Behe Testifies in Dover
An AP article described Behe’s testimony, but that’s not what’s really important. What’s REALLY important is that the staff writer, Martha Raffaele, provided the type of background I expect from a good journalist. The kind of background which would allow a reader to put things into context.
Some points from the article that I feel obligated to comment on.
“Behe agues that evolution cannot fully explain the complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.”
I wonder how he came to the conclusion that, even if evolution can’t explain them today, it won’t be able to explain them tomorrow? There’s that declaration of surrender again. We can’t figure it out BECAUSE it was designed. So no sense looking any further, we’re done. Basically Mike, horseshit. Maybe, maybe, I could take you seriously if you would hypothesize on WHO (or WHAT) the intelligent designer is, HOW he (she? It?) accomplished the design, WHEN the design was done and WHY the design was done. Hmmm, I’m starting to sound like a broken record.
“Behe contributed to the 1993 edition of “Of Pandas and People,” writing a section about blood clotting.”
Given “Of Pandas and People” seems to have started life as a creationist text, this makes me more than a little suspicious about the professor’s motives.
“He told a federal judge … that in the book he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting ‘is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design.’”
How the hell can anything NOT be better explained by design when ones detailed knowledge of the processes involved must, by definition, be incomplete? I would think I could explain it better too by saying it was MAGIC while refusing to speculate on what type of magic.
“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.’”
Game, Set, Match! While I wouldn’t consider this the final word on the merits of intelligent design, I would accept this as the final word that the debate doesn’t belong in rural school boards or 9th grade biology classrooms. According to the article Behe achieved tenure before becoming a proponent of ID. I've been wondering about that.
I guess it's possible that Behe really believes he's engaging in true science. Still, calling a cow a horse doesn't make it one. Even if one is willing to extend the benefit of the doubt, there is lots of BAD, I mean REALLY BAD "science" out there. Should every crackpot hypothesis be taught in high school classrooms?
I think, obviously, that the answer has to be no. So let's let the scientific peer process do its job and stop trying to force what may be bad science into our classrooms because some folks find it compatible with their religious views.
Some points from the article that I feel obligated to comment on.
“Behe agues that evolution cannot fully explain the complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.”
I wonder how he came to the conclusion that, even if evolution can’t explain them today, it won’t be able to explain them tomorrow? There’s that declaration of surrender again. We can’t figure it out BECAUSE it was designed. So no sense looking any further, we’re done. Basically Mike, horseshit. Maybe, maybe, I could take you seriously if you would hypothesize on WHO (or WHAT) the intelligent designer is, HOW he (she? It?) accomplished the design, WHEN the design was done and WHY the design was done. Hmmm, I’m starting to sound like a broken record.
“Behe contributed to the 1993 edition of “Of Pandas and People,” writing a section about blood clotting.”
Given “Of Pandas and People” seems to have started life as a creationist text, this makes me more than a little suspicious about the professor’s motives.
“He told a federal judge … that in the book he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting ‘is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design.’”
How the hell can anything NOT be better explained by design when ones detailed knowledge of the processes involved must, by definition, be incomplete? I would think I could explain it better too by saying it was MAGIC while refusing to speculate on what type of magic.
“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.’”
Game, Set, Match! While I wouldn’t consider this the final word on the merits of intelligent design, I would accept this as the final word that the debate doesn’t belong in rural school boards or 9th grade biology classrooms. According to the article Behe achieved tenure before becoming a proponent of ID. I've been wondering about that.
I guess it's possible that Behe really believes he's engaging in true science. Still, calling a cow a horse doesn't make it one. Even if one is willing to extend the benefit of the doubt, there is lots of BAD, I mean REALLY BAD "science" out there. Should every crackpot hypothesis be taught in high school classrooms?
I think, obviously, that the answer has to be no. So let's let the scientific peer process do its job and stop trying to force what may be bad science into our classrooms because some folks find it compatible with their religious views.
posted by Alencon at 1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home