2005/10/18

Come See The Face Of Stupidity



This Is Just Nuts
But at least we now now the anti-intellectual epi-centre of this current pandemic of dementia known as 'Intelligent design". The idiot you see above is the man responsible for spreading this stupid notion.
Here's the NYT article:


HARRISBURG, Pa., Oct. 17 - Michael J. Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, has spent the last eight years traveling to colleges promoting intelligent design as a challenge to the theory of evolution.

On Monday Mr. Behe brought his lecture and slides to a closely watched trial in federal district court, where a judge will decide whether the town of Dover, Pa., violated the boundary between church and state when it required students to hear a statement about intelligent design in a high school biology class.

The Dover school board is being sued by 11 parents who say intelligent design is inappropriate in a biology class because it is merely religious creationism repackaged to resemble science. Proponents of intelligent design, however, argue that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them.

With the trial in its fourth week, Mr. Behe was the first expert witness for the defense. Asked whether intelligent design is religion, or "based on any religious beliefs," Mr. Behe said, "No, it isn't."

"It is based entirely on observable, physical evidence from nature," he said.

Mr. Behe said the "best and most striking example of design" is the bacterial flagellum, "the outboard motor bacteria use to swim." He projected a drawing of a flagellum depicting what he called a "rotary motor" attached to a "drive shaft" that pushes a propeller, and said it was impossible avoid concluding that the mechanism was "a purposeful arrangement of parts."

Mr. Behe is the author of "Darwin's Black Box," a book published in 1996 that spurred the intelligent design movement. He is also a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a research organization that advocates intelligent design.

For three weeks, the plaintiffs called expert witnesses, including a biologist, a theologian, a paleontologist and two philosophers, who testified that intelligent design did not meet the definition of science because it could not be tested or disproved. They said that intelligent design proponents had not published scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals and that most scientists did not question evolution's basic tenets.

Mr. Behe testified that intelligent design was science and that it made testable claims.

Mr. Behe said he had been able to publish only one article on intelligent design in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, a piece he co-wrote in Protein Science in 2004.

Robert Muise, a defense lawyer, asked Mr. Behe, "Do you perceive a bias against publishing articles on intelligent design in peer-reviewed journals?"

Mr. Behe said he did. "My ideas on intelligent design have been subjected to a thousand times more scrutiny than anything I've written before."

Mr. Behe testified that intelligent design did not claim to identify the intelligent designer, or even to "require knowledge of the designer."

However, Mr. Behe, a Roman Catholic, was asked whether he had concluded that "the designer is God." He said yes, but added that his conclusion was not based on science.

"I concluded that based on theological, philosophical and historical facts," he said.

Mr. Behe said he believed schools should teach evolution because it was "widely used in science" and "many aspects are well substantiated." And he said intelligent design was "quite limited" because it challenged only one part of evolutionary theory, natural selection.

Mr. Muise then asked whether natural selection could "explain the existence" of DNA, the immune system or blood clotting. Mr. Behe said no.

As Mr. Behe's responses grew increasingly long and arcane, Judge John E. Jones III slumped in his chair. When Mr. Muise asked the judge whether he should stop for the day, Judge Jones sat up and agreed, saying, "We've certainly absorbed a lot, haven't we?"

Randy Tomasacci, a woodworker who serves on his school board in Shickshinny, Pa., said his district was considering teaching intelligent design. He said Mr. Behe's testimony "reinforces my point of view."

So this is the moron who has been peddling this idiocy. *Ugh* Who gave this man aadegree and why haven't they stripped him of his degree yet?

4 comments:

Avon Brandt said...

I hate to say it Art, but this particular piece doesn't portray Mr Behe as a "looney". He is correct in saying that ID makes claims that are testable and falsifiable, and very importantly, it does not make any attempt to identify the designer, or even require knowledger of the designer.

There are many people out there who I would consider "looney", who promote ID thinking that it somehow *proves* their Christian faith. It doesn't. People like Michael Behe, on the other hand, go to great lengths (from what I've seen so far) to distance themselves from people like that, and make it clear that they are not pushing that particular barrow.

David said...

Well he obviously IS "pushing a barrow"... as which of us is not, eh?

He and his movement anoy me too but let us just pause a minute and consider. Intelligent design, GM, Uplift... even David Brin would be bound to give this a hearing! The thing is that it is an interesting idea but it is really NOT falsifiable. Really Joff what part of intelligent design (current incarnation) is - you claim - "testable and falsifiable"? How shall we test for this intelligent design? How could the idea be falsified since it makes no predictions whatever? Just how does one falsify purported "design"?

It is (and has been since Darwin's day) one of the great "maybe" ideas but I'm sorry to say it is not a real argument. It posits nothing, predicts nothing, ventures nothing.

It basically says *I* (& I cannot underline that deeply enough) cannot imagine how a flagellum could be selected for...

REALLY? That is like not being able to imagine how a knife specialist could be selected over (say) a puppy. ANY motile device is a serious winner in the primordial (or even modern marine) soup!

...Or is the objection - "no intermediate forms *could* exist between a simple cillia and a full flagellum? I invite ANYONE who thinks this to actually get some biochemistry (or even engineering) qual's. It is a bit like claiming there can be no complexity progression between a ramp and a worm screw (or even a steam engine).

I have to say that though I once had sympathy for (nay was a champion of) intelligent design... BUT

It absolutely IS, a faith motivated, though not based - camoflage job. Thus, It is NOT (good) science...

But on the other hand it is NOT without any intellectual merit (as it makes us look at some of our unlikely-but-required leaps) so I abjure my collegues to treat it with a modicum of respect even as we flush it and vote that it should NOT be foisted on schoolchildren as they are simply not equiped for such a subtle but important debate.

I hate to talk down to my highschool colleges but this hinges on some subtle physical/philosophical points which are just not in your sylabus. Some of you surely COULD get it but currently the majority probably won't (nor would I have @ 18)

There IS, IS, IS a forum for such debate but it is NOT, NOT, NOT highschool science classes!!!!

Did I hammer that last point enough? ; )

If anyone wants to take on Darwin, do it with grown-ups not kids. Try Richard Dawkins, Gould, even ME for practice BUT, preaching to students is just propaganda!

db

Art Neuro said...

Okay... The short answer is that any idea of 'design' presumes a teleological process in th workings of living organisms. To say that Behe observed these teleologocial processes is about as credible as the Geocentric model of the Universe where people 'observed it as the truth that the sun revolved around the earth, rising in the east, setting in the west',

Like, Lamarck, 'ID' presumes that organisms wanted to grow flagellae or eyes or whatever organ it is that Christians have trouble imagining to have evolved. And if they couldn't have evolved it themselves because the odds are so stacked against it, then God must've given it to them.
Well, that ignores the whole science of genetics.

Worse than that, if indeed there was 'design', we're going to have to discuss the designer, which is exactly where the ID crowd want the discussion to go, so they can wedge in Christianity into science classes. That's a step back to Aquinas and I'd be very leery of that one.

So, anything less than total rebuke of teaching ID in science classes is a retrograde step in science education.

If Mr. Behe realy can't see Evoultion to be be the fundamental process of life, then really he has no business in the bio-scieences whatsoever. His faith is his business; dressing it up as science is just plain nuts or stupid or stupid nuts. If he persists in talking this talk, they really should strip him of his bioscience doctorate.

Art Neuro said...

On another note, how stupid is this man Behe in asserting that natural selection is the partof Evolutionary theory to which ID objects. how the hell does this man explain anti-biotic resistance in Bacteria? God made them anti-biotic resistant? What kind of Intelligent Designer bothers doing that?
Maybe doctors in Hospitals should be praying to the same Intelligent Designer to stop 'redesigning on the run'.

Blog Archive