Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- From: "JoeBussen" <bussen@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Mar 2006 00:57:56 -0800
Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
johnfromberkeley@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Thanks for all of your responses. BTW, I think I found where he must
have got his math... Christianty Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/003/26.44.html
(I googled "universe mutations quadrillion decimal":
http://tinyurl.com/qjxet)
Don't worry, I am not using this site as a trusted source on biological
science.
Now, I am looking for an ID forum to comment on it. Is there actually
any place where practicing evolutionary biologists who believe in
"intelligent" design congregate online?
There are no practicing evolutionary biologists who believe in ID.
ID is a front, a religious conviction packaged in the language of
science for the purpose of infiltrating religious though into the U.S.
public schools. There is no Theory of ID.
Most of those perpetrating this fraud are christians, although I have
seen muslims do it.
The nearest thing to a real evolutionary biologist who believes in ID
would be Michael Behe, a Lehigh U. Biochemist who authored a
general-audiences book called "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge To Evolution" and who formulated the popular "irreducible
complexity" argument. He testified and was smashed at Dover, and
despite his apparent legitimacy, is marked with the same intellectual
dishonesty which characterizes other creationists.
Behe is a fellow at the Discovery institute (www.discovery.org), the
organization principally responsible for the ID mess.
Ari.
There may actually be two practicing, publishing, biologists who are
ID creationists. Don't forget Prof. Scott Minnich (microbiology) of
the Univ. of Idaho. He was one of the last to testify at Dover; e.g.,
see:
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/searchresults/ci_3183194
It is intersting that he took a sabbatical to go to Iraq and
search for (biological) weapons of mass destruction. He was just as
successful at this as he has been in finding evidence of ID!
Regarding Behe, I suggest that the OP and others might like to
visit his uni department web-page. A couple months ago I posted this:
For an interesting take on Darwin's Black Box, visit the Lehigh
Univ.
Bio. Dept. page, and click on faculty, Prof. Jill Schneider.
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/index.htm
Prof. Schneider has a page devoted to answering FAQs about
creationism/ID. It includes the following:
Q: What is Michael Behe, an enthusiastic spokesperson for intelligent
design, doing in a university biology department?
A: He was tenured in the Department of Chemistry for his scientific
research on unusual conformations of DNA (published in top journals and
funded by the National Institutes of Health). It was not until later
that he shifted his focus. Dr. Behe and I both joined the Department of
Biological Sciences in 1995 (I came from psychology while he came from
chemistry). Around that time, I eagerly bought and read Dr. Behe's
book, Darwin's Black Box , anticipating that I would find his challenge
to evolutionary theory intellectually stimulating and provocative. I
did not. He graciously autographed my copy of the book, and I invited
him to give a seminar in our department in the hope that lively,
high-level intellectual debate would ensue. It did not. We scientists
are easily tempted into intellectual skirmishes. By our nature, we
cannot resist the chance to rise to a difficult intellectual challenge.
We are all too easily ensnared in a well-reasoned argument, a battle of
wits, but, alas, ID theory fails to seduce. As it turns out, few, if
any, biologists find the idea of intelligent design well reasoned,
clever or challenging. All other faculty members in our department
disagree with his point of view about ID, and find that his views can
be quickly dismissed on the basis of flawed logic, weak assumptions and
lack of evidence. ID bored us in the first five minutes, and here we
are, ten years later. We struggle with our public response because, on
the one hand, we care about how science is taught, and on the other
hand, many of us find this topic regressive, stale and boring.
Professor Behe maintains his position as a senior faculty member by
teaching biochemistry to undergraduates and fulfilling other university
service obligations. Our biology department, the American Association
for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Science
agree that ID is not scientific and should not be presented as science
in any science curriculum. We have made no attempt to suppress his
points of view.
I found it quite edifying to peruse the pages of the different
professors. There is a lot of good evolutionary biology being done at
Lehigh. Let's hear it for those Hawaiian crickets, second fastest
rate of evolution known (visit Tamra Mendelson, Asst. Prof. Of
Evolutionary Biology, and see the pdf of her "brief communication"
to NATURE of less than a year ago).
March 16 addendum: Behe has a disclaimer on his web-page, separating
himself from his colleagues. So one of them posted a "claimer".
.
- References:
- How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- From: johnfromberkeley
- Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- From: johnfromberkeley
- Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- From: Ari Allyn-Feuer
- How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Prev by Date: Re: On using the Scientific Method on supernatural phenomena -- examplePart 1
- Next by Date: Re: Dawkins for president
- Previous by thread: Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Next by thread: Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
