Michael Behe back at it

[SLD]

So after getting his ass kicked a few years ago in Pennsylvania US District Court, I thought Behe would disappear from the Creationist circle. Now he’s back with a website, Evolution News.

Are humans the accidental products of a blind and uncaring universe?

Privileged Species explores growing scientific evidence that our universe was purposefully designed for beings like ourselves.

evolutionnews.org

like he’s really for evolution! Bullshit, what he’s now peddling is little more than the same old shit about how the Universe appears designed for intelligent beings such as ourselves.

this shit showed up in my Facebook feed because I am a member of several astronomy related groups. It’s all about how it’s just a fucking miracle that things like Oxygen can give us such Hugh energy, how our earth is so perfect, how it’s just amazing that water has the right viscosity for life. A bunch of argument from incredulity Shit.

I really thought that after these fucking morons got their ass kicker in federal district court in the Dover case that they had skunked off to hide under some rock. Now they’re back again peddling old bullshit in new packaging.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Behe is proof of irreducible stupidity. His own people deserted him at Dover.

 

[pood]

I don’t think Evolution News is anything new. Also that video you linked to refers to Michael Denton, not Michael Behe, though Behe is a contributor at that site.

 

[pood]

As to Dover, I think the judge erred in establishing a demarcation criterion for science, by judicial fiat no less, though this not the same thing as having sympathy for ID, which I certainly do not.

 

[Elixir]

As to Dover, I think the judge erred in establishing a demarcation criterion for science, by judicial fiat no less, though this not the same thing as having sympathy for ID, which I certainly do not.

I don’t think the court tried to lay down any lines of demarcation. The judge merely determined (correctly IMO) that creationists were lying about “Intelligent Design”, finding that ID, as presented to the court, was just creationism cloaked in pseudoscience.

Behe is an avaricious clown like the rest of them. He started out arguing that mousetraps were “irreducible complex”. When proven false, he went full double-speak, and eventually retreated to claiming that flagella were irreducibly complex. When that too was proven false, he retreated even further, claiming that proteins at viral binding sites were irreducibly complex.
Coming soon: “The behavior of muons is irreducibly complex”
It’s all good as long as the rubes keep buying books and sending money.

 

[pood]

I agree with what you write about Behe. As to Dover, the judge essentially ruled that ID was “not science.” The demarcation problem is well known in the philosophy of science (though admittedly lots of scientists have contempt for philosophy) and does not admit of an easy solution. I would say it’s not so much that ID is not science, but rather that it is unevidenced, and that is why it should not be taught in science class.

 

[pood]

Also, I don’t think it is quite right to say that flagella are not irreducibly complex. You can reasonably say that they are. The question is, can irreducibly complex structures evolve? And it turns out that they can, through exaptation. So since irreducibly complex structures can evolve, Behe’s appeal to ID is refuted.

 

[Elixir]

I would say it’s not so much that ID is not science, but rather that it is unevidenced, and that is why it should not be taught in science class.

That which is not evidenced might be hypothetical, rather than “not science”.
But when stuff that is not evidence is presented as, and purported to be evidence, that is “not science”, as in “deviating from scientific methodology”.

 

[pood]

Yes, but it would all depend on how you “teach” ID. I think ID could certainly be taught in a philosophy of science class, or even discussed in an actual science class. It could be presented as speculative science. After all, plate tectonics was once speculative science, before evidence showed that it was good science. For a thousand years, Ptolemey’s geocentrism was good science, or at least a good mathematical description of celestial mechanics, until it was empirically demonstrated to be false. So this demarcation between science and non-science gets to be a bit of a problem. I would also question whether is something called THE “scientific methodology, per Feyerabend. The philosopher Brad Monton wrote what I think was as good paper on the Dover decision. I’ll try to dig it up. The other big problem with ID, of course, in addition to lacking evidence, is that it has no research program. If it had a research program then one could withhold judgment on it pending results of the program. But there is no such program and never has been since ID was first floated. We know, of course, that the real reason for ID can be found in the Wedge document. But even given that document it does not follow that ID is not, or cannot be, science. All that is needed is evidence for the intelligent designer and for his methodology. The claim evolution can’t make a flagellum, even if true (and it’s not true) is still not evidence for a designer. So we await Behe et al to present this evidence for a designer and his methodology and after a quarter century it still just crickets.

 

[pood]

Dissecting the Dover Decision

 

[steve_bank]

ID in modern college philosophy? While people graduate college without enough basic science to grasp climate change.

Under the growing social paradigms everything is equal and there can be no preference or discrimination.

I took comparative religion under philosophy. If there is a place for ID it is there. Mythology. The thing is ID was specifically crafted to be equated with science.

Courts ruled ID is religion masquerading as science as such has no place in public school science.

As a philosophy ID fails. It postulates a designer but does not say who or what that is. From where did the designer come?

In the 90s here in Washington a law was proposed that all public school science texts have disclaimers that there are other explanations, IOW creationism.

I communicated with the author and was prepared to show up at the capitol to argue it.

The committee chair assured me it would never get out of committee.

There is a serious ongoing never ending battle over religion in public education, especially over science.

Not just here. In Italy in the 90s the RCC tried to force its way back int schools.

Give any legal credence to ID and the precedence will have far reaching consequences.

 

[pood]

ID in modern college philosophy? While people graduate college without enough basic science to grasp climate change.

Under the growing social paradigms everything is equal and there can be no preference or discrimination.

Not sure what social paradigms you are referring to. I certainly don’t advocate this.

 

[steve_bank]

ID in modern college philosophy? While people graduate college without enough basic science to grasp climate change.

Under the growing social paradigms everything is equal and there can be no preference or discrimination.

Not sure what social paradigms you are referring to. I certainly don’t advocate this.

Your not being aware of culture and thecurrent issues is not my problem.

 

[steve_bank]

Some may not realize that there is a vast market for Christian fiction including scifi, games, and pseudo science. Books, CDs, video games, speaking engagements. Big business.

ID has never diminished. I put a link to the Discovery Institute in a thread. Among other things they sell ID books and show 'scientific' proofs.

 

[pood]

ID in modern college philosophy? While people graduate college without enough basic science to grasp climate change.

Under the growing social paradigms everything is equal and there can be no preference or discrimination.

Not sure what social paradigms you are referring to. I certainly don’t advocate this.

Your not being aware of culture and thecurrent issues is not my problem.

Given my posts in this thread, and in other threads if you have read those posts, do you really think I am unaware of culture and current issues? This is just well-poisoning.

You spoke of “growing social paradigms” that “everything is equal.” I asked you to be specific in what you meant, and you follow up with reference to popular culture and Christianity. I was speaking of pedagogy, not pop culture. If you think there is a paradigm in pedagogy meaning that “everything is equal,” presumably that all ideas are taught equally, then I am asking you to cite specific examples of this in the classroom, not in pop culture. I do not think there is any biology class in the country, except for maybe some places in the deep south, that teaches ID on par with evolutionary biology, or that teach it at all. Those places that do teach it are violating the law and should be identified. If you know of any, name them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, but it would all depend on how you “teach” ID. I think ID could certainly be taught in a philosophy of science class, or even discussed in an actual science class. It could be presented as speculative science.

Except even with lipstick, it's not science, not even speculative.
ID, LIKE CREATIONism, starts with the conclusion, Goddidit, and works backwards looking for evidence consistent with that.
Then prints the transcript bsckwards as if it was done more sciencey.

 

[blastula]

"cdesign proponentsists" says it all.

 

[pood]

I personally think that ”teaching” ID in a science class would be the surest way of destroying it. The class would only last about 10 minutes because there would be nothing to teach. Then the vacuity of it would be laid bare.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I personally think that ”teaching” ID in a science class would be the surest way of destroying it. The class would only last about 10 minutes because there would be nothing to teach. Then the vacuity of it would be laid bare.

There are a lot of "how" questions in a science class. There are no answers to "how" with ID except to cite scientific evidence. It would get pretty old pretty fast. Intelligent Design is the same as Magic Design.

 

[abaddon]

I personally think that ”teaching” ID in a science class would be the surest way of destroying it. The class would only last about 10 minutes because there would be nothing to teach. Then the vacuity of it would be laid bare.

If it lasted only 10 minutes, they'd blame the teachers for that. If the vacuity were laid bare, that'd also be called the religious prejudices of the teachers and schools.

It'd be letting the Trojan horse inside if they taught this in science classes.