It's a shame the phrase "intelligent design" has been snatched up by the creationists. One can identify the evolutionary development of a species occuring through a non-supernatural intelligent design. Species change and adapt to their enviroment by selecting or rejecting a potential mate by applying their intelligence.
i hate too admit it but beheld kinda has i point not with his god delusion but it is possible that we could be a product of intelligent design now this is unlikely but it is possible , we could even be living in a computer simulation or a video game(like the sims video game just alot more advanced) the possiblitys are numerous however ther is no eveidence support his claims so im gona stick with evolution as it has huge evidence backing it
Hmm he's a science teacher.... & he think that a supernatural power zzaped everything in to existince.... maybe he should change the subject he teaches to something like religious studies etc
Behe was proven wrong in a court of law. No evidence for Intelligent Design. He is still debunked on every level he does special pleading. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) is serving 10 years in PRISON and yet, there are retards who can't think for themselves and refuse to go against their beliefs for fear of betraying their invisible father hiding behind some galaxy in space. The mind is a very powerful prison system on its own.
ROFL. Creationism is on its last gasp. Even the most ignorant christians are getting to a point where they have no choice but to accept it. DNA evidence has completely destroyed their denials.
@ultim4t32 i would love to agree but like it or not more and more people are turning to supernatural believes like fortunetellers and strict religons like judism and islam who are spouting there own religous bullshit to young chrildren indoctrinating them into there beliefs
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Christopher Hitchens, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
Let it not be forgotten that Michael Behe and his ilk do a disservice not only to science but also to religion. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would have found the Intelligent Design advocates misguided (to say the least). The problem with Behe is that he doesn't have a sophisticated understanding of the doctrine of creation. According to Aquinas, creation involves the radical causing of existence of whatever exists; therefore, creation is compatible with ANY physical theory, including evolution.
@AntiFaithNY They don't say anything because they don't have any prove of WHO is the designer. They are simply honest to admit what they don't know and can't prove, the exact oposite of the Darwinists
Mr. Beheld also refers to irreducable complexity. When an organism absolutely will not function without the total sum of It's parts. Remove the wheels from your car and take it for a spin. That is way more provable than a rock turning into a monkey. Depending on what kind of medication your on.
@MrMprincipe a rock doesn't turn into a monkey. What kind of an idiot believes that? Maybe stop listening to other creationists about evolution and take a biology class. Irreducible complexity is a result, repeat, a result of evolution.
@ThomasWinkworth very true, i'm amazed too :P actually sometimes i wonder i should start publishing my stupid theories, 100 years from now, i'll have quite a load of blind followers :P
@OBSysteme Nor does eveolution, the thought that all life came from a large explosion?!?!, please explain to me the "logic" behind that?!?!, i know scientists that scoff at the very idea that something as complex as a simple cell is pure accident!, a cell is simply far to complex!.
So this blokes argument is basically.. "I cant explain this, so I'll make up something even more unexplainable to explain it" Which of course is the whole basis of non intelligent design.
Whats wrong with simply saying "This is currently unkown" which is what science actually says
@podoau But thats not the way it is, instead of science just saying we don't know, they just assume, thats all evolution is, assumption by similarity, people dont realize that darwin was actually proven wrong on a lot of things, his theory should be discarded as he thought it up before genetics and DNA was even heard of!, molecular biology proves that life is so much more complex then he ever thought!.
Science doesnt assume. Science observes, hypothisises, tests and validates
Evolution is based on provable, observable FACTS.
Genetics proves that Darwin was correct.
Of course life is more complex than Darwin imagined. He lived before the discoveries we know today. This includes genome mapping.. which proves darwin was correct.
learn some science before you make stupid comments
@knobcheese22 Soooo, why do you keep saying it does?, if evolution actually did explain all the various forms of life(which it does) then it would be able to recognise the thousand different forms of insect life still unknown to modern science, there fore evolution is simply opinion!, not even close to fact!.
@Roper122 Um... yes, the Bible actually backs up the earth being round and all that, back when every other intelligent person thought it was the other way round(you have obviously never studied theolgy, or you'd have a clue) , anyway, we can prove gravity, we can test it, observe it, and it sure is repeatable, those three questions must be answered to make theory into fact, you can do none of those things with evolution, it is mere theory, human OPINION!
@AudiophileTubes No it does not, if it did it would be able to recognise the still unknown amounts of insect life on earth, they number in their thousands!, evolution does not recognise them at all!,
so explain to me just how it is fact?.
How does an explosion create order?, even though no explosion can do it today?!, its called human opinion mate, if it cannot be tested, observed and repeated, its not fact, evolution is a lie, and very illogical.
@aantiawp Your already doing that!, its called belief in evolution, an un provable, un testable, un repeatle made up theory, one that no scientist has succcesfully proven in over 100 years.
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design... As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design."
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."
Science cannot justify itself. It cannot prove logical and mathematical truths, because any scientific statement at all will presuppose logic and math. Science is full of "taken by faith" statements - the actual form of atoms, the assumption that the speed of light is constant between 2 points.... If science cannot justify itself, then we cannot trust it completely. Its like the relativist who said "There is no truth!" And the apologist asked, "Is that true?"
"Numerous scientists have debunked the (Behe's) work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy. Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory."
Everyone forgets that Darwin was treated the same way Behe is being treated now...perhaps 150+ years from now, he'll be as highly regarded as Darwin is today...perhaps.
"perhaps 150+ years from now, he'll be as highly regarded as Darwin is today...perhaps."
Doubtful - Behe was destroyed on the witness stand in the Dover trial. He's just a mouthpiece for the creationist Discovery Institute. When you claim absolute truth and reject peer-reviewed scientific articles just because of your religion and you've already closed your mind to any evidence, you're not doing science and you're not a scientist. Behe is a fraud and a disgrace.
FACT: Behe gets paid thousands of dollars by religious evangelical Christian groups to go around America arguing for intelligent design, such as getting paid $20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns.
@SuperAntiZionist 'Behe gets paid by religious evangelical Christian groups to go... arguing' Yes, just like they give college credit in theology to people who troll science - aka 'hostile' forums. Behind a 20-year plan to turn this country into a theocracy. That's a fact, I'd post links but that's impossible here.
Shit that is scary! No reputable university would surely do that! It must be the Bible-college type establishments that are doing it?
Almost as scary as Israel paying ten thousand students to go on online social-networking sites and spout pro-Israeli garbage, and having full-time organizations dedicated to changing Wikipedia to suit their needs...
You seem to forget this though...everyone is a Creationist, in as much as we know the universe was created. Whether it was created directly or indirectly is up for debate. You can believe quantum fluctuations, which is merely metaphysics, is sufficient, or...you can believe in something else. I, for one...don't believe quantum fluctuations are the final piece to the puzzle along with the numerous string theories and M Theory. You keep asking...what are the strings made of
and so on, and so forth. It seems like a never ending question. I for one, could assume that the singularities known as black holes that eat negatively charged particles are just dumping these materials into a negatively charged universe, but it's purely one's imagination or metaphysics. LOL! That's where Science is at now...philosophy, but it sounds smarter when it's called metaphysics.
Those 'consistent mistakes' is called progress. That's how science works. It keeps the correct and gets rid of the bad with further evidence. The difference between science and religion(creationism) is that science changes depending on the evidence while religion stays the same despite the evidence.
The department faculty are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin. 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. Lehigh U.
There are Two possibilities: The Universe had a Creator OR It somehow just happened and after that all the natural laws emerged to lead to the formation of all that is present in It including us. Tell me which is more plausible.
The Catholic Church has never taught against the Theory of Evolution or a totally literal interpretation of the Bible unlike the fundamentalist view.
@pricegenealogy I don't really understand what you're saying. Logic is just the way our brain perceives the outside world. And the actual definition of mathematics is; "A science dealing with the logic of quantity, shape, and arrangement." None of this is supernatural.
@pricegenealogy Wrong. Science DOES have all the answers. Unfortunately, humans don't. Gravity, and all of it's subsequent laws, existed 14 billion years before it was discovered. The earth didn't start to revolve around the sun just as we discovered it. Do we see a pattern here?
- "Evolutionists are just as dogmatic and zealous when it comes to Darwin's theory as any religious preacher. "
"Evolutionists" only exist in religious propaganda language. Evolution is a scientific fact. That is nothing to preach about, but just something to TEACH about.
"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community." - [Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4; Whether ID Is Science]
not getting the joke yet? You have an argument against gravity next? In which you try to negate it and pretend that that means your argument from, whatever, bullshit, is true? What a maroon.
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God." - [Kitzmiller v. Dover; Whether ID Is Science]
Behe is claiming here that religious belief can be considered scientific merely by the strength of one's conviction in it! This ofcourse is the antithesis of the scientific method and all science has ever stood for. It also questions his sanity.
@Prophiscient Exactly, I hate it when Christians say that Evolutionary Theory is sort of "The Religion of Evolution. It just shows their ignorance of science.
"He's (Behe) a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity.. Darwin answered (this)…point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is…maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder." - Richard Dawkins on Behe.
"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."
- Lehigh University (Disclaimer on website)
Obviously they're embarassed to have an evangelical nut masquerading as an actual scientist in their university. Imagine having this idiot as your teacher! lol.
Isn't it funny how when this issue came to court, all the scientists who were on the side of "intelligent design" (proven to be the exact same as creationism) pulled out and refused to be witnesses! LOL.
@KnightOwl2006 If you mean, "are just as dogmatic and zealous about combating a group of scientifically illiterate buffoons who wish to undermine perfectly valid scientific theories through antiquated texts," then the answer is yes. A resounding yes.
@KnightOwl2006 They are dogmatic and zealous because they have eviddence on thier side. The theory of evolution is a fact. Theists can only stand aside and weep at thier loss.
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." - [Kitzmiller v. Dover; Whether ID Is Science]
Proof that ID has been proven simply to be religion, and has no scientific basis.
im an agnostic but in the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth,, ie, the big bang which scientist dont like as it means time and space was created. Not in 2000 yrs before buda god created the earth.
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin. 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."
If evolution falls from its lofty position in the scientific community, it will be science that will topple it. What disturbs me is the emotional irrational response to anything that challenges the theory. These responses are based more upon a naturalistic worldview than science. The naturalist or secular humanist are just as guilty of high jacking science as Christians are in influencing intelligent design. Naturalist therefore are hypocritical in their irrational attacks against Behe.
@VeryImagesozo "These responses are based more upon a naturalistic worldview than science."
.
Science IS a naturalistic / materialistic worldview. The process of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, forming a theory etc., is based entirely on the principle that all phenomenon exist in nature as a result of nature.
.
Any emotional response to challenges to the ToE are due to the unscrupulous practices of creationists, their lies and their intent to supplant science with superstition.
@Noisegator OK...I understand that you are a naturalist; a Secular Humanist and thus your view of science is based upon that ideology. I do not, however, except the premise the science must presuppose naturalism. If it did, it would not be free to consider all possible explanations to a problem. Also, there are many things that science cannot prove or disprove. Science cannot prove love, or logic; science has limitations . Some things must be presupposed to exist.
@proginosko "...your view of science is based upon that ideology."
.
No. My view of science is based on it's methodology. If you can describe a better system for arriving at the best agreements for why things are the way they are, I am all ears.
.
Science deals only with observable phenomenon - it cannot be anything other than naturalistic. It IS free to consider any and all "possible explanations" but it is constrained to the measurable. It does not deal in the abstract.
@proginosko "Science cannot prove love, or logic; science has limitations."
.
What can prove love? What is love? It's not a very precise term.
.
Prove logic? I think you are misusing the term. It is not possible to "prove logic" as a thing but you can demonstrate it's usefulness as a process. You can apply logic to test the consistency of an argument.
.
"Some things must be presupposed to exist. "
.
Must they? What things? How would this prevent science from being used to understand them?
@Noisegator Neuroscience has been working to understand these phenomena. Rodolfo Llinass has already performed studies on our "free will" portion of the brain, and has made remarkable discoveries. You may find his book "I of the Vortex" quite entertaining.
@Noisegator You say "Prove logic? I think you are misusing the term. It is not possible to 'prove logic' as a thing but you can ... apply logic to test the consistency of an argument." This is not being philosophical enough. Why is logic a condition for the possibility of consistent arguments at all? Clearly, logic itself, not its applications, implies a non-material condition, i.e., consistency of identity, for the very possibility that material conditions may be intelligible.
"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." -- Charles Darwin
Behe's philosophy: "If science can't explain it right away, God did it."
"Defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces." - [Kitzmiller v. Dover; Whether ID Is Science]
You heard it ladies & gentleman, Michael Behe wants non-peer-reviewed ideas of "supernatural forces" to be taught as part of science to our children.
@Prophiscient "Because this was broadcast shortly befor the Kitzmiller-Dover trial in 2005."
Oh yeahhhh!! - Ha ha!! - That would have had a serious impact on Behe's cred right enough!
It wouldn't surprise me if even all the religious nutjobs in the free world, selling matches or pencil from a cup, and carrying a sandwich board saying " The end of the world is at hand" , had another one which reads " Behe is a wanker!!"
He embarrassed religion more than science I would think?
It's funny that they pull up a picture of the flagellum when he's talking about evolution, when recent studies show the flagellum most likely came from an endogenous spirochete bacteria. Lol. So his claim that: "it can't have been built piece by piece" is total fail.
Ahh I love creationists, always good for a laugh...
@SuperAntiZionist "It's funny that they pull up a picture of the flagellum"
Just as funny that someone would the B. flagellum as an example of a divine benevolent creator with a personal interest in the wellbeing of humanity.
It's an efficient mechanism to by- pass the digestive acids to plant helicobacter pylori onto the stomach wall, which can lead to all kinds of nasties, including ulcers, and colon problems. not to mention various cancers .
Call it anything you want. The point is, the same standard should apply to ALL ideas. If you call I.D. philosophy, you need to also call the most speculative branches of physics philosophy.
But you're wrong if you claim I.D. has NO basis in quantifiable phenomena. Information Theory is a legitimate branch of mathematics. It is legitimate to investigate whether nature has an information content which current evolutionary theory can't explain.
@UncleIrv; Irv, you called it philosophy, not me. For me, philosophy is what Johnson wrote in the wedge document about how the downfall of western civ can be traced to evolution. ID is a failed science; it creates no ideas, it has no fruit. What does ID have to say about where viruses are going? Is there a way to stop bacteria when antibiotics fail? Where is Homo sapiens headed biologically?
Why does it spend all its time trying to keep children from learning evolution?
... As for information theory, lead on. You may have read my profile; consider what Claude Shannon was working on when he invented the field.
I've been down the information pathway with lots of creationists and IDers. I know what mutations do, and natural selection. It is certainly legitimate to investigate, but my first question is, what has been done in information theory vis-a-vis ID? There seems to be no answer for that, except the unfathomable. You aren't going unfathomable on me, are you?
"..what has been done in information theory vis-a-vis ID?..."
Very little. So what? It is a small minority of minds who are investigating this line of thinking. I ask in return, what has string theory contributed to settled mathematical physics? Very little. But it is still a worthy line of thought.
Look, man... my only point is that I.D. is a worthy line of investigation. I call out you I.D. bashers when you use way over-the-top rhetoric. Honestly, you do sound like witch hunters.
@UncleIrv Irv, this is where one has to distinguish between an open mind and an empty one. String theory may be cutting edge and hard to understand, but it is ultimately logical and explains things. Experiments might test it. It may predict things and be fine-tuned over time.
By contrast, I can research ID in about three seconds: Uh, maybe God did it. There. Done. It explains with a fairy tale. You can't test it, expand on it, nor predict from it. It is NOT science. There is NOTHING to explore.
You obviously know nothing about String Theory---OR Intelligent Design.
String Theory is purely theoretical. While it does offer some valid mathematical solutions, they are speculative and CANNOT be empirically confirmed. Note that it is SECULAR SCIENTISTS who have stated this fact in several books. I am a big fan of ST, so this is not a criticism.
In comparison, I.D. is based on Information Theory. It does have a mathematical basis which is NO MORE SPECULATIVE than String Theory.
@UncleIrv Let's see, I said "String THEORY..." meaning it is a theory, or purely theoretical, if you wish. I said experiments MIGHT test it. How finely do you want to split hairs?
But as for your absurd allegation that creationism, which says God designed everything - OOPS! - I mean I intelligent design, which says God created everything, is still a baseless adherence to unprovable myth. Information theory does not suggest it is true - that's just not understanding the concept.
Look, idiot... why should I attempt to communicate with you, when, like so many other atheists here, you insist on pulling absurd statements out of your ass?
"...intelligent design, which says God created everything..."
Intelligent Design says no such thing. You are the worst type of ignoramus...a COCKY ignoramus who is too arrogant to do even the most basic research to confirm your statements before spewing them.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
@UncleIrv When someone descends to making insult after insult, it becomes obvious he either intends to argue semantics and minutiae, or, more likely, has no real arguments at all. "(Intelligent design) is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God... Its leading proponents...believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." - courtesy of the internet.
Ooooo..."courtesy of the internet"...You have dealt the death blow. How could I ever dare to differ with such an ironclad source of authoritative knowledge?
You see, the reason I stoop to insult is because you waste my time with idiotic statements such as this. Warrant respect and I will show you respect.
@UncleIrv "Intelligent Design says no such thing [God created everything]." . Of course it wasn't God, how silly and deceiving for carmium to suggest it!. . The agent was just something that acts precisely in the manner and with the capacity and qualities one normally associates with god but is clearly and categorically NOT god. . LOL - more lame equivocations from UncyRecVehc. . "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person." . Then why did you bring a knife to a gun fight?
@UncleIrv "Note that it is SECULAR SCIENTISTS who have stated this fact in several books"
Haha! I'm amused when theists use the expression "secular scientist" as though there is any other type.
By definition, any theory, or declaration that relies on religious faith is not science. There is no peer preview observations that uphold any religious claim.
Science is testable facts leading to more testable fact.
If you had bothered to pay attention to the context of the discussion, you would know that there was a valid reason I used the term "secular scientists." In the context, it was important to make clear that I was not talking about scientists who have a religious bias, or charlatans who CALL themselves "scientist" but are no such thing.
But beyond your ignorance of the context, you statement is completely asinine. Do you actually suppose that there are NO scientists who are Christian?
@UncleIrv "I was not talking about scientists who have a religious bias"
I didn't need to follow your thread. The term" secular scientists" was fallacy enough for me!
Just say "scientists" and I'll know you are not referring to ANYONE with a religious bias. That's a contradiction of terms. - An oxymoron in fact. "Secular" as a prefix to the term "scientist" is a redundant term. All scientists are secular or they can't be scientists.
@UncleIrv ." Do you actually suppose that there are NO scientists who are Christian?"
Yes ....There are many scientists who are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim too.
Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, Francis Collins are Christian for example.
They they know they can't look for their scientific evidence in the teachings of the bible, or even with any presupposition that a "god" made it all, to the exclusion of what they can observe. When they do that, they stop being scientists.
Everything else you've said is a load of crap. You obviously have no direct experience with the literature of I.D. You get your info second-hand from biased sources. Anyone giving I.D. a fair hearing would at least admit the high intellectual level of the discussion--even if they disagree with the conclusion.
Instead, you guys sound like a bunch of book burning witch hunters.
... It appears to me that these scientists may have something, and then again they may not. I don't think they all sing with the same voice, nor do they agree on much. I think your journalist on the scene doesn't know much about evolution to start with; and she is sniffing for dirt, which she amplifies more than it is worth; my view of her taped interview shows her digging and digging for something she can make a headline over, and not finding much. I haven't heard anything come of it since.
... And when something does come from it, how is it going to benefit ID? There's still no beef there; no science, nothing to replace what you're viewing as a shattered theory. Are you going to go back to straight creationism? What is it going to do without being able to say that "Darwin is full of holes"? But, of course, that's all speculation. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop - if it ever does.
@monitor301: Which foremost biologists would they be? What new and exciting concepts came out of their workshop? What papers have been published consequently? It doesn't sound to me like they abandoned it; listening to Mazur trying to jerk some thing evolution-threatening observation out of Stuart Newman.
Let me quote from the interview in question: "They're more responsive to that sort of thing [self-organisation] than pointing to a complex organism and saying that it had to have been built up in incremental means. People don't buy that because it's not true."
Granted there is a spectrum of opinion among the A16 attendees, but clearly noone can doubt that serious concerns are being raised regarding the neo-darwinist paradigm.
@piusvapor: Now that is pretty rich, tricking Behe, the conservative religionist, out as the radical. You really had to stretch to do such a role reversal, didn't you?
Thanks to the good Dr for what? Has his theory resulted in anything usable in practical life? Has his work on the flagellum opened up any new vistas for, say, controlling bacteria which use them, or explaining how they evolve immunity to antibiotics? Any followup on his work in the offing?
"The media should be ashamed of themselves for even insinuating that there's even a debate within the scientific community."
There is a lot of accruing testimonial evidence that there is considerable dissent, not only within the field of biology (watch?v=jrT4eJBH5EE&feature=related), but also from the likes of physics, maths and engineering which challenge the very notion that our universe has the probabilistic resources to produce the biological systems we can characterise.
Behe doesn't seem as bad as the Kent Hovinds of this world, but he seems to bring his supernatural worldview into the lab, and accepts "the magic designer" did it, instead of wanting to investigating how the flagellum came into existence naturally.
Why is Behe still lying? His irreducible complexity BS was completely destroyed by Ken Miller in the Dover trial. CNN is also doing the public a disservice by not revealing that fact.
- "Why is Behe still lying? His irreducible complexity BS was completely destroyed by Ken Miller in the Dover trial. CNN is also doing the public a disservice by not revealing that fact."
This CNN Insight special from 2005 was broadcast before the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, so that wasn't known yet at the time. By the way, there is also a lecture by Kenneth Miller on this channel, in which he refers to this court case.
Ken Miller destroyed nothing. Read "A True Acid Test:
Response to Ken Miller" by Behe.
One has to wonder if the main objection to ID (Not creationism.) people have is not scientific, but philosophical. Atheism requires that there be no designer, but the last 50 years alone has brought massive piles of evidence to the contrary. The Big Bang theory, our increased knowledge of physics and biology, etc.
I also thought Behe has said that the eye is not irreducibly complex. Shame on CNN.
It blows my mind that you I.D. critics actually expect to be taken seriously, while proposing such ridiculous ideas as that scientific questions can be settled in finality by a COURT DECISION.
What kind of fucking CLOWNS are you? Apparently the kind that is ignorant of the dialectic history of scientific consensus. For example, Einstein was the titular authority on physics during his life, yet he REJECTED quantum theory. What if he was allowed to seal the deal with a legal judgment?
In fact, if case law had any bearing on science, we would still think the sun revolves around the earth. After all, Galileo was found guilty by the legal powers of his day.
Incidentally, a great deal of what previous generations have called "magic" (I.e. the "impossible" taking place) has later been found to be consistent with physical laws. Is it possible for an object to rotate through 1-1/2 turns and end facing the same direction? Consult quantum mechanics.
@UncleIrv: It is difficult to argue in the traditional scientific arena when ID doesn't do any published research. The DI gave that up several years ago, and today seeks only political support.
What difference does it make that Einstein was wrong in some of his views? So were Kepler and Newton, but they also did work that has stood up to the test. So far, ID, while wanting to, has not.
Science didn't ask for the trial; it was forced on Dover by a run-amok school board, prodded by the DI.
I.D. is not necessarily a "research" based science--just like the more abstract branches of astrophysics (String Theory is a good example). Call it a "philosophy" if you must.
The point about Einstein was that science often takes us in unexpected directions which require us to abandon pre-conceived notions.
One more correction: The D.I. did not "prod" the Dover school board. Quite the opposite. They tried to talk them out of it, because they knew the S.B was a bunch of idiots.
Total misrepresentation of Behe's work. Come on! Behe says, on page 36 of Darwin's black box(predates this video by a lot!), that the ye is not irreducibly complex.
wow i think i got a little dumber from watching this. At least i'm still smarter than this douchebag Michael Behe. Keep this bullshit out of science classes.
Ah, Creationism... we saw you grow up from "Creationism" to "Scientific Creationism" to "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design" to "Teach the Controversy" and, most recently, to "Strengths and Weaknesses."
Darwinian evolution is observed scientific fact. There are 1000s of fundamentalists desparate to prove it wrong, and you can bet if they had any evidence they'd have presented something by now.
I wear glasses too... Do you think that everyone will think that I'm completely ignorant as well, just because I wear glasses? They better not... I can see pretty well with 65% view... Breathtaking inanity... A grand failure of science... It's still rather funny compared to some of the videos around... Irreducible complexity, my ass... Live long and prosper as they say...
The flagellum is made of 50 distinct parts, you can remove 40 of them 80% and still have a fully working bacterial syringe (TTSS) Behe has been shown this, yet refuses to accept it because it shows he is wrong, he also said blood clotting wouldn't work without all the factors in place, again he is misleading people as he knows whales have one factor missing, and puffa fish have 3 factors missing, yet the blood of both clots just fine, Behe doesn't believe what he tells you, he just wants you to
"The argument is not that Darwinian evolution doesn't explain anything. It's that it doesn't explain everything."
Why should evolution explain EVERYTHING? It only perfectly explains life changing in nature through processes like natural selection. Intelligent design on the other hand, explains NOTHING, because it's a supernatural circular argument.
@owensphil That's not as dumb as you might want to believe... I.D. has never produced any proper literature in any form other than books published by bible-schools... Sorry, I mean bible-universities... Just because you can get a Ph.D. in the bible doesn't mean that it's a proper education... Read a few books, get smart, then get back to us and we'll help you out with any troubles you might have... A pleasure as always...
It's a shame the phrase "intelligent design" has been snatched up by the creationists. One can identify the evolutionary development of a species occuring through a non-supernatural intelligent design. Species change and adapt to their enviroment by selecting or rejecting a potential mate by applying their intelligence.
rob16248 1 week ago
3:18
And that is EXACTLY why his opinions aren't scientific, but just subjective emotional gibber gabber.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
i hate too admit it but beheld kinda has i point not with his god delusion but it is possible that we could be a product of intelligent design now this is unlikely but it is possible , we could even be living in a computer simulation or a video game(like the sims video game just alot more advanced) the possiblitys are numerous however ther is no eveidence support his claims so im gona stick with evolution as it has huge evidence backing it
mrlordpancakes2 3 weeks ago
Exactly she said it "science only deals with the material world" & if you believe thats all there is then accept that.
J2MFP305 1 month ago
Hmm he's a science teacher.... & he think that a supernatural power zzaped everything in to existince.... maybe he should change the subject he teaches to something like religious studies etc
LdnGirl89 1 month ago
Behe was proven wrong in a court of law. No evidence for Intelligent Design. He is still debunked on every level he does special pleading. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) is serving 10 years in PRISON and yet, there are retards who can't think for themselves and refuse to go against their beliefs for fear of betraying their invisible father hiding behind some galaxy in space. The mind is a very powerful prison system on its own.
jessydaytime 2 months ago 2
@jessydaytime hear hear.
robocock100 2 weeks ago
americans
been there
Half of the americans are awesome loving peacefull people
Other half are simply retarded
F4Wildcat 2 months ago
Lehigh has to love having this idiot making their research department look unscientific. Tenure baby!
ultim4t32 3 months ago
ROFL. Creationism is on its last gasp. Even the most ignorant christians are getting to a point where they have no choice but to accept it. DNA evidence has completely destroyed their denials.
ultim4t32 3 months ago
@ultim4t32 i would love to agree but like it or not more and more people are turning to supernatural believes like fortunetellers and strict religons like judism and islam who are spouting there own religous bullshit to young chrildren indoctrinating them into there beliefs
mrlordpancakes2 3 weeks ago
THIS ... IS CNN.
Ahh Americans are sooooo gay.
TheDolefish 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Christopher Hitchens, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 6 months ago
Let it not be forgotten that Michael Behe and his ilk do a disservice not only to science but also to religion. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would have found the Intelligent Design advocates misguided (to say the least). The problem with Behe is that he doesn't have a sophisticated understanding of the doctrine of creation. According to Aquinas, creation involves the radical causing of existence of whatever exists; therefore, creation is compatible with ANY physical theory, including evolution.
bayreuth79 6 months ago
@AntiFaithNY They don't say anything because they don't have any prove of WHO is the designer. They are simply honest to admit what they don't know and can't prove, the exact oposite of the Darwinists
paolo884 6 months ago
Mr. Beheld also refers to irreducable complexity. When an organism absolutely will not function without the total sum of It's parts. Remove the wheels from your car and take it for a spin. That is way more provable than a rock turning into a monkey. Depending on what kind of medication your on.
MrMprincipe 6 months ago
@MrMprincipe a rock doesn't turn into a monkey. What kind of an idiot believes that? Maybe stop listening to other creationists about evolution and take a biology class. Irreducible complexity is a result, repeat, a result of evolution.
robocock100 2 weeks ago
As soon as the announcer said America, I shivered
moviedude120796 6 months ago in playlist Creationism vs. Darwin (2005)
@ThomasWinkworth very true, i'm amazed too :P actually sometimes i wonder i should start publishing my stupid theories, 100 years from now, i'll have quite a load of blind followers :P
Broadcaster17 7 months ago
When he says "Timetravelers" as the prior intelligence is he possibly referring to J. Barrow and Franks Tipler's book?
empreme 7 months ago
@empreme sorry: "The anthropic cosmological principle"
empreme 7 months ago
lol at how many people hate behe, it's as if evolution is something people are willing to die for
ThomasWinkworth 8 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Its the new religion, believe or be damned.
philhable 8 months ago
@philhable no kidding, right?!
empreme 7 months ago
@empreme Yeah, right!
philhable 7 months ago
Its all about creation!!!!
MaetelUsagi 8 months ago
@OBSysteme Nor does eveolution, the thought that all life came from a large explosion?!?!, please explain to me the "logic" behind that?!?!, i know scientists that scoff at the very idea that something as complex as a simple cell is pure accident!, a cell is simply far to complex!.
85Aheadstix 9 months ago
@85Aheadstix Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, or the start of life.
You obvisously have no idea what evolution actually is
podoau 9 months ago
So this blokes argument is basically.. "I cant explain this, so I'll make up something even more unexplainable to explain it" Which of course is the whole basis of non intelligent design.
Whats wrong with simply saying "This is currently unkown" which is what science actually says
podoau 10 months ago
@podoau But thats not the way it is, instead of science just saying we don't know, they just assume, thats all evolution is, assumption by similarity, people dont realize that darwin was actually proven wrong on a lot of things, his theory should be discarded as he thought it up before genetics and DNA was even heard of!, molecular biology proves that life is so much more complex then he ever thought!.
85Aheadstix 9 months ago
@85Aheadstix wtf ??
Science doesnt assume. Science observes, hypothisises, tests and validates
Evolution is based on provable, observable FACTS.
Genetics proves that Darwin was correct.
Of course life is more complex than Darwin imagined. He lived before the discoveries we know today. This includes genome mapping.. which proves darwin was correct.
learn some science before you make stupid comments
podoau 9 months ago
nice
thinkmanworld 10 months ago
"Evolution doesn't explain everything"
Nobody said it did you ignorant fuckhead Behe!!!!
Evolution explains the diversity of life and how simple organisms become more complex!!! Seriously, I hate dishonest idiots like this wanker!!!
knobcheese22 11 months ago
@knobcheese22 Soooo, why do you keep saying it does?, if evolution actually did explain all the various forms of life(which it does) then it would be able to recognise the thousand different forms of insect life still unknown to modern science, there fore evolution is simply opinion!, not even close to fact!.
85Aheadstix 9 months ago
@Solitarious2011 " How dare Behe challenge the idea scientific theory. "
- Challenge all you want.. but until you have a successful theory, with evidence.. then it's all just hot air.
Funny thing.. the people who proved the Earth orbited the sun... had a theory, and evidence.
Quantum Physics... has evidence.
Michael Behe.. has ... nothing.
So.. when you've got something.. let us know.. that's how science works...
Anyone who doesn't understand that.. is clearly an idiot.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Um... yes, the Bible actually backs up the earth being round and all that, back when every other intelligent person thought it was the other way round(you have obviously never studied theolgy, or you'd have a clue) , anyway, we can prove gravity, we can test it, observe it, and it sure is repeatable, those three questions must be answered to make theory into fact, you can do none of those things with evolution, it is mere theory, human OPINION!
85Aheadstix 9 months ago
@85Aheadstix " Um... yes, the Bible actually backs up the earth being round"
- Only to you... and if you're going to include stuff that flimsy, then the Koran has heaps ( in actual fact neither of them have anything )
" you can do none of those things with evolution, it is mere theory "
- Actually, it's not me.. it's scientists, and they can do a great deal to prove evolution - sorry.
Michael Behe on the other hand... can't prove anything at all.
So by your own standards I.D. is a joke.
Roper122 9 months ago
Evolution makes total sense. 'Intelligent Design' does not.
AudiophileTubes 1 year ago
@AudiophileTubes No it does not, if it did it would be able to recognise the still unknown amounts of insect life on earth, they number in their thousands!, evolution does not recognise them at all!,
so explain to me just how it is fact?.
How does an explosion create order?, even though no explosion can do it today?!, its called human opinion mate, if it cannot be tested, observed and repeated, its not fact, evolution is a lie, and very illogical.
85Aheadstix 9 months ago
"what good is it in arguing for an idea that everybody accepts already"
YEAH SO LET'S SUPPORT NON-SENSICAL IDEAS. WHAT THE FUCK DUDE
aantiawp 1 year ago
@aantiawp Your already doing that!, its called belief in evolution, an un provable, un testable, un repeatle made up theory, one that no scientist has succcesfully proven in over 100 years.
85Aheadstix 9 months ago
@85Aheadstix Evolution has been observed to occur. Evolution has predicted results and these have been found.
Its provable, and testable,, and has been.
Evolution has been observed
Your an ill informed fool
podoau 9 months ago
@85Aheadstix ...Lets start with the basics..Do you know what a chromosome is?
Stevoukos 9 months ago
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design... As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design."
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
This video failed before it even started.
"We will look at evolution vs. intelligent design.. growing debate in the US over the origins of life."
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
I'm so bloody sick of dumbarses making this mistake!!
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
We know evolution happened because it fits all the evidence.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
Science cannot justify itself. It cannot prove logical and mathematical truths, because any scientific statement at all will presuppose logic and math. Science is full of "taken by faith" statements - the actual form of atoms, the assumption that the speed of light is constant between 2 points.... If science cannot justify itself, then we cannot trust it completely. Its like the relativist who said "There is no truth!" And the apologist asked, "Is that true?"
pricegenealogy 1 year ago
"Numerous scientists have debunked the (Behe's) work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy. Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory."
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
Everyone forgets that Darwin was treated the same way Behe is being treated now...perhaps 150+ years from now, he'll be as highly regarded as Darwin is today...perhaps.
DandBMonk 1 year ago
@DandBMonk
"perhaps 150+ years from now, he'll be as highly regarded as Darwin is today...perhaps."
Doubtful - Behe was destroyed on the witness stand in the Dover trial. He's just a mouthpiece for the creationist Discovery Institute. When you claim absolute truth and reject peer-reviewed scientific articles just because of your religion and you've already closed your mind to any evidence, you're not doing science and you're not a scientist. Behe is a fraud and a disgrace.
LoopQuantumGravity1 1 year ago
FACT: Behe gets paid thousands of dollars by religious evangelical Christian groups to go around America arguing for intelligent design, such as getting paid $20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns.
Talk about being paid for...
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist 'Behe gets paid by religious evangelical Christian groups to go... arguing' Yes, just like they give college credit in theology to people who troll science - aka 'hostile' forums. Behind a 20-year plan to turn this country into a theocracy. That's a fact, I'd post links but that's impossible here.
jancivil 1 year ago
@jancivil
Shit that is scary! No reputable university would surely do that! It must be the Bible-college type establishments that are doing it?
Almost as scary as Israel paying ten thousand students to go on online social-networking sites and spout pro-Israeli garbage, and having full-time organizations dedicated to changing Wikipedia to suit their needs...
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago 5
@LoopQuantumGravity1
You seem to forget this though...everyone is a Creationist, in as much as we know the universe was created. Whether it was created directly or indirectly is up for debate. You can believe quantum fluctuations, which is merely metaphysics, is sufficient, or...you can believe in something else. I, for one...don't believe quantum fluctuations are the final piece to the puzzle along with the numerous string theories and M Theory. You keep asking...what are the strings made of
DandBMonk 1 year ago
@LoopQuantumGravity1
and so on, and so forth. It seems like a never ending question. I for one, could assume that the singularities known as black holes that eat negatively charged particles are just dumping these materials into a negatively charged universe, but it's purely one's imagination or metaphysics. LOL! That's where Science is at now...philosophy, but it sounds smarter when it's called metaphysics.
DandBMonk 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Those 'consistent mistakes' is called progress. That's how science works. It keeps the correct and gets rid of the bad with further evidence. The difference between science and religion(creationism) is that science changes depending on the evidence while religion stays the same despite the evidence.
verzen 1 year ago
The department faculty are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin. 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. Lehigh U.
pontecanis 1 year ago
My name irl is Michael Behe :) lol
ImXCraft 1 year ago
There are Two possibilities: The Universe had a Creator OR It somehow just happened and after that all the natural laws emerged to lead to the formation of all that is present in It including us. Tell me which is more plausible.
The Catholic Church has never taught against the Theory of Evolution or a totally literal interpretation of the Bible unlike the fundamentalist view.
megaead69 1 year ago
Science cannot answer for everything. Anyone who claims that it can, is being intellectually dishonest.
pricegenealogy 1 year ago
@pricegenealogy Actually it can. Everything in reality exists within a scientific basis.
SirBraxton1989 1 year ago
@SirBraxton1989 What about logic and math? Science presupposes logic and math, so to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.
pricegenealogy 1 year ago
@pricegenealogy I don't really understand what you're saying. Logic is just the way our brain perceives the outside world. And the actual definition of mathematics is; "A science dealing with the logic of quantity, shape, and arrangement." None of this is supernatural.
SirBraxton1989 1 year ago
@pricegenealogy Wrong. Science DOES have all the answers. Unfortunately, humans don't. Gravity, and all of it's subsequent laws, existed 14 billion years before it was discovered. The earth didn't start to revolve around the sun just as we discovered it. Do we see a pattern here?
thelordmemnoch 1 year ago
Evolutionists are just as dogmatic and zealous when it comes to Darwin's theory as any religious preacher.
KnightOwl2006 1 year ago
@KnightOwl2006
- "Evolutionists are just as dogmatic and zealous when it comes to Darwin's theory as any religious preacher. "
"Evolutionists" only exist in religious propaganda language. Evolution is a scientific fact. That is nothing to preach about, but just something to TEACH about.
Prophiscient 1 year ago 17
@Prophiscient ""Evolutionists" only exist in religious propaganda language. Evolution is a scientific fact."
I agree. We don't talk about "Gravitationists" either, do we? :)
Scorpitarios 1 year ago 4
@Scorpitarios
- "We don't talk about "Gravitationists" either, do we? :)"
No, but that is just because Newtonists are amoral people who don't want to be held accountable when they jump off a cliff.
Prophiscient 1 year ago 3
@Prophiscient Ha, ha, ha, nice!
thelordmemnoch 1 year ago
@Prophiscient
Gravity:
Just a theory.
imperator332 1 year ago
"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community." - [Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4; Whether ID Is Science]
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@Prophiscient "Evolutionists" "Gravitationists" "Newtonists"
not getting the joke yet? You have an argument against gravity next? In which you try to negate it and pretend that that means your argument from, whatever, bullshit, is true? What a maroon.
jancivil 1 year ago
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God." - [Kitzmiller v. Dover; Whether ID Is Science]
Behe is claiming here that religious belief can be considered scientific merely by the strength of one's conviction in it! This ofcourse is the antithesis of the scientific method and all science has ever stood for. It also questions his sanity.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@Prophiscient Exactly, I hate it when Christians say that Evolutionary Theory is sort of "The Religion of Evolution. It just shows their ignorance of science.
anthonytd103 1 year ago
"He's (Behe) a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity.. Darwin answered (this)…point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is…maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder." - Richard Dawkins on Behe.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@Prophiscient
I am afraid to say that there are no such things as "scientific facts". Science is all about human perception. And human perceptions are incomplete.
But I agree intelligence design is not scientific
deductionism 1 year ago
"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."
- Lehigh University (Disclaimer on website)
Obviously they're embarassed to have an evangelical nut masquerading as an actual scientist in their university. Imagine having this idiot as your teacher! lol.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@Prophiscient
I am afraid to say that there are no such things as "scientific facts". Science is all about human perception. And human perceptions are incomplete.
But I agree: intelligence design is not scientific
deductionism 1 year ago
@Prophiscient
Isn't it funny how when this issue came to court, all the scientists who were on the side of "intelligent design" (proven to be the exact same as creationism) pulled out and refused to be witnesses! LOL.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@KnightOwl2006
The pope seems to agree with evolution....
odinata 1 year ago
@KnightOwl2006 If you mean, "are just as dogmatic and zealous about combating a group of scientifically illiterate buffoons who wish to undermine perfectly valid scientific theories through antiquated texts," then the answer is yes. A resounding yes.
thelordmemnoch 1 year ago
@KnightOwl2006 They are dogmatic and zealous because they have eviddence on thier side. The theory of evolution is a fact. Theists can only stand aside and weep at thier loss.
Hornadayfan 1 year ago
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." - [Kitzmiller v. Dover; Whether ID Is Science]
Proof that ID has been proven simply to be religion, and has no scientific basis.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@KnightOwl2006 "Evolutionists are just as dogmatic and zealous when it comes to Darwin's theory as any religious preacher"
If they are, they can afford to be - they are the ones with observable and repeatably testable evidence.
However, for that same reason, they are NOT dogmatic - There is no need for dogma nor faith when you are simply describing what is observably true.
Nor are they zealots,. The very minute you can show ANY scientist that an idea is wrong, by definition he will drop it!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Behe is a lazy moron...
PinkProgram 1 year ago
im an agnostic but in the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth,, ie, the big bang which scientist dont like as it means time and space was created. Not in 2000 yrs before buda god created the earth.
tipaction 1 year ago
no doubt there is a bias in the tones of the foolish reporters.
lilsoulkid 1 year ago
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin. 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."
gamesbok 1 year ago
If evolution falls from its lofty position in the scientific community, it will be science that will topple it. What disturbs me is the emotional irrational response to anything that challenges the theory. These responses are based more upon a naturalistic worldview than science. The naturalist or secular humanist are just as guilty of high jacking science as Christians are in influencing intelligent design. Naturalist therefore are hypocritical in their irrational attacks against Behe.
VeryImagesozo 1 year ago
@VeryImagesozo "These responses are based more upon a naturalistic worldview than science."
.
Science IS a naturalistic / materialistic worldview. The process of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, forming a theory etc., is based entirely on the principle that all phenomenon exist in nature as a result of nature.
.
Any emotional response to challenges to the ToE are due to the unscrupulous practices of creationists, their lies and their intent to supplant science with superstition.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator OK...I understand that you are a naturalist; a Secular Humanist and thus your view of science is based upon that ideology. I do not, however, except the premise the science must presuppose naturalism. If it did, it would not be free to consider all possible explanations to a problem. Also, there are many things that science cannot prove or disprove. Science cannot prove love, or logic; science has limitations . Some things must be presupposed to exist.
proginosko 1 year ago
@proginosko "...your view of science is based upon that ideology."
.
No. My view of science is based on it's methodology. If you can describe a better system for arriving at the best agreements for why things are the way they are, I am all ears.
.
Science deals only with observable phenomenon - it cannot be anything other than naturalistic. It IS free to consider any and all "possible explanations" but it is constrained to the measurable. It does not deal in the abstract.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@proginosko "Science cannot prove love, or logic; science has limitations."
.
What can prove love? What is love? It's not a very precise term.
.
Prove logic? I think you are misusing the term. It is not possible to "prove logic" as a thing but you can demonstrate it's usefulness as a process. You can apply logic to test the consistency of an argument.
.
"Some things must be presupposed to exist. "
.
Must they? What things? How would this prevent science from being used to understand them?
Noisegator 1 year ago 5
@Noisegator Neuroscience has been working to understand these phenomena. Rodolfo Llinass has already performed studies on our "free will" portion of the brain, and has made remarkable discoveries. You may find his book "I of the Vortex" quite entertaining.
konothecook 11 months ago
@Noisegator You say "Prove logic? I think you are misusing the term. It is not possible to 'prove logic' as a thing but you can ... apply logic to test the consistency of an argument." This is not being philosophical enough. Why is logic a condition for the possibility of consistent arguments at all? Clearly, logic itself, not its applications, implies a non-material condition, i.e., consistency of identity, for the very possibility that material conditions may be intelligible.
mcdonald928 7 months ago
"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." -- Charles Darwin
Behe's philosophy: "If science can't explain it right away, God did it."
Leehofooks 1 year ago
Nobody takes Behe seriously enough for him to be a a threat. to education....
.. He's a joke!
He's had his own arse handed to him so often, it's more easily recognised than his face!
Why is CNN giving him air time????!!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago 7
@Tobytrim
- "Why is CNN giving him air time????!!!"
Because this was broadcast shortly befor the Kitzmiller-Dover trial in 2005.
Prophiscient 1 year ago
@Prophiscient "Because this was broadcast shortly befor the Kitzmiller-Dover trial in 2005"
Ahhhhh!.....Thank you! ....This explains much.
I wonder if he got invited anywhere after the trial?? - Lol!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
"Defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces." - [Kitzmiller v. Dover; Whether ID Is Science]
You heard it ladies & gentleman, Michael Behe wants non-peer-reviewed ideas of "supernatural forces" to be taught as part of science to our children.
All I can say is: save it for religion class.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@Prophiscient "Because this was broadcast shortly befor the Kitzmiller-Dover trial in 2005."
Oh yeahhhh!! - Ha ha!! - That would have had a serious impact on Behe's cred right enough!
It wouldn't surprise me if even all the religious nutjobs in the free world, selling matches or pencil from a cup, and carrying a sandwich board saying " The end of the world is at hand" , had another one which reads " Behe is a wanker!!"
He embarrassed religion more than science I would think?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim
It's funny that they pull up a picture of the flagellum when he's talking about evolution, when recent studies show the flagellum most likely came from an endogenous spirochete bacteria. Lol. So his claim that: "it can't have been built piece by piece" is total fail.
Ahh I love creationists, always good for a laugh...
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist "It's funny that they pull up a picture of the flagellum"
Just as funny that someone would the B. flagellum as an example of a divine benevolent creator with a personal interest in the wellbeing of humanity.
It's an efficient mechanism to by- pass the digestive acids to plant helicobacter pylori onto the stomach wall, which can lead to all kinds of nasties, including ulcers, and colon problems. not to mention various cancers .
Whose side is God on??!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim
Haha, good point!
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
How can you bring ID into a science ? Yet another Hovind rides the science debate. These guys are so stupid !
ikinmoore 1 year ago
God made the world make itself...
ScienceBringsTruth 1 year ago
@ScienceBringsTruth ".God made the world make itself..."
I like that phrase! ....I don't necessarily believe it, but I like it!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@4:28 The "Oh shit they are asking me what I really believe" face. Priceless. XD
SupaShang 1 year ago
Now I get it, seeing him next to a woman, short pee pee complex.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@puncheex
"Call it a philosophy if you will..."
Call it anything you want. The point is, the same standard should apply to ALL ideas. If you call I.D. philosophy, you need to also call the most speculative branches of physics philosophy.
But you're wrong if you claim I.D. has NO basis in quantifiable phenomena. Information Theory is a legitimate branch of mathematics. It is legitimate to investigate whether nature has an information content which current evolutionary theory can't explain.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv; Irv, you called it philosophy, not me. For me, philosophy is what Johnson wrote in the wedge document about how the downfall of western civ can be traced to evolution. ID is a failed science; it creates no ideas, it has no fruit. What does ID have to say about where viruses are going? Is there a way to stop bacteria when antibiotics fail? Where is Homo sapiens headed biologically?
Why does it spend all its time trying to keep children from learning evolution?
puncheex 1 year ago
... As for information theory, lead on. You may have read my profile; consider what Claude Shannon was working on when he invented the field.
I've been down the information pathway with lots of creationists and IDers. I know what mutations do, and natural selection. It is certainly legitimate to investigate, but my first question is, what has been done in information theory vis-a-vis ID? There seems to be no answer for that, except the unfathomable. You aren't going unfathomable on me, are you?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
"..what has been done in information theory vis-a-vis ID?..."
Very little. So what? It is a small minority of minds who are investigating this line of thinking. I ask in return, what has string theory contributed to settled mathematical physics? Very little. But it is still a worthy line of thought.
Look, man... my only point is that I.D. is a worthy line of investigation. I call out you I.D. bashers when you use way over-the-top rhetoric. Honestly, you do sound like witch hunters.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv Irv, this is where one has to distinguish between an open mind and an empty one. String theory may be cutting edge and hard to understand, but it is ultimately logical and explains things. Experiments might test it. It may predict things and be fine-tuned over time.
By contrast, I can research ID in about three seconds: Uh, maybe God did it. There. Done. It explains with a fairy tale. You can't test it, expand on it, nor predict from it. It is NOT science. There is NOTHING to explore.
NVanWendy 1 year ago 2
@NVanWendy
You obviously know nothing about String Theory---OR Intelligent Design.
String Theory is purely theoretical. While it does offer some valid mathematical solutions, they are speculative and CANNOT be empirically confirmed. Note that it is SECULAR SCIENTISTS who have stated this fact in several books. I am a big fan of ST, so this is not a criticism.
In comparison, I.D. is based on Information Theory. It does have a mathematical basis which is NO MORE SPECULATIVE than String Theory.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv Let's see, I said "String THEORY..." meaning it is a theory, or purely theoretical, if you wish. I said experiments MIGHT test it. How finely do you want to split hairs?
But as for your absurd allegation that creationism, which says God designed everything - OOPS! - I mean I intelligent design, which says God created everything, is still a baseless adherence to unprovable myth. Information theory does not suggest it is true - that's just not understanding the concept.
carmium 1 year ago
@carmium
Look, idiot... why should I attempt to communicate with you, when, like so many other atheists here, you insist on pulling absurd statements out of your ass?
"...intelligent design, which says God created everything..."
Intelligent Design says no such thing. You are the worst type of ignoramus...a COCKY ignoramus who is too arrogant to do even the most basic research to confirm your statements before spewing them.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv When someone descends to making insult after insult, it becomes obvious he either intends to argue semantics and minutiae, or, more likely, has no real arguments at all. "(Intelligent design) is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God... Its leading proponents...believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." - courtesy of the internet.
carmium 1 year ago
Ooooo..."courtesy of the internet"...You have dealt the death blow. How could I ever dare to differ with such an ironclad source of authoritative knowledge?
You see, the reason I stoop to insult is because you waste my time with idiotic statements such as this. Warrant respect and I will show you respect.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
Noisegator 1 year ago
@UncleIrv "Note that it is SECULAR SCIENTISTS who have stated this fact in several books"
Haha! I'm amused when theists use the expression "secular scientist" as though there is any other type.
By definition, any theory, or declaration that relies on religious faith is not science. There is no peer preview observations that uphold any religious claim.
Science is testable facts leading to more testable fact.
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim
If you had bothered to pay attention to the context of the discussion, you would know that there was a valid reason I used the term "secular scientists." In the context, it was important to make clear that I was not talking about scientists who have a religious bias, or charlatans who CALL themselves "scientist" but are no such thing.
But beyond your ignorance of the context, you statement is completely asinine. Do you actually suppose that there are NO scientists who are Christian?
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv "I was not talking about scientists who have a religious bias"
I didn't need to follow your thread. The term" secular scientists" was fallacy enough for me!
Just say "scientists" and I'll know you are not referring to ANYONE with a religious bias. That's a contradiction of terms. - An oxymoron in fact. "Secular" as a prefix to the term "scientist" is a redundant term. All scientists are secular or they can't be scientists.
It's plain you didn't get my point.
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@UncleIrv ." Do you actually suppose that there are NO scientists who are Christian?"
Yes ....There are many scientists who are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim too.
Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, Francis Collins are Christian for example.
They they know they can't look for their scientific evidence in the teachings of the bible, or even with any presupposition that a "god" made it all, to the exclusion of what they can observe. When they do that, they stop being scientists.
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Oh, pardon - I see you didn't first use philosophy, I did. A thousand pardons. You called it "non-research based science".
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
"...you called it philosophy, not me..."
No, neither one of us did. I INVITED you to.
Everything else you've said is a load of crap. You obviously have no direct experience with the literature of I.D. You get your info second-hand from biased sources. Anyone giving I.D. a fair hearing would at least admit the high intellectual level of the discussion--even if they disagree with the conclusion.
Instead, you guys sound like a bunch of book burning witch hunters.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
Growing debate?
There is no "debate". Just some ignoramt, loudmouthed dumbasses buzzing about like annoying shitflies.
The eye? Really? Are still banging on about the f****ing eye? This is so pathetic.
They should be ignored for the charlatans that they are and this ignorant gobshite should be fired, tenure on no tenure. Let him press charges.
Nilguiri 1 year ago
... It appears to me that these scientists may have something, and then again they may not. I don't think they all sing with the same voice, nor do they agree on much. I think your journalist on the scene doesn't know much about evolution to start with; and she is sniffing for dirt, which she amplifies more than it is worth; my view of her taped interview shows her digging and digging for something she can make a headline over, and not finding much. I haven't heard anything come of it since.
puncheex 1 year ago
... And when something does come from it, how is it going to benefit ID? There's still no beef there; no science, nothing to replace what you're viewing as a shattered theory. Are you going to go back to straight creationism? What is it going to do without being able to say that "Darwin is full of holes"? But, of course, that's all speculation. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop - if it ever does.
puncheex 1 year ago
@monitor301: Which foremost biologists would they be? What new and exciting concepts came out of their workshop? What papers have been published consequently? It doesn't sound to me like they abandoned it; listening to Mazur trying to jerk some thing evolution-threatening observation out of Stuart Newman.
puncheex 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@puncheex
"It doesn't sound to me like they abandoned it"
Let me quote from the interview in question: "They're more responsive to that sort of thing [self-organisation] than pointing to a complex organism and saying that it had to have been built up in incremental means. People don't buy that because it's not true."
Granted there is a spectrum of opinion among the A16 attendees, but clearly noone can doubt that serious concerns are being raised regarding the neo-darwinist paradigm.
monitor301 1 year ago
@puncheex
I've posted some references to you as remedial reading. Hope you find them interesting.
monitor301 1 year ago
@piusvapor: Now that is pretty rich, tricking Behe, the conservative religionist, out as the radical. You really had to stretch to do such a role reversal, didn't you?
Thanks to the good Dr for what? Has his theory resulted in anything usable in practical life? Has his work on the flagellum opened up any new vistas for, say, controlling bacteria which use them, or explaining how they evolve immunity to antibiotics? Any followup on his work in the offing?
I'm content to let history decide.
puncheex 1 year ago
The media should be ashamed of themselves for even insinuating that there's even a debate within the scientific community.
There's not.
syn010110 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@syn010110
"The media should be ashamed of themselves for even insinuating that there's even a debate within the scientific community."
There is a lot of accruing testimonial evidence that there is considerable dissent, not only within the field of biology (watch?v=jrT4eJBH5EE&feature=related), but also from the likes of physics, maths and engineering which challenge the very notion that our universe has the probabilistic resources to produce the biological systems we can characterise.
monitor301 1 year ago
Behe doesn't seem as bad as the Kent Hovinds of this world, but he seems to bring his supernatural worldview into the lab, and accepts "the magic designer" did it, instead of wanting to investigating how the flagellum came into existence naturally.
kaifroland 1 year ago
Why is Behe still lying? His irreducible complexity BS was completely destroyed by Ken Miller in the Dover trial. CNN is also doing the public a disservice by not revealing that fact.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
- "Why is Behe still lying? His irreducible complexity BS was completely destroyed by Ken Miller in the Dover trial. CNN is also doing the public a disservice by not revealing that fact."
This CNN Insight special from 2005 was broadcast before the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, so that wasn't known yet at the time. By the way, there is also a lecture by Kenneth Miller on this channel, in which he refers to this court case.
Prophiscient 1 year ago
@Prophiscient
And it's a very good lecture at that, I highly recommend it.
NoRegretsForOurYouth 1 year ago
@Prophiscient Thanks for the clarification. :)
gupsphoo 1 year ago 3
@gupsphoo
Ken Miller destroyed nothing. Read "A True Acid Test:
Response to Ken Miller" by Behe.
One has to wonder if the main objection to ID (Not creationism.) people have is not scientific, but philosophical. Atheism requires that there be no designer, but the last 50 years alone has brought massive piles of evidence to the contrary. The Big Bang theory, our increased knowledge of physics and biology, etc.
I also thought Behe has said that the eye is not irreducibly complex. Shame on CNN.
Crosshair84 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
It blows my mind that you I.D. critics actually expect to be taken seriously, while proposing such ridiculous ideas as that scientific questions can be settled in finality by a COURT DECISION.
What kind of fucking CLOWNS are you? Apparently the kind that is ignorant of the dialectic history of scientific consensus. For example, Einstein was the titular authority on physics during his life, yet he REJECTED quantum theory. What if he was allowed to seal the deal with a legal judgment?
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv Because magic is not science.
syn010110 1 year ago
@syn010110
Neither is case law.
In fact, if case law had any bearing on science, we would still think the sun revolves around the earth. After all, Galileo was found guilty by the legal powers of his day.
Incidentally, a great deal of what previous generations have called "magic" (I.e. the "impossible" taking place) has later been found to be consistent with physical laws. Is it possible for an object to rotate through 1-1/2 turns and end facing the same direction? Consult quantum mechanics.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv: It is difficult to argue in the traditional scientific arena when ID doesn't do any published research. The DI gave that up several years ago, and today seeks only political support.
What difference does it make that Einstein was wrong in some of his views? So were Kepler and Newton, but they also did work that has stood up to the test. So far, ID, while wanting to, has not.
Science didn't ask for the trial; it was forced on Dover by a run-amok school board, prodded by the DI.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
I.D. is not necessarily a "research" based science--just like the more abstract branches of astrophysics (String Theory is a good example). Call it a "philosophy" if you must.
The point about Einstein was that science often takes us in unexpected directions which require us to abandon pre-conceived notions.
One more correction: The D.I. did not "prod" the Dover school board. Quite the opposite. They tried to talk them out of it, because they knew the S.B was a bunch of idiots.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
Total misrepresentation of Behe's work. Come on! Behe says, on page 36 of Darwin's black box(predates this video by a lot!), that the ye is not irreducibly complex.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
wow i think i got a little dumber from watching this. At least i'm still smarter than this douchebag Michael Behe. Keep this bullshit out of science classes.
jhank004 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
=D
I guess they should have at least something different than just "its to complex, its to complex..."
bragdale 1 year ago 3
If you look up the term "dumb ass" in the dictionary there is a picture of Michael Behe right beside it...
Hornadayfan 1 year ago 5
Oh my god! He disproved evolution! Maybe he should get a nobel prize...
Or maybe he should just get real...
bragdale 1 year ago 3
Ah, Creationism... we saw you grow up from "Creationism" to "Scientific Creationism" to "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design" to "Teach the Controversy" and, most recently, to "Strengths and Weaknesses."
What form shall you take next?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago 17
Darwinian evolution is observed scientific fact. There are 1000s of fundamentalists desparate to prove it wrong, and you can bet if they had any evidence they'd have presented something by now.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
I wear glasses too... Do you think that everyone will think that I'm completely ignorant as well, just because I wear glasses? They better not... I can see pretty well with 65% view... Breathtaking inanity... A grand failure of science... It's still rather funny compared to some of the videos around... Irreducible complexity, my ass... Live long and prosper as they say...
henrikthedj 1 year ago
The flagellum is made of 50 distinct parts, you can remove 40 of them 80% and still have a fully working bacterial syringe (TTSS) Behe has been shown this, yet refuses to accept it because it shows he is wrong, he also said blood clotting wouldn't work without all the factors in place, again he is misleading people as he knows whales have one factor missing, and puffa fish have 3 factors missing, yet the blood of both clots just fine, Behe doesn't believe what he tells you, he just wants you to
hughjarrse 1 year ago 4
"The argument is not that Darwinian evolution doesn't explain anything. It's that it doesn't explain everything."
Why should evolution explain EVERYTHING? It only perfectly explains life changing in nature through processes like natural selection. Intelligent design on the other hand, explains NOTHING, because it's a supernatural circular argument.
I didn't watch any further.
myfreepaysite1 1 year ago
@myfreepaysite1
"Intelligent design on the other hand, explains NOTHING, because it's a supernatural circular argument."
You obviously know NOTHING about intelligent design
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil Oh yeah? I bet you've never read a book about evolution. Intelligent design on the other hand has no books, because it has no content.
myfreepaysite1 1 year ago
@myfreepaysite1
"Intelligent design on the other hand has no books"
Why would you make a dumb statement like that without first finding out whether it does or doesn't
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil That's not as dumb as you might want to believe... I.D. has never produced any proper literature in any form other than books published by bible-schools... Sorry, I mean bible-universities... Just because you can get a Ph.D. in the bible doesn't mean that it's a proper education... Read a few books, get smart, then get back to us and we'll help you out with any troubles you might have... A pleasure as always...
henrikthedj 1 year ago
@owensphil alot of reporters refer to ID as if its implying young earth creationism however that isnt true