings associated with the postmodernist movement that swept through Europe during the time when Origins were completed. For most evolutionists it is not, by any stretch, a dispassionate endeavor. There is much philosophical meaning derived from it. Your forum, alone, is ample evidence of that.

---

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.

quote:

---

So there is a controversy of sorts.

​

Not an absence of controversy of sorts.

---

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:

---

So you say his findings are not fact and should not be taught in a science class.

---

That is not what I said. I said that they are not SCIENCE and should not be taught in a science class.

quote:

---

Is singularity a scientific fact?

---

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:

---

Is abiogenesis a scientific fact?

---

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.

quote:

---

So Behe's findings are not scientific fact therefore should not be taught in a science class.

---

Those are your words, not mine.

quote:

---

Does life existing make abiogenesis a scientific fact?

---

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:

---

I did not ask about TBB. I was refering to the point that GR breaks down and can not tell us anything.

---

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.