"I'm an atheist, but I believe god created the universe"....
He says he thinks there's some evidence. From memory, he says that it's not much, and not enough to stop him being an atheist. He doesn't see this in biology, but more in some things in cosmology.
It's quite common in science for people to think there's some evidence that seems to support a hypothesis, but not enough to convince them that its true. So he's not really contradicting himself.
His position about education seems silly. Normally, you need a lot of evidence for something before it's likely to be taught at school level. From his point of view, he should be arguing that scientists should be discussing I.D. amongst themselves. But many of them do or have done, and found it sorely lacking in substance.
Real scientists are only interested in convincing their peers of new ideas at the first stage. It is political and religious minds that often take the indoctrination approach to education. A good sociologist of science would be able to tell that the Discovery Institute is not motivated by science from its behaviour, which doesn't fit the pattern of groups of scientists with a new hypothesis/theory at all.
Genuine new theories in science don't enter the education system at the school level. If well supported they would start at college and work downwards.
Which makes him not an atheist. An atheist believes there is no evidence. He is agnostic at best.
It goes without saying that he's agnostic, but if he doesn't actually believe in any gods he would have to be an atheist as well, surely. The two aren't mutually exclusive. (Agnostic-I don't know. Atheist-I don't believe).
It’s logical that his chapter 3 would be good for science classes.
No. It would be "logical" for him to convince the experts in the relevant fields that he actually does have evidence. He hasn't managed to convince himself yet. When you consider that, his suggestion about discussing it in schools is rather strange. If I thought I had evidence for something that wasn't in the mainstream of science and (unlike Monton) I was personally convinced by that evidence, it wouldn't occur to me to try to get it into schools. I'd be presenting my evidence to other adults, specifically, those with the best understanding of the relevant fields.
If you look at the development of new ideas in science through the ages, their initial proponents don't try to shove them directly in the faces of school children. They are concerned with convincing their peers, and testing their hypotheses against further observations.
Incidentally, there are many atheists, including Monton and Dawkins, who consider "god" to be a potential scientific hypothesis. You may not know this, but the idea of an a priori exclusion of such ideas from science tends to be pushed more enthusiastically by some of your fellow theists than by us atheists. People like me don't currently include god in science for the same reason that we don't currently include planets made of solid gold in science. Lack of evidence, not through some philosophy of science that doesn't allow those things.
One of the criticisms I have of the paper is that it commits the Sharpshooter falacy. Behe and Snoke are calculating the odds of something occuring after it has already occurred. This is painting the target around the bullet hole. For any given beneficial two-residue conversion there are literally billions that did not occur.
Exactly. Behe makes that mistake all the time, and the entire I.D. movement is riddled with that kind of thinking. I think that the psychological factor underlying it is their belief that things were intended to be as they are. When they talk about improbability in relation to biological features, the origin of life, and the fine tuning of the universe, it appears improbable to them that things could have arrived at the exact point that God wanted them to be "just by chance".
The only way I can think of explaining their obvious mistakes is the firm religious belief they have that we humans are the sharpshooter's ultimate target.
Besides, everyone already knows that E. coli are the supreme beings. Just look at how the universe had to be fine tuned just for them. It required a universe with specific laws that could give rise to perfectly adapted host organisms like H. sapiens. Without the specific features of the H. sapiens gastrointestinal tract the E. coli species could not exist. I think this is very obvious evidence that H. sapiens were designed just for E. coli.
Of course, if both life itself and any complex features that have arrived in the course of its history require the intervention of the Designer, the physics of the universe must have been rather clumsily fine tuned initially to make it sterile.
Such metaphysical ramblings are off topic here, unfortunately. On Behe and his sharpshooting problems, I can remember trying to explain them at length to a creationist on this thread over two years ago.
I don’t, though you shouldn’t preach the US constitution if you aint one of us, and aint here
You mean no preachification without representation? Just shoot when you see the whites of our typing.
Paul Revere writes:
Just like I don’t tell you how to be a subject of your Queen, I won’t hear anything from you people about our constitution. Mind your own business.
Actually, we're thinking of giving the Queen to the people of Missouri. It seems pointless to have a Christian theocratic leadership in a non-Christian country when a place like MO would really appreciate the unification of church and state under a protestant monarch.
Mind you, we want Ann Coulter in return, so we can torture her in the Tower.