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

The discussions so far have been about the evolution of living things. How did we back all the way up to the initiation of physical laws? Since there isn't a good answer for that I guess you have a pretty good gap to put your god into. Is that your intention?

How does that answer my question? What point?

For one thing, he has deliberately chosen to use a strawman of evolution which is known to be wrong. His IC can't evolve if each piece has to be added from scratch. He deliberately leaves out preadaption. So his "evolution" ignores the evidence of the development, e.g., of the mammalian middle ear. If he hasn't admitted that his idea of IC is wrong by now he is being disingenuous at best.

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.

The brotherhood has entry requirements. I'm not aware that those who work at meeting the requirements are forbidden to enter. An example is the young earther who has earned a PhD in paleontology (with controversy , of course but he got it).The problem is that you actually have to work very hard to meet the requirements. I am not a mathematician or a biologist but I can see for myself that Behe's arguments are wrong. Being able to support your arguments against intense criticism is one of the entry requirements. He put forward indefensible arguments and when they have been criticized he didn't defend them or change them.You are certainly allowed to speak out against what the brotherhood believes. Behe is doing so isn't he? But to have what you say believed you have to be able to support it. If you are on the outside you will have to work much harder at it but good arguments do win out in the end, even over extreme, irrational stubborn opposition (the brotherhood is made of humans too).Behe's arguments are ill founded. That is his problem; not the brotherhood.(PS be back in a few days) It maybe that "no" is misspeaking if some one is going to split hairs. There is however NO scientific controversy because Behe's ideas have been shown to be wrong and not answered by he or others. There is nothing left. His claims about IC are wrong and done with. He set them up as an evolutionary strawman in the first place so it is hard to imagine that he didn't know they were wrong. Given how he chose to promulgate them it appears that he did know when he started and he certainly knows now. Please start threads on these so they can be discussed.