• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dr. Michael Behe author of Darwin's Black Box

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
:facepalm:

I'll gladly meet the challenge if you can produce from your own body a turd precisely the consistency of bull poop.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
It's funny how creationists want to exploit intelligent design. Behe is a scientist, but he's on the lunatic fringe. There's bound to be a few intelligent design or creationist scientists that somehow made their way through the cracks. Now he's a crackpot. His arguments have not been sustained by the scientific community.

The only reason why he's a professor - I suspect - is because he has tenure. His own department has published a statement distancing them from him.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Looncall said:
This is unnecessary. Behe and the DI discredited themselves with the Wedge document.
Click to expand...

That was published in 1999 and was part of a conspiracy theory.

Do you know if Behe or the Discovery Institute ever supported that kind of thing? The document seems to contradict some of Behe's most important arguments.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Really all you have to do is see how badly he was blown out of the water during the Dover trial.

He admitted under oath that if you accepted ID as science you would have to accept Astrology as science as well. Ouch!

wa:do
 
S

secret2

Member
On behalf of the two dozens or so threads initiated by you, ttechsan, are you going to go back and actually read people's answers to your questions and, hopefully, learn a thing or two, or are you going to start 20 new ones?

Faithfully yours.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
haha I love that one.

The Family Guy evolution is better.
 
K

Krok

Active Member
ttechsan said:
Michael Behe's Blog - Uncommon Descent

Evolutionist please reply specifically with scientific answers as there are many things to reply to. Also in his book pages (171 - 177). I would also like explanations to his science as he has IMHO more credentials than others on here.
Click to expand...
Michael Behe thinks that astrology is "science".

It has also been found by both the scientific community and by the courts that ID is not science.

Why do you want people to give a scientific reply to a religious blog?

Anyway, Michael Behe has been shown, in court, under oath, to be talking nonsense and twisting the truth. By a scientist with better credentials than Michael Behe on this subject. You really should read more.
 
Last edited:
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
ttechsan said:
Michael Behe's Blog - Uncommon Descent

Evolutionist please reply specifically with scientific answers as there are many things to reply to. Also in his book pages (171 - 177). I would also like explanations to his science as he has IMHO more credentials than others on here.
Click to expand...
How disgustingly disingenuous. You expect us to respect Behe's position because of his credentials, but I could easily name thounsands of scientist with equal or greater credentials who insist that intelligent design is complete nonsense. That apparently holds no weight with you, why do you expect us to bow to Behe's degree?

And let me also remind you that Behe is an "evolutionist". Behe believes in common descent. He believes that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, that all life shares a common ancestor, and he even believes that mutation and natural selection explains most of this.


(I don't know why we bother with this)
 
work in progress

work in progress

Well-Known Member
ttechsan said:
Michael Behe's Blog - Uncommon Descent

Evolutionist please reply specifically with scientific answers as there are many things to reply to. Also in his book pages (171 - 177). I would also like explanations to his science as he has IMHO more credentials than others on here.
Click to expand...
Have you read Michael Behe's books or his blog? I'm of the opinion that very few fundamentalist Christians looking for reasons not to accept evolution, ever crack open these books...otherwise they would discover that these "intelligent design" guys actually accept most of evolutionary theory already!

For example: about 15 years ago, a co-worker who kept trying to debate me about the Bible being a literal, historical record dropped Behe's first book - Darwin's Black Box on me. Between the covers, I discovered that Behe already accepts the basics of evolutionary theory. For example, this is located on p.176 if you have your copy handy: "I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." He doesn't really bother defending that statement, and just leaves it hanging, so most of the creationist fans who bought the book, likely glossed right over it.

But the full implications of accepting common descent of life on Earth means that all life on Earth is physically connected, and there is only one tree of life. And the gaps in the the fossil record which we hear so much about, are gaps in the record, not in the tree of life. Since Behe claims that there are "irreducibly complex" changes that could not occur through natural selection, but require some sort of divine hand, this would make him a theistic evolutionist, not a creationist! Now, do I really have to read his follow-up book too?
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Krok said:
Michael Behe thinks that astrology is "science".

It has also been found by both the scientific community and by the courts that ID is not science.

Why do you want people to give a scientific reply to a religious blog?

Anyway, Michael Behe has been shown, in court, under oath, to be talking nonsense and twisting the truth. By a scientist with better credentials than Michael Behe on this subject. You really should read more.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Dr. Behe... I don't think he thinks that astrology is science. He admitted that changing the rules to allow teaching ID would also allow teaching astrology. Thus ID and astrology are as scientifically valid as each other.

IMHO, He knows that ID isn't scientifically valid... it's faith based. But, it's also his main source of income and his personal obsession... His reputation is staked on it. I'm also sure that he actually believes he can make ID scientific.

wa:do
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
painted wolf said:
To be fair to Dr. Behe... I don't think he thinks that astrology is science. He admitted that changing the rules to allow teaching ID would also allow teaching astrology. Thus ID and astrology are as scientifically valid as each other.
Click to expand...
Methinks you're too charitable to ID. Astrology is at least
amenable to the scientific method, since it is testable.
Even palmistry & phrenology beat ID in this respect.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Revoltingest said:
Methinks you're too charitable to ID. Astrology is at least
amenable to the scientific method, since it is testable.
Even palmistry & phrenology beat ID in this respect.
Click to expand...
Ah, but the claims of ID have been tested on several occasions... which is why every example of "Irreducible complexity" has been disproved in short order.

But yes, the key argument of ID is untestable and thus less scientific than astrology, phrenology or palmistry. In that I was being way to charitable... won't happen again. ;)

wa:do
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
painted wolf said:
Ah, but the claims of ID have been tested on several occasions... which is why every example of "Irreducible complexity" has been disproved in short order.
But yes, the key argument of ID is untestable and thus less scientific than astrology, phrenology or palmistry. In that I was being way to charitable... won't happen again. ;)
wa:do
Click to expand...
I have noticed that you suppress your vicious side more than is healthy.
 
Bob Dixon

Bob Dixon

>implying
Revoltingest said:
I have noticed that you suppress your vicious side more than is healthy.
Click to expand...

I just started frequenting these Evolution/Science Debate forums.
I think that her vicious side is being manifested in me. Some of the things I read here just make me want to explode. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top