Michael Behe back at it

[Keith&Co.]

It's a sure bet that human ignorance is never going to end. It seems silly to agree to teach a version of stupid just because sufficient numbers of people are scoring high on the Dunning Kruger scale.

Especially to teach _A_ version of stupid.

I forget which zoo put a plaque at their Elephant exhibit, mentioning the beastie's significance in an Indian religion.
Someone wanted similar signs for the animals mentioned in the Bible. So they looked into it. To be fair, they'd have had to placard every animal mentioned in every religion.
Holy plaque-rats, Batman, there were almost no animals on exhibit that someone, somewhere didn't have a myth about, either their creation, their purpose, or something they did to contribute to the world as we know it, such as why the world has winter or how Noah knew the flood was falling or how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.

So they took down all the plaques. A Constitution-compliant course on creationism would be a similar nightmare.

 

[Elixir]

...infinitely random probabilistic resolutions of events ARE irreducible. It's just not very useful ...

"Not very useful" is an understatement IMHO. Also irrelevant, since the professional ID sellers never go there anyhow. It would be folly to introduce their flock to stuff like random probabilistic resolutions, as any understanding thereof would necessarily undermine claims of irreducibly complexity applied to actually extant physical things, as they wish to do in order to proclaim "goddidit".

But mathematicians are WAY ahead of Behe and have well described the shape of these randomized outcomes.

The pisser is that Behe IS a mathematician, as is Dembski. These jokers know damn well that they're peddling snake oil.

 

[Jarhyn]

...infinitely random probabilistic resolutions of events ARE irreducible. It's just not very useful ...

"Not very useful" is an understatement IMHO. Also irrelevant, since the professional ID sellers never go there anyhow. It would be folly to introduce their flock to stuff like random probabilistic resolutions, as any understanding thereof would necessarily undermine claims of irreducibly complexity applied to actually extant physical things, as they wish to do in order to proclaim "goddidit".

But mathematicians are WAY ahead of Behe and have well described the shape of these randomized outcomes.

The pisser is that Behe IS a mathematician, as is Dembski. These jokers know damn well that they're peddling snake oil.

More, it would reveal that Behe, not the physicist, is the one putting QM in an inappropriately small box.

 

[blastula]

Behe is a biochemist who doesn't understand evolution.

 

[Elixir]

Behe is a biochemist who doesn't understand evolution.

Again, I don't believe that.
My opinion of that ID/IC crowd was formed back in the day when I had a run-in with Billy Dembski, wherein he resorted to prevarication and misrepresentation of my posts, in a discussion on his "home turf" - a forum run by religious zealots. It became apparent to me that he knew damn well that he was blowing smoke. He made an appeal to authority, naming Mikey Behe as his source as if Mikey was a different sort of animal from himself.

Nope, they're peas in a pod. Avaricious, mendacious and always ready to stick their heads in the sand or defend long-refuted arguments.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Behe is a biochemist who doesn't understand evolution.

Behe understands and accepts evolution. But not abiogenesis. He just really wants there to be a need for God in the process, and puts that at the very very front end. And insists there will be some sign, somewhere, that this is what was necessary, therefore his God.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Personally, there is no working around how designed and perfect we are. We can communicate with others hundreds of miles away without any technology. Body reacts in ways to inhibits development of cancer. Largest brains on the planet. Incredible lifespans.

Wait... those are whales.

 

[blastula]

No, he doesn't understand it. His black box and irreducible complexity

Behe is a biochemist who doesn't understand evolution.

Behe understands and accepts evolution. But not abiogenesis. He just really wants there to be a need for God in the process, and puts that at the very very front end. And insists there will be some sign, somewhere, that this is what was necessary, therefore his God.

No, his IC and edge of evolution ideas require him to ignore cooption and cumulative selection. He thinks that if a gene acquires 2 new mutations, that can only be by simultaneous mutations.

 

[Elixir]

... his IC and edge of evolution ideas require him to ignore cooption and cumulative selection. He thinks that if a gene acquires 2 new mutations, that can only be by simultaneous mutations.

That talent for ignoring inconvenient-but-demonstrable facts is carefully cultivated and maintained. No, he knows goddam well that mutations can accumulate, and that dynamic fitness landscapes can produce complexities that are inexplicable in terms of current function. Functions that can only be explained teleologically, are the fantasy ground upon which their deceit and fundraising rest.

 

[steve_bank]

The idea that ID has any place in science or philosophy classes is lunacy of the highest order. The designer is a code word for god which is essentially what the courts ruled. You might just as well include creationism in cosmology along with religious Genesis refutations of evolution.

Anyone with a science background would object. Try get a cosmologist to teach ID in a class.


There is no midle ground here.

Religion and science are distinct deferent approaches to cosmology. Look at the Discovery Institute and how they weave science and relgion. Now it is god of multiverses.

Over the long history of Christianity science and especially cosmology had to conform to theology, or at eat could not refute it.

I expect Behe is about money and notoriety. Anyone with a sconce education should understand the case for evolution. They chose a religious myth emotionally not scientifically and logically.

In the 90s the pope delred evolution to possibly be part of god's plan.

I looked at major Christian sites back then and it seemed that it was becoming a trend.

One can accept evolution and still be a creationist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I expect Behe is about money and notoriety. Anyone with a sconce education should understand the case for evolution. They chose a religious myth emotionally not scientifically and logically.

The dude is into paranormalism.

Should we teach about bigfoot in biology class? Should Santa's reindeer and sleigh be included in a class about flying machines? Maybe we can even have a few chapters about how the miracle of the sun at Fatima is a fact when we discuss stellar evolution.

Lots of goofy shit can be included in legitimate classes if we are that ignorant. We can talk about all those things but we shouldn't burn valuable class hours on those subjects.

 

[steve_bank]

I expect Behe is about money and notoriety. Anyone with a sconce education should understand the case for evolution. They chose a religious myth emotionally not scientifically and logically.

The dude is into paranormalism.

Should we teach about bigfoot in biology class? Should Santa's reindeer and sleigh be included in a class about flying machines? Maybe we can even have a few chapters about how the miracle of the sun at Fatima is a fact when we discuss stellar evolution.

Lots of goofy shit can be included in legitimate classes if we are that ignorant. We can talk about all those things but we shouldn't burn valuable class hours on those subjects.

In the interest of equality, social justice, and never offending anyone's beliefs...absoluitely.

 

[pood]

I don’t think anyone in this thread is advocating teaching ID in biology class. What some of us (me) might be advocating is doing what, oh, UC Berkeley does.

 

[blastula]

I expect Behe is about money and notoriety. Anyone with a sconce education should understand the case for evolution. They chose a religious myth emotionally not scientifically and logically.

The dude is into paranormalism.

Should we teach about bigfoot in biology class? Should Santa's reindeer and sleigh be included in a class about flying machines? Maybe we can even have a few chapters about how the miracle of the sun at Fatima is a fact when we discuss stellar evolution.

Lots of goofy shit can be included in legitimate classes if we are that ignorant. We can talk about all those things but we shouldn't burn valuable class hours on those subjects.

I don't think that's a good comparison, very many people, including non-fundy and non-religious, are convinced by "look at the trees" arguments that life can't arise naturally "by random chance."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The dude is into paranormalism.

Should we teach about bigfoot in biology class? Should Santa's reindeer and sleigh be included in a class about flying machines? Maybe we can even have a few chapters about how the miracle of the sun at Fatima is a fact when we discuss stellar evolution.

Lots of goofy shit can be included in legitimate classes if we are that ignorant. We can talk about all those things but we shouldn't burn valuable class hours on those subjects.

I don't think that's a good comparison, very many people, including non-fundy and non-religious, are convinced by "look at the trees" arguments that life can't arise naturally "by random chance."

Answers and claims from ignorance are everywhere and are not special.

 

[steve_bank]

I expect Behe is about money and notoriety. Anyone with a sconce education should understand the case for evolution. They chose a religious myth emotionally not scientifically and logically.

The dude is into paranormalism.

Should we teach about bigfoot in biology class? Should Santa's reindeer and sleigh be included in a class about flying machines? Maybe we can even have a few chapters about how the miracle of the sun at Fatima is a fact when we discuss stellar evolution.

Lots of goofy shit can be included in legitimate classes if we are that ignorant. We can talk about all those things but we shouldn't burn valuable class hours on those subjects.

I don't think that's a good comparison, very many people, including non-fundy and non-religious, are convinced by "look at the trees" arguments that life can't arise naturally "by random chance."

Who is tat many? Many have a nebulous belie or feeling that there is 'something'. I have never heard of a secular creation myth, something not based in a creator or god. ID was and is the Christian attempt to put creationism on a scientific basis.

 

[steve_bank]

I don’t think anyone in this thread is advocating teaching ID in biology class. What some of us (me) might be advocating is doing what, oh, UC Berkeley does.

I believe you said a place for ID is in college philosophy. Why say that?

 

[blastula]

The dude is into paranormalism.

Should we teach about bigfoot in biology class? Should Santa's reindeer and sleigh be included in a class about flying machines? Maybe we can even have a few chapters about how the miracle of the sun at Fatima is a fact when we discuss stellar evolution.

Lots of goofy shit can be included in legitimate classes if we are that ignorant. We can talk about all those things but we shouldn't burn valuable class hours on those subjects.

I don't think that's a good comparison, very many people, including non-fundy and non-religious, are convinced by "look at the trees" arguments that life can't arise naturally "by random chance."

Answers and claims from ignorance are everywhere and are not special.

They are also not all "goofy shit."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The dude is into paranormalism.

Should we teach about bigfoot in biology class? Should Santa's reindeer and sleigh be included in a class about flying machines? Maybe we can even have a few chapters about how the miracle of the sun at Fatima is a fact when we discuss stellar evolution.

Lots of goofy shit can be included in legitimate classes if we are that ignorant. We can talk about all those things but we shouldn't burn valuable class hours on those subjects.

I don't think that's a good comparison, very many people, including non-fundy and non-religious, are convinced by "look at the trees" arguments that life can't arise naturally "by random chance."

Answers and claims from ignorance are everywhere and are not special.

They are also not all "goofy shit."

Such as?

 

[blastula]

Simply being uninformed doesn't mean being goofy. Your typical biology class is not set up to refute creationist claims, so lots of people can pass a course while still being convinced of creationism.