Critic of evolution attacks scientists (Reuters)

[NashVegas]

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - A leading U.S. critic of evolution accused two scientific organizations on Tuesday of politics and misleading the public in their rejection of "intelligent design."

He also compared intelligent design -- which holds that nature is so complex it must have been the work of a creator -- to the "Big Bang" theory, saying it just may take time for scientists to accept it.*

"The National Academy of Sciences treats intelligent design in a way what I consider utterly misleading. Talk about scholarly malfeasance!" said Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.

Behe also criticized the American Association for the Advancement of Science in testimony in a federal lawsuit brought by 11 parents who are challenging their school district for introducing intelligent design to science classes.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=dom...

* I find something chilling about that statement.

[pinniped]

1. Is this like their main monkey or something?

I was searching around the net and everytime I saw something crazy this chump's name was attached.

[depakid]

7. Yep- one of them. The other monkey's name is Dembski

He's from Baylor- and they're none too pleased with him either- even down in Waco, Texas!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski

[lakercub]

27. Wells

Jonathan Wells is another Discovery Institute guy who we need to keep our eye on. I believe he is also a fan of the *ahem* Reverend Moon.

[enki23]

39. but dembski isn't a scientist

.

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. So? Behe has no qualifications in the field of evolutionary biology...

or physics, either. He's a molecular biologist. Which makes him about as qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject as an auto mechanic is to repair a jet engine.

[enki23]

48. that's not really true. behe, though i think he's a fool, has every right

so does dembski, for that matter. it's just that he clearly, if you read his writings, hasn't the foggiest clue what science is all about. behe, for all his wrongheadedness, does.

[henslee]

2. Great, biochemists waste time debating evolution while global warming

destroys our planet. There are so many misguided assholes on this earth.

[Dudley_DUright]

3. The comparison to the big bang is totally specious

The big bang model makes detailed predictions and has a huge amount of evidence supporting it (and I teach a course on cosmology). Intelligent design has no evidence supporting it and is not even science.

[Ms. Toad]

47. The other thing is

that the intelligent design "theory" has the same identical relationship with the big bang theory (the orbit of planets, quantum physics, etc) as it does with evolution. Each of these complex mathematical models/theories could be described as too intricate to have occurred by chance. That doesn't change that the scientific theories are accurate models for describing what we observe and/or making predictions based on those models, and it certainly doesn't compete with them because it doesn't explain the same thing.

Actually, that is where I think the ID folks blew it (and we're blowing it by not pointing it out every time it is suggested as a competing theory). Creationism was a competing "theory" in the sense that the biblical story of creation (or at least the one that the proponent happened to believe in) was touted as a substitute for evolution. ID is not. ID merely says all of this ordered complexity could not have occurred without the involvement of an intelligent designer - that leaves the mechanics of evolution still up to science.

OK - so the universe had an intelligent designer. What part of the theory of evolution does that replace? None. What part of the theory of evolution is incompatible with having an intelligent designer? None. So why on earth should it be offered as an alternate theory for something it is completely compatible with? End of argument.

[depakid]

4. Good thing he has tenure...

Because he certainly seems like he's an embarrassment to the Biological Science Department...

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function.

This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years.

The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Oh, how belligerent these right-wingers can be with their political

correctness.

[xchrom]

6. you can never, ever prove intelligent design.

it's something that you could only ''accept'' -- it is a chilling remark.

and it's meant to be.

it's the word ''theory'' in the hands of the ignorant that has brought us to this stupid cul de sac.
it's a ''hugh1'' waste of words to defend evolution against barbarians like this.

[Brooklyn Michael]

24. Sure you can prove it...

.....you just have to be dead to do so.

[jody]

8. Behe "refuted the Academy's statement that intelligent design theory

attributed the complexity of nature to 'the hand of God.' 'I advocated none of those ideas.'"

If ID is not by "the hand of God" as Behe said, then pray tell me what power/force/authority does drive ID?

[depakid]

9. Need you ask

[jody]

11. I know but "Intelligent Design" with no "Designer" is humorous. n/t

[depakid]

17. They do claim to have some "principles"

which they've perverted from systems science....

If you really want to know (and don't mind some esoteric jagon), they've got a whole "society" called International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID).

http://www.iscid.org /

It's an embarrassment to entire the systems science community- which is pretty cutting edge (and therefore controversial) as it is.

For comparison's sake- these folks are the genuine article:

http://www.santafe.edu /

[jody]

18. Santa Fe Institute is an interesting concept but I don't believe it's a

leading authority on the perils of ID.

[depakid]

20. LOL- No, they don't much like it

when you bring the subject up.

It's kind of a sore spot....

We're talking guy's like Murray Gell-Mann.

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm /

[unpossibles]

12. duh?!?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course!

[hatrack]

16. I, too, have been touched by His Noodly Appendage!

More are touched every day!!

[eggman67]

23. Aliens n/t

[Kailassa]

40. A rose by any other name ...

Can't spell.

[Azathoth]

10. Behe is the guy behind the "irreducible complexity" garbage

He's one of a handful of well-educated, highly intelligent fundie scientists who have decided to devote all their energies to making science subservient to preconceived ideology.

[megatherium]

26. Behe is Roman Catholic.

Not a "fundie" evangelical.

Kenneth Miller, a prominent biologist and textbook writer, is also Roman Catholic. He's the author of the well-regarded book Finding Darwin's God, which basically rips Behe's lungs out. (Fine book if you're interested in this subject.)

[hunter]

28. Um, so?

I'm thinking I see all sorts of Catholics at Mass.

But I really don't understand Catholics who go out of their way to support "fundies" who believe Catholics will rot in hell.

People like Behe, or Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, they must have some pretty twisted souls...

[megatherium]

36. the point being the ID people are not young earth creationists

in drag. Not all of them, at least. There are more than a few scientists who have trouble believing that life just happened by chance. I have been told biochemists are particularly prone to this. I have read that some biologists will say (in private) that we know that all life has descended from a common ancestor that appeared 3.8 billion years ago, but everything else is just propaganda. That is, there are credentialed biologists who are skeptical of the doctrine that life originated without design or intention on an abiotic Earth.

Now I am not prepared to say that ID is a reasonable or valid explanation for the origin of life. As I mentioned in my last post, I found the book by Kenneth Miller to be very persuasive.

But the salient point here is that ID is not young earth creationism; the ID proponents are not all fundamentalist evangelical Christians. (Some are Catholic, some are Jewish, and some are Deist.) I cringe whenever the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes its appearance on these threads. It's a charming joke, but it misses the point, as far as ID goes. ID isn't good science, but it isn't Genesis seven-days-of-creationism literalism, either.

[HereSince1628]

13. How long did it take for scientists to accept the big bang? 40 years

at most. The argument from design has been around centuries, and in its current incarnation as ID for several decades. The ID argument isn't making much progress in demonstrating it is a productive theory or in gaining acceptance within science.

The big bang was proposed about 1927, mostly in order to explain the observation that everything in the universe seemed to be moving apart.
By 1965 observations of microwave radiation predicted from derivative work with the developing theory provided positive evidence in its favor.

So the big band theory quickly became a productive theory and generated testible predictions that yielded evidence that argued for its acceptance within 40 years of its inception.

ID is really a version of Paley's Argument from Design and has been around for several centuries without providing testible predictions or evidence. It is reasonable to believe it will never be accepted as a explanation that is scientifically productive.

If we only consider the contemporary ID argument, (that I am aware has been around since the late 80's and it may have been around longer), ID is not looking so good for generating acceptance. After at least 20 years ID has provided no testible predictions, and no positive evidence accepted by scientists (ID supporters would argue that the prediction of irreducible complexity indicated by inability of science to produce an explanation for the evolution of specific complex biological structures and processes has been demonstrated at several levels of biological resolution. Biologists suggest that what is really evidenced is insufficient scientific insight or yet incomplete understanding).

Considering how accelerated contemporary activity of science is compared to 1927, 20 years is a very long time for an argument to be floating around science and yet unable to provide information necessary and sufficient to cause to move scientists toward it's acceptance.

I wouldn't worry about scientists accepting it any time in the foreseeable future.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. You know what I don't get?

WHO CARES?

Geez. What a non-issue. Science in school, religion in church. End of story. Life is short enough without all of this.

[Kailassa]

41. But if no scientists argue against them, I.D. will be taught in schools.

We mightn't care about IDiots believing unprovable stuff like this if they were content to just believe it themselves and leave others to their own beliefs.

But they are trying to teach this in schools, which would push American kids even further back into the Dark Ages. If I.D. is offered as an "alternative", you will find fewer and fewer kids understanding science at all, as they see this as a much simpler alternative to anything requiring genuine thought.

[Jim__]

15. Appears that Behe lied in his testimony

From the article:

He refuted the Academy's statement that intelligent design theory attributed the complexity of nature to "the hand of God."

"I advocated none of those ideas," Behe said. "I take this as a political statement unsupported by any references."

And, later in the article:

A lawyer for the parents produced an article by Behe saying the theory of intelligent design would be undermined without the existence of God. Earlier in the day Behe denied intelligent design was equivalent to creationism.

Hmmmmm ...

[maxrandb]

19. I Wish God would Just Come Down and Smack the Crap out of these people

God: "Listen loser, I am the creator, and I created evolution! and I'd appreciate it if you would stop using my son to further your political agenda"

[Barrett808]

25. S/He's laughing too hard. n/t

[opihimoimoi]

21. Behe is nuts...a fool trying to act normal...

[papau]

22. Biochemist(Lehigh's Behe)argues intelligent design not same as creationism

http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20051019/ts_chicagotr...

Biochemist (Lehigh's Behe) argues intelligent design not same as creationism

By Lisa Anderson Tribune national correspondent

<snip>The plaintiffs argue that intelligent design--which posits that some aspects of life, yet unexplained by evolution, are best attributed to an unnamed and unseen intelligent designer--really is a disguised version of creationism, the adherence to the biblical account of creation (rather than a scientific theory that relies on physical, empirical, observable evidence in nature plus logical inferences).

Under direct examination, Behe said that intelligent design takes no position on key elements of creationism, such as an Earth age of less than 10,000 years believed by many creationists, and makes no reference to the Bible or a creator.

Behe, who identifies himself as a Roman Catholic, said that although intelligent design cannot scientifically identify the designer and does not rule out a natural cause, he believes it is God. Behe is the author of 1996's "Darwin's Black Box," a touchstone of the design movement.

Intelligent design can infer there is a designer from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" in complex biochemical processes such as blood clotting, that evolution cannot explain, he said. It doesn't matter that the designer is not named, he said.<snip>

[e-mail]

[Emillereid]

29. Hume took care of the 'intelligent design' aka the 'watchmaker'

theory back in the 18th century. The final blow to the theory is that while the universe is indeed complex and does make the mind ponder about a designer, a designer is also very complex and begs the question as to who or what created the him or her or it. Of course, this argument can go on ad infinitum.

Until the ID (pun intended) theory can postulate testable hypotheses, it is not a scientific theory and thus belongs in a philosophy or religion class -- or in history's dustpin of whacky ideas.

[hallc]

30. he is a disgrace to scientists everywhere

nt

[sakabatou]

31. Helloooo... ID is not a theory

Hell, it's not even scientific.

[rainidame]

32. Even IF it were a legit theory. . .

I have to say that I kind of wonder sometimes if evolution and ID can't live side by side, because gosh, it may have taken whomever it was that was "intelligent" many tries to get things the way he/she wanted. HOWEVER, my biggest argument with ID is that it appears to be focused on the concept on ONE intelligence when in fact it is all so complicated that if it is a design of intelligence, I doubt that only ONE entity would be involved, so instead of taking me to the concepts of xianity, it takes me to the concepts of roman, greek, and egyptian "mythology." AND that is just too far back to go without some semblence of proof.

[sakabatou]

33. It's a BS answer for "I give up"

[reprobate]

46. Great! Now the multiverse was designed by a COMMITTEE?

Don't know about that, but for sure the United States was designed by a committee and that eventually evolved into George W. Bush.

Not what I'd call a positive argument for ID.

[Kablooie]

34. Shame that some people never evolved past the monkey phase.

[Ellen Forradalom]

35. Intelligent design theory is an oxymoron

"It's so complex we can't possibly understand it therefore it is the work of a creator" is not the product of the scientific method.

First, it freezes the state of our understanding of nature as of today. I don't think that anyone disputes the enormous challenge that the study of nature poses. But to simply explain it as "the work of a creator" is to reject that study. It is puzzling after several hundreds years of dizzying strides in our understanding of natural phenomena.

Second, to simply point to a creator explains nothing. It simply opens questions--What is the nature of this creator? How did this creator do the job? -- for which there is no proposed method for determining the answer.

The question of a creator, and the questions of the workings of nature, are answerable by separate methods, the first by philosophical and theological reasoning, and the second by empirical study. And both must be accepted as fields where knowledge is never complete.

What I'd like to know is why does anyone have to write the above four paragraphs in this day and age?

[sofa king]

37. Critic of waves slaps at ocean. Film at 11.

[warrens]

38. what a twit

Why does anyone take this guy seriously? He's ONE person vs. literally thousands in his field. There's some geologist who swears the earth is only 6,000 years old, but everyone knows he's a crackpot. Just like this idiot.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

43. A friend had a fundie as his partner in college physics lab

Whenever the process of solving a problem got difficult and required some hard thinking, she'd just write in her lab book, "Because God made it that way!" Case closed!

[eridani]

45. That will be the answer to every single question in a science class--

--if these whackjobs get their way.

[Robeson]

44. Why is this person given a forum and put on a news outlet?....

...this reminds me of the 80's, when they started letting the Falwell's and the like, have equal billing with legitimate intellectuals and politicians on shows. He should have never been given a forum, nor should this shaman.

[ashling]

49. grammar by intelligent design?

did he learn grammar by intelligent design?
in a way what I consider