Interesting debate going on right now.

( for KK. take note of this comment:

"Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory." He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which lets him express his views without the threat of losing his job."

I thought only Bush , Cheny, Rove played like this. I do suppose they would have supported the professor even without tenure?)


Prof says evolution fails to explain some biological processes

By Martha Raffaele

The Associated Press

E-mail article
Print view
Search Most e-mailed
Most read
RSS
HARRISBURG, Pa. – A biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified today that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and he believes God is behind them.

Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class. Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case today in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether it can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called "Darwin's Black Box," said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."

Behe, however, argues that evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.

The intelligent design theory does not name the designer, although Behe, a Roman Catholic, testified he personally believes it to be God.

"I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors," he said.

The school board is defending its decision a year ago to require students to hear a statement on intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Behe contributed to "Of Pandas and People," writing a section about blood-clotting. He told a federal judge today that in the book, he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting "is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design."

Eight families sued to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum, contending the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Mainstream scientists have rejected intelligent design as scientifically untested and contend that its supporters focus on attacking evolutionary theory rather than providing evidence for design.

Behe, who was expected to remain on the stand throughout the day Monday, compared the outcry over intelligent design to the early criticism of the big-bang theory some 70 years ago. "Many people thought it had philosophical and even theological implications that they did not like," he said.




Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory." He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which lets him express his views without the threat of losing his job.

The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to last up to five weeks.

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

How about a third and fourth argument...unintelligent design and devolution. Basically either god f'd up when he invented neocons or it was a process of devolution.

TK,

You've been around the block enough to know that hardball is played in many circles, not the least of which is university departments.

I used to think it humorous that significant numbers of people would devote so much energy in attempting to discredit evolution. How insecure are they in their beliefs that they have to try to undermine others?

No intelligent person says evolution is a fact. It's a theory. And it's been a good one, providing the only scientifically based understanding for the development of life forms. Behe is right in claiming that evolutionary theory doesn't fully explain the biological complexities of life. However, it does rationally explain more of it than any other system. And the fact that evolution doesn't explain everything, doesn't suggest an intelligent force or design. That's his, and like-minded others, way of filling the gap, but intelligent desing doesn't intrinsically follow from a gap, or gaps, in evolutionary theory.

Behe thinks blood clotting is well explained by design. I haven't read any material on "intelligent design", but was under the impression that it does not use the scientific method to validate it's conclusions, and instead relies on faith. How does something that relies on faith "explain" anything well?

I'm not sure the debate is so interesting. Since neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven, how is this process something better than a waste of time?

And why would anyone embrace intelligent design that "designed" flawed life forms that didn't pan out and went extinct? How intelligent was that? Without even suggesting the designing of neocons and other fatally flawed species.

Have fun following it, TK.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

I'm not sure that scientific method works in the spiritual world. What can be measured or controlled?

However, despite whatever point this intelligent design is at, I think it is headed on the right track, that is moving towards some kind of rational explanation to validate its claims.

You are right SG you cannot validate faith. What is interesting is how much time man spends on finding out why he is here. Who gives a shiat and enjoy it while it lasts. My dad is obsessed about finding our geneology. He has been back to Scotland several times because he is convinced we are mostly Scottish on my Grandpas side. I told him once that it pretty much appears that our ancestors shagged around Europe then America. He was pissed for months that I siad that. I just do not get it.

Fishing is in the hear and now. If we spent hours obsessing about why we do it or who created the need to fish that would be weird.

Apparantly so is anal sex and I am not interested in it nor do I understand it.

No not off topic,

Check this out

Who says anal sex is normal human behavior?

Liberals

Right back on topic.

You have me confused with DanS. He was fixated on the sex with animals there for a while. Being a husky he probably still is. I love my horses if only people where that trust worthy.

Yeah, I'm sure that happens all the time. Or not.

She might confuse your face and ass, but NOBODY is ever going to mistake you for me.

I know tall,handsome and tan vs shorter, sour and pink.

I get it. You love yourself.

Go give yourself a reacharound.

OK Pinky!

Discussion starts on "intelligent design" and degrades into unintelligent name calling :rolleyes:

Thanks for reminding us. Maybe you can be our mommy and tell us that you will pull over the internet and smack us silly if we do not stop :p

Wow, so this is where an "Intelligent Design" discussion leads....

Personally, I think the Intelligent Design crowd have some pretty interesting things to say. I find the pro's and con's pretty interesting, but what I really find fascinating is how the establishment tries so desperately to extinguish any conversation on the matter. Better have your tenure before you write what you actually believe.

I guess it's always the same: Whoever is in charge at the moment doesn't much like competition.

Has anybody here done any substantial reading on the ID stuff, like perhaps read "The privileged Planet"? If not, and you're intersted, that's a good read. It will make you think.... well, maybe not all of you

The author points out enough "issues" to really make you work your way through. Even for a devout evolutionist, I would think it would be a good read.

Good night all, and remember that this is the political board so: "If you can't say something nice, say it here."

Dan

I cant say anything but. ROFLMFAO
This forum is way to entertaining. I love it.

Perhaps these 'flawed' life forms had a niche to fill for a given time and place in the planets history?

I saw the title to this thread and thought it might be entertaining, but this is very funny stuff! From Intelligent Design to sex with critters in 8 posts or less! I am just curious do the board members ever fish with each other? If so, I want to drop anchor by you sometime!

On a serious note Intelligent Design and evolution were meant to (and in my opinion could) coexist peacefully, but many feel it has been hijacked (and skewed) by strict creationists. If you want to understand the Intelligent Design conjecture (it has NOT yet met the scientific criterion to achieve “theory” status) in a nutshell watch the first 18 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Something separated (most of) us from the apes. If you think the whole ID subject is interesting (as I do), then I highly recommend a book (as I seldom do) called “Calculating God” it is fiction but definitely a good read. KRM

Aunty M, get me away from the political forums and on the river or I'll be a spawner before I get to post any fish pics! Thanks KRM