Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » INTERESTING FACTOID
  • INTERESTING FACTOID

    Filed at 6:18 am under by dcobranchi

    Michael Behe’s one of us. This profile is pretty good. I’d drink a beer with him.

    What I really don’t get about Behe’s stance is how one can believe in an ancient Earth and common descent and still call that belief ID. Did the Big G just intervene once-in-a-while? When? And why did he/she/it/they have to intervene at all? The IDists talk about gaps in Darwinism. The holes in ID are parsecs-wide.

    16 Responses to “INTERESTING FACTOID”


    Comment by
    Rajan R
    November 5th, 2005
    at 8:16 am

    The main premise for Intelligent Design is that some things observed in nature couldn’t be derived from a random sequence of events. There are many schools, many theories, many ideas, many suggestions, and even more questions – as it is with evolutionary sciences.

    Intelligent Design, like pretty much any other scientific field, isn’t homogenous. So I’ll say, give them scientists a few centuries to hash and bash it out (and keep politicians out of it), eventually they would come up with something most can accept, or Jesus would have his second coming – whichever comes first.

    The concept of luminiferous aether for example was a couple of centuries ago was very much established in the physics community, similar to macroevolution. Before it was slowly debunked and left to the sleepy, dreary eyes of historians (as for aether, light don’t need to travel via a substance).

    To let non-scientists, or even more traggic – politicians decide which theory to follow, would repeat history. Afterall, Galileo Galilei was executed for daring to suggest the earth is round, and even more daringly, heliocentrism – certainly not the societal mainstream back then.

    So like I said, give them a few centuries to hash it out. I mean, is it really that important to know our planet’s and its lifes origin to do daily stuff like do grocerries or run a business?


    Comment by
    COD
    November 5th, 2005
    at 8:31 am

    Maybe the Big G just got the ball rolling and then went on to other more important issues? I agree that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for ID, but I’m not willing to dismiss the possibility entirely.

    The Catholic issue was interesting – as I remember my Catholic upbringing – there was no conflict betwen evolution and creation. We accepted that both were part of the deal.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 5th, 2005
    at 9:08 am

    Rajan,

    Good points all. But in the interest of historical accuracy, Galileo wasn’t executed. He died while under house arrest.


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:08 am

    You could be right – but Behe should be able to pursue his ideas openly and without fear of recrimination. See Dr. Richard Sternberg for additional insight regarding what happens when you question any aspect of evolutionary dogma.

    The real ID guys don’t want to shut down evolution, they want to open it up to include other possibilities. The real evolution guys want to shut down ID and ruin the careers of scientists that promote it.

    Behe is just wrapping up a new edition of “Black Box” – should be interesting.


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:32 am

    And, the story of Sternberg is not unique. Read this to see what happens when a PhD with 60 published, peer reviewed papers dares to question the naturalistic philosophy that underpins so much of today’s science:

    miamin...5.html


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:38 am

    It is also wrong to say that there is no scientific evidence to support ID or that there are no published ID papers. Here is some evidence:

    evolut...t.html

    And Rajan, the majority of ID proponents aren’t trying to exclude or censor the evolutionary point of view. (Just like the majority of homeschoolers aren’t white supremacists.)


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:56 am

    You mean this? That’s just pitiful. An unpublished paper of a talk given at a creation design meeting? I hope that’s not the best that IDists can show for all their efforts.


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 5th, 2005
    at 1:18 pm

    No – I don’t think I’ve seen that one before, and there are varying thoughts on what constitutes a paper on ID. There is a paper by Meyer that was published in a journal whose editor at the time was Dr. Richard Sternberg. After the paper was published, Dr. Sternberg was well, ostracized by his colleagues, so to speak. (An investigation was performed and the results are fairly sobering)

    I mention this in the context of the Behe profile because the academic climate is such that the lack of published papers not only reflects the immaturity of the science, but the bias on the part of those that are in positions to publish such papers.

    I’ve read many journal articles in my career and this one you provided a link for is as good as many. Yes, you can pick this paper apart and we could debate it all, but the same could be said for most published, peer reviewed papers, especially, any that touch on controversial topics.

    The link to the movie I shared mentioned a few papers that were published in magazines like Nature and/or Science. One could make a reasonable argument that papers that are suggestive or compatible with ID are ID papers as well. The movie also shows what ID research in the lab would probably look like.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 5th, 2005
    at 2:04 pm

    Sternberg, at best, played fast and loose with the rules. google...Search

    At a time that IDists were desperate to get a paper, any paper, in a peer-reviewed journal. Sternberg who sat on the Board of Directors of a creationist organization, went outside the normal editorial procedures and published one.

    I don’t believe he was unfairly picked upon.


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:05 pm

    The pandasthumb.org folks are hardly objective or neutral regarding htis topic. OTOH, the folks that investigated the treatment of Sternberg concluded that he was unfairly picked upon.

    Which editorial procedure(s) did Sternberg go outside of? My understandign is that he was in compliance, but that people were upset when he did not reveal the names of the other reviewers. (Which is normal editorial policy, I believe) If he did, then he should have been disciplined, but that’s not justification for harrassment.


    Comment by
    Amy K.
    November 7th, 2005
    at 3:41 am

    What I really don’t get about Behe’s stance is how one can believe in an ancient Earth and common descent and still call that belief ID.

    That’s because what ID is and what you think it is are two separate entities.


    Comment by
    Amy K.
    November 7th, 2005
    at 3:42 am

    What I really don’t get about Behe’s stance is how one can believe in an ancient Earth and common descent and still call that belief ID.

    That’s because what ID is and what you think it is are two separate entities.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 7th, 2005
    at 5:00 am

    Funny. Let me re-phrase that. How can Behe’s view (old Earth, common descent) and Of Pandas and People (special creation, young Earth) both be ID? How can a supposedly scientific theory encompass both? After all, they can’t both be correct. So, will the REAL ID stand up?


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 7th, 2005
    at 7:43 pm

    Because ID isn’t a theory about how life arose. It’s a theory that looks at specified complexity and irreducible complexity to decide whether something has an intelligent cause. Michael Behe and whoever else can disagree about who or what the intelligence is and still agree that it was not an accident.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 8th, 2005
    at 5:36 am

    Of course, in ’87 CS suffered a catastrophic extinction event. The external pressure caused CS to devolve into ID, one of the few examples of survival of the least fit.


    Comment by
    Amy K
    November 10th, 2005
    at 2:57 am

    Ah Daryl, you’re living life inside the bubble. 😉