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

Anastasia: No... your falling into the materialist trap. Read your Bible... God is Spirit.What is matter anastasia?That is what the quantum is all about. Even matter is 'not matter' at the quantum realm. So these nice neat boxes that the naturalist likes to portray are full of holes.'Something', cannot be defined in purely material terms. Matter is only a perspective. It is a dimension, but not the only one.'The dimension of the transcendant can no longer be ignored'.The fact that we don't understand it, means only that 'everything is based on faith. And that is the whole piont of my thread on 'theo'.We can ultimately prove nothing... And that is why Rene Descates come to the conclusion, 'I think therefore I am'. but even that has it's limitations.Actually, the only thing we cannot doubt, is that we exist. So it is ultimately not a matter of proof, but of the inability to deny.And that is presicely what many do... they simply deny that anything (The word in particular) has any meaning at all beyond what we impose upon it. It's the only option to concluding in the affirmative of the great 'I Am'.And that is why NJ's answer to DrJones was so fitting...

Paulk I got another one of those stupid questions.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?Science does not support the singularity yet.Science does support the Genesis 1:1 creation with the same exact observations made that you guys claim supports the big bang theory.Enjoy

---

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

So when IDers claim that design requires a designer, they're lying?

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I am not in a trap. I am only repeating ideas I have heard. Whatever I personally believe is not important in determining truth. A spiritual, super-natural, incorporeal being is not necessarily un-caused. Angels are not God. I understand, matter is not only that which is visible or tangible. It is all of the laws, including gravity. Yes, that is not 'matter' as far as science goes, but God as an invisible force is 'materialization'.

NJ, Well, so am I. Doesn't mean I designed myself, even if I claimed it to be so. If the design inference is valid then it applies to the designer, too, or it's nothing more than fallacial special pleading.What you believe is irrelevant.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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.

Mark:You're conflating design with causation.

PaulK:Yes and that is why you can't do it...We have emperical evidence for design. When we see digital and pictographical languages in archeaology we infer design. We do not suppose that wind and erosion (natural processes) etched the patterns.And any machines that appear in the ashses, like chariots and brick cities, be they symmetrical or not, are not assumed to be natural either. We infer civilization.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'.A beast can really put on a show, but where's the beef?

Rob, No, I'm not (but even if I were it would still be special pleading), the original question had the word "design" in it.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Special pleading?God by definition is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. You cannot get bigger than that. He is the ultimate and supreme reality. If you don't believe me, believe Merriam-Websters.He most certainly is special. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.Only that which has a beginning needs a cause Mark. So the rules of cause and effect do not apply to God. It's the difference between time and eternity.It's not a convenient escape... it is simply the limits of logic, and our only choice, other than believing something came fro nothing. And that would be very unscientific since we know emperically that something exists. Alan Sandage J. N. Willford, March 12, 1991. 'Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest'. New York Times, p. B9 )

It seems strange to suggest that deterministic causality is some sort of unbreakable natural law when there is physical evidence to suggest otherwise whilst in the same breath assuming 'eternity' to be something more than a very human abstract concept despite there being no evidence for the actual existence of 'eternity' or the 'eternal' whatsoever.In terms of the actual evidence available your thinking seems very back to front.

Straggler:Well, I could say the same thing about your observation. How is it anything other than a human abstraction?You have to get outside of the box to make that stick.As for our assumptions of eternality. It is a matter of logical undeniability, rather than affirmative proof.Can I deny my own existenc without affirming it at the same time? After-all 'who' would be doing the denying? Wasn't it Descartes who concluded, 'one thing I cannot doubt, is that there is a doubter doing the doubting'?What is the alternative to eternality Straggler?I'll tell you the answer...We can believe that something came from nothing. That once there was nothing, and then 'poof'... out of that (which is nothing) came something.So it's the undeniablility, lest we resort to throwing logic out entirely. And then you would have some 'theologically bad type of metaphysics', but not science.So, you see, God and science are not at odds.Nosey brought up the algorithms in the computer thingy in another thread. But he neglects to factor in the laws themselves; in the case of his illustration they are designed by humans.And that is the real problem in terms of thermodynamics. What source (cause) of intelligently directed energy produced the laws? Becuase the laws themselves cannot produce it. And you can't infer an eternal material universe when it had a beginning and is chained to entropy. So matter cannot be eternal.But energy of some quantum kind can... And that is a different sort of kind, existence, or being.Look at Newton's quote here, and notice also how science is inexorably married to philosophy. Sir Isaac Newton, "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" (Other books written by Newton include "Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel", and "Principia Mathematical")

There is an answer... and it is not my intention... rather it is the only fitting scientific inference.It is called 'design'. (Sir Isaac Newton,
"Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" (Other books written by Newton include "Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel", and "Principia Mathematical") (Charles B. Thaxton. Ph.D,
Chemistry, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard, Staff member of the Julian Centre. "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories", Philosophical Library) (Ashby L. Camp,
'A Response to Priests Of Scientific Orthodoxy', in Human Events, Sept. 25, 2000)