Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wande quoted-

Quote:

McCain was able to acknowledge both science and religion -- evolutionary theory and creationism

the word "creationism" there has such a wide meaning that the whole sentence is meaningless. Religion cannot respectably by linked to creationism like that.

Thus the article is suspect. Not that I mind. There would be no point minding such things. They are as endemic as any tribes customs.

0 Replies

spendi wrote: the word "creationism" there has such a wide meaning that the whole sentence is meaningless. Religion cannot respectably by linked to creationism like that.

What other way is there to link religion to creationism? Do you mean there are variations to how they are linked?

0 Replies

Of course there are. Many.

id has the Creator paring his fingernals meditating upon what must be an infinite number of design faults and hoping one of his creations might get it right out of the gifts he gave them as a bird does when it tips its offspring out of the nest.

I have the general impression that ID is a money ramp.

Another difference is that id is not taught. It is found. It's quite easy- you just stop using art as a badge and study it as it is. Which is less easy. And not in schools. Heaven forbid. Schools are for showing people the doors and enthusing them to walk in.

0 Replies

spendi, You're talking gibberish again. Stay off the sauce for a short bit, will ya? Ya said creationism has a wide meaning, and therefore meaningless. But creationism IS linked to religion in all its errors and omissions. What are you trying to tell us?

0 Replies

And this:

Quote:

Darwinian theology must approve of it as it must approve of the finch's wing feathers and colours or a turtle's shell. That is because Darwinian theology rests on non-Christian grounds.

Darwinian theology? What is that, some kind of oxymoron? There is no such thing, just as there is no such thing as Darwinism (theology or otherwise) approving anything. Darwinism observes but does not judge, that is for those robes and mitered saints of church.

And the Zulu's behavior might have been changed by any number of other forces instead of the one you gave. Their neighboring enemies might have gathered together enough spears of their own and said
"Fecking Zulus who think they've got to stick us before they can bed down! Let's put the lot of them to sleep for good."

End of behavior.

Joe(How about Anglican Biology or Southern Baptist Algebra?)Nation

0 Replies

From a science blog:

Quote:

The incompetence is stunning. Richard Dawkins makes the Time 100 list, and who do they commission to write up his profile?

Michael F**king Behe.

That's not just stupid, it's a slap in the face. It would have been no problem to find a smart biologist, even one who might be critical of Dawkins' message, to write something that expressed some measure of respect from the editorial staff. But to dig up a pseudoscientific fraud whose sole claim to fame is that he has led the charge to corrupt American science education for over a decade is shameful.

0 Replies

Quote:

Michael J. Behe was graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. He did his graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and was awarded the Ph.D. in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978-1982 he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982-85 he was Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University where he is currently Professor of Biochemistry. In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and one book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which argues that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design. Darwin's Black Box has been reviewed by the New York Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and over one hundred other periodicals. He and his wife reside near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, with their eight children.

http://www.meta-library.net/bio/behe-body.html

Doesn't sound like a rightwing religious wacko to me. He may be a devout Catholic or passionate Protestant though with all those kids. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

Farmerman has actually met Dr. Behe. I am wondering what farmerman thinks of this.

0 Replies

Kerthof's review of Behe is HERE

It does provide a non combative and analytical discussion of Behe's views with what appears to be most of the pros and cons anybody could think up.

0 Replies

There's little point championing someone on the basis of credentials alone, either their positions stand up to scrutiny or they do not.

Behe makes unsubstantiated claims of a supernatural basis.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Farmerman has actually met Dr. Behe. I am wondering what farmerman thinks of this.

Most certainly similar to Behe's department:

Behe's website at Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University

0 Replies

What claims does he make that he does not acknowledge that they cannot be substantiated, Chumly?

0 Replies

Irreducible complexity and intelligent design.

0 Replies

walter, I do believe you have joined the company of posters foxfyre refuses to acknowledge because they challenged her "facts". You join good company.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Irreducible complexity and intelligent design.

He has said there is scientific sustantiation for these? I didn't read his stuff that way nor do I think his reviewers are saying that, but you could be right. Can you give an example? And what have the scientists provided as substantiation that he is wrong in his theories on these?

0 Replies

Drat! Another page widener to cope with and all for nothing. There are no Beheists debating on this thread. What the hell has Dr Behe got to do with id?

What Foxy failed to tell us about him is his background before he entered the educational system. What advantages he had in life I mean that could push him higher up the "academic" acheivement ladder than his innate capacities deserved. That's much more important than listing the other stuff. One can learn how to do the "academic" part by application like one can learn how to do what music makers do. Anybody who has eight kids is off his rocker and, when you consider how much polluting these eight new Americans are going to be going in for in their 80 (?) years on this planet, downright dangerous if the scientists are to be believed. One couldn't even trust his avowed taste in music on the basis that that is often a pose.

And he's not on this thread for you to debate with. Which means, if you are debating with him, it's in your bathroom mirror and we can all win arguments there. You are debating with me.

Dr Behe's in the alley
With his polished shoes and his suit
He's speaking with some lawyer
Who also has no root
And I would send a message
To find out what he's said
By my fingers is all gone stiff
And anyway he's dead.

You can't learn how to do what Mozart did. Or, dare I say, Bob Dylan.

He's the straw man the anti-IDers have been jacking off on for the last two years. Or one of them.

0 Replies

Short answer to your question, Foxfyre:

All of the examples provided by Dr. Behe, although complex,
have been shown not to be irreducible
(instead individual components of the complex systems
are selectable and have evolved through
natural processes).

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Irreducible complexity and intelligent design.

He has said there is scientific sustantiation for these? I didn't read his stuff that way nor do I think his reviewers are saying that, but you could be right. Can you give an example? And what have the scientists provided as substantiation that he is wrong in his theories on these?

You want me to substantiate whether Behe substantiates that he acknowledges that his claims are not substantiated? Your joking.

And then you ask "what have the scientists provided as substantiation that he is wrong in his theories on these?" Now you want me to prove that pigs don't fly. You must be joking.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Short answer to your question, Foxfyre:

All of the examples provided by Dr. Behe, although complex,
have been shown not to be irreducible
(instead individual components of the complex systems
are selectable and have evolved through
natural processes).

Dr. Behe flat out admits that many of his conclusions on the subject are beyond the ability of science to explain, support, or falsify. In that sense he and I are kindred spirits though I claim none of the expertise he can claim. He is certainly in a minority among academics in his views and may be in a minority among scientists in general in his views. But as I know quite a few scientists with PhDs who would largely agree with Dr. Behe, I think most intelligent people would at least not discount such concepts in the general debate.

So far as I know, I do not believe Dr. Behe has claimed that his views on ID should be included in scientific curriculum. He neverthless, as a scientist, has come to certain conclusions that current scientific principles are unable to prove or disprove.

This is the argument I've been making all along and why I will continue to say that no science teacher worth his salt would say that ID does not exist and that this is a fact because science cannot support the concept.

0 Replies

The fact of the matter remains that Behe makes unsubstantiated claims of a supernatural basis and I did not say that Behe said "there is scientific sustantiation for these".

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know