Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Behe was an expert witness at the Dover intelligent design trial. When asked in court whether his definition of science would allow astrology to be considered science, Behe answered, "Yes."

0 Replies

What Behe has said is "Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences." When pushed on that point he admitted that astrology could be analyzed within the same parameters; i.e. scientifically. He did not say that astrology was science. I think it is fairly safe to believe that using physical data and logical inferences Behe is bright enough to reject astrology as a viable theory, scientific or otherwise.

0 Replies

As a reminder, I had been a rather more kind supporter of Behes work as a molecular biologist. In this thread alone I was accused of sort of being a Behe Apologist. I recall that Id said he had made some natural advances in sero chemistry and protein linkages. All that ws before he published his "Darwin's Black Box" POS. In my mind, I divorce his other professional work from his stand on ID and being the " co-discoverer" of Irreducible complexity.
All his irreducible complexity examples have been shown to be non irreducible by several scientists independently. The only reason that such refutation took longer than usual was that really, noone wanted to wste the time on a piece of science that had no real benefit.

His claim for the IC status of the eye had been first to tumble when a paleontologist from Vancouver had compiled the development of eyespots nd ocular systems from the fossil record and it had been shown to occur in many different classes of genomically related species.

His claim on IC status for blood clotting went next with the discovery of several classes of chordata creatures whose "blood" clots with half the "enzyme cascade" that he states is critical

Lastly, the flagellum and rotator "engine" has been shown to be a common occurence in much simpler life forms each having a component of the rotator/stator contrivance that Behe said was proof positive

He ays that hes working on others and , at DOver he was soundly made to look the fool by the plaintiffs attorney when he was stuttering about the status of astrology fitting his definition of science--No foxy, he was that dumb when he was on the stand. The record speaks for itself.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What Behe has said is "Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences." When pushed on that point he admitted that astrology could be analyzed within the same parameters; i.e. scientifically. He did not say that astrology was science. I think it is fairly safe to believe that using physical data and logical inferences Behe is bright enough to reject astrology as a viable theory, scientific or otherwise.

Although I was called "dishonest" by this poster on another because I didn't copy/paste a full report ...

At least, my quote was as orioginal and not falsified as above.

Quote:

Q: And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Source: court transcript

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

The only reason that such refutation took longer than usual was that really, noone wanted to wste the time on a piece of science that had no real benefit.

So why are you all wasting time on it then? As I'm the only regular opponent on here of anti-IDers it looks like you are prepared to waste your time rather than take me on. That's what a straw man is and straw is dead. I didn't mean Micky was dead obviously. I should think having 9 consuming Americans to satisfy must make him a bit driven. Had he inherited wealth? Contacts? You know.

What fm really means by wasting time is running around like headless chickens.

Is he actually more interesting to you than the Zulu post of mine or is it that, apart from Joe, he is more convenient.

0 Replies

For the record, I did not call Walter dishonest. I try very hard not to call Walter anything. I did say that a paragraph was posted in a way to give a dishonest impression. I corrected that impression by putting the paragraph into context.

0 Replies

Joe wrote-

Quote:

Darwinian theology? What is that, some kind of oxymoron?

I chose the word to give you all a giggle. Poetic licence really. It would give a Cardinal a giggle or at least a subtly raised eyebrow.

Sorry Joe.

0 Replies

Look Foxy- we are not bothered who posted what when and how or whether they are dishonest or not which I'm sure is not the case in this case.

The debate is about schooling millions of kids. It's not a ping-pong match.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Look Foxy- we are not bothered who posted what when and how or whether they are dishonest or not which I'm sure is not the case in this case.

The debate is about schooling millions of kids. It's not a ping-pong match.

Would that this could be true. I wish the debate could be about educating kids instead of who can best who in throwing insults at Spendi or find a more creative way to characterize Foxfyre as a religous nut and other edifying activities.

It would be interesting and appropriate to discuss Behe's theories re ID for instance, but alas, already the focus is on trying to make Behe into an idiot and thereby avoid any valid points he might have to contribute to the debate. If there was a debate I mean.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Behe was an expert witness at the Dover intelligent design trial. When asked in court whether his definition of science would allow astrology to be considered science, Behe answered, "Yes."

Hehe, I know, wasn't that GREAT! Smile

Behe skipped shooting his ideas in the foot and moved straight to shooting them in the head.

0 Replies

I can show astrology to be scientific in its proper context. I did so on the Questions Games nearly two years ago. The fact that you egomaniacs don't understand it is neither here nor there. What I mean by that is that it of no consequence whatsoever what you understand.

You use the idiotic astrological bullshit in your morning paper as a straw man because any 5 year old can **** on that without breaking sweat. You underestimate human beings. Obviously. Being so phucking brilliant yourselves.

0 Replies

Whoa, there, spendi. Where did that come from? It's out of "character."

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

Would that this could be true. I wish the debate could be about educating kids instead of who can best who in throwing insults at Spendi or find a more creative way to characterize Foxfyre as a religous nut and other edifying activities.

It would be interesting and appropriate to discuss Behe's theories re ID for instance, but alas, already the focus is on trying to make Behe into an idiot and thereby avoid any valid points he might have to contribute to the debate. If there was a debate I mean.

Well we might make it true if we really try a bit harder and place ourselves second.

Mr Behe might have some valid points to contribute. If he has it's about time he brought them forward. He looks to me like the guy who's holding the match to light the third fag.

0 Replies

Just fancy though. Attempting to erect Dr Behe as the colours carrier of the anti-atheists. That's as bad as dressing a two year old up in boxing gear and beating the **** out of it.

0 Replies

Dr Behe's already been knocked out!

0 Replies

So why is he taking up all this debating space?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Foxy wrote-

Quote:
Would that this could be true. I wish the debate could be about educating kids instead of who can best who in throwing insults at Spendi or find a more creative way to characterize Foxfyre as a religous nut and other edifying activities.

It would be interesting and appropriate to discuss Behe's theories re ID for instance, but alas, already the focus is on trying to make Behe into an idiot and thereby avoid any valid points he might have to contribute to the debate. If there was a debate I mean.

Well we might make it true if we really try a bit harder and place ourselves second.

Mr Behe might have some valid points to contribute. If he has it's about time he brought them forward. He looks to me like the guy who's holding the match to light the third fag.

What Mr. Behe can contribute to the debate he has already contributed. He doesn't get entangled in raw semantics and general nitpicking. He thinks outside the box and whether I agree with him or not--on some points I do and some points I don't--he isn't confined by the status quo or conventional wisdom.

If you think about it, most scientific breakthroughs and almost all new ways of looking at anything have come from one individual who has been willing to think contrary to the conventional wisdom. And at some point he or she experiences an 'aha' moment that changes the conventional wisdom forever.

But based on this thread, it usually looks like only one point of view is accepted by the anti-IDers. The anti-IDers are willing to allow fallibility among those who form the popular scientific consensus--check in on the global warming thread for graphic illustration of that--but they won't allow an ID-er any wiggle room whatsoever. Let the IDer say one or two things that can be criticized in any way and s/he is declared an idiot, fanatic, screwball, wacko--pick the uncomplimentary characterization of choice--and nothing s/he has to offer will be considered.

And to me, that seems to be a very unscientific way to approach any issue.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If you think about it, most scientific breakthroughs and almost all new ways of looking at anything have come from one individual who has been willing to think contrary to the conventional wisdom. And at some point he or she experiences an 'aha' moment that changes the conventional wisdom forever.

Or, as in a VAST majority of the cases, the 'aha' moment turns out to be an 'oops' moment because the groundbreaking idea is just plain wrong (as Dr. Behe has repeatedly demonstrated).

0 Replies

fox, If you honestly believe that scientists only think within the box, you haven't learned anything about science.

0 Replies

I see that foxfyre is toning down her adulation of Mike Behe. As I said before, you must separate his original work from this attempt at jacking with the US Constitution and its reaffirmation in Edwards v Aguillard.
Behe was there in a clown suit when Phil Johnson gave the call for "Redefining Creationism" to be more acceptable to the courts. I dont really know hwhether Behes mid-career correction has affected his work or funding or reserach. He is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a totally "non scientific" association for the advancement of "the Science of Intelligent Design".

Now with the redefinition of "evolution" by these zealots, I suppose well have more accolytes besides spendi and foxfyre and badboy, and real life, and a few others to contend with.

REMEMBER dear IDers, Science doesnt spend one jot of a pulsation of a Cesium ion worrying about how it shall have to change its logo or stripes to be more acceptable to the courts and the candidates. Discovery Institute is the one busying itself with re-branding and mission changes all the time. Think theres an agenda?Such bullshit preaching should be given a special award for mere chutzpah.

We know that spendi is taken in by the ID concept as a worldview and feels that theres some worthy mission by being in the mix. Foxy , Im certain doesnt really understand what shes in favor of from post to post, and , Real Life(IMHO) is the pro in this group and he is part of the fold, but much better trained in the pedagogy of Creationism.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know