Thursday, November 17, 2005
Debate Round 2
Behe
Fuller
- Bacterial flagellum is like a machine.
- Behe separates religion and science but he makes sure that they are able to mix in logic since he is searching for truth.
- Intelligent design is not essential for Christianity. Yet it works well with the Christian worldview.
- Immune system is so complex that is could not have come about by natural selection. Immune system is irreducible complex, like the blood clotting system.
- The “simple cell” is not simple at all. Chances that natural selection determined every single change are negligible.
- Archeology uses the inferences to design in finding tools or bowls or anything that looks designed. I.D. extends this identification process to biology.
- Just because the designer is not known does not mean there is no designer.
- Evolution of cells is not published at all.
- Publication of I.D. is also absent which is a drawback.
- Behe’s book was very intensely peer-reviewed. The peers did not agree, but the book was still published.
- There should be more than option for students to believe when it comes to theory.
Fuller
- Fuller is not an expert in science; instead, he is a philosopher of science (?). I.D. has not had enough investigation to throw it out of the school system.
- Fuller believes that evolution is more convincing than I.D.
- Scientific theories should be taken into scientist’s community prior to being taught in high schools.
- There has not been probing of I.D. to throw it out.
- However, that happens in scientific community, not schools.
- There is and could be a natural process to bring about change.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Pat Robertson's quote on MSNBC
[The following is an email exchange between Jan and me. I have Jan's permission to post this. We both welcome comments.]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/
I’m not sure Behe would be all too thrilled to have this guy supporting him.
Prof. Macosko,
I think the thing that makes this story newsworthy is this line:
“The 700 Club claims a daily audience of around 1 million.”
Unfortunately, there are close to 1 million people who hang on this guy’s every word, especially when he tells them “go out and vote for…” or “do as I say.” I do find it interesting, however, that this person doesn’t seem too far removed from pure creationism, yet now many will probably see him as the leader of the ID movement. As I’m sure you know, the support of a group like this is akin to the support of any other radical group; moderates would rather not be on their side. If I were a lawyer planning to take on an ID vs. Evolution case, I would be ecstatic to know the possibilities this story brings. To be able to say something like, “But Dr. Behe, didn’t one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design say that if you do not support ID, God will smite you?” Clearly, if the whole of the United States spent the time to read Behe, Dembski, Haught, Miller, etc, we’d probably have a better representation at the polls of what this country’s beliefs on the topic are. In the meantime, general ignorance reigns supreme.
From the NPR article, I thought this line was great:
“The secular perspective of most scientists, however, is sharply at odds with the religious perspective of most Americans. And that's adding passion to the debate…”
It’s the classic problem, isn’t it? Those who spend the time and money to educate themselves are snubbed by those who don’t. Those who don’t are inevitably going to be the majority. So the mainstream fight isn’t between the labeling of the bacterial flagellum as a designed motor, and the result of a long series of natural selections, but it’s between those who don’t think deeply enough to look much beyond their religion, and those who are proponents of evolution. Unfortunately, Behe (who I thought made some interesting arguments) gets drowned out because his argument isn’t TV-friendly.
Jan
p.s. I also voted “It’s pure idiocy,” but I contemplated “It's justifiably righteous anger” just for the gag. Righteous anger coming from a Christian. How people can distort the meaning and purpose of a religion in front of 1 million people should go down in the Guinness Book of World Records as the greatest close-magic trick ever played.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/
I’m not sure Behe would be all too thrilled to have this guy supporting him.
Jan
Dear Jan,
I'm sure he would be pretty sad that MSNBC puts this up as one of their top 5 stories. I wonder why they thought this is more newsworthy than the following NPR report on Rick Sternberg at the Smithsonian (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508)
Imagine how much MSNBC would have covered this NPR story if Sternberg had helped publish an article on the biological basis for homosexuality, or a study of the discrimination of women in science. And if the Smithsonian had worked with an evangelical Christian non-profit to devise ways to discredit and hamper Sternberg, by taking away his master key, his access to research materials, etc., imagine the outrage of all the major media outlets. But as it is, not one news outlet has picked up the story since NPR published it 9 hours ago. In that same time, 229 stories have been reprinted about Robertson.
To me it's not newsworthy at all that some preacher will say something stupid about God's wrath. What is shocking is how our tax-funded research institutes are allowed to blatantly discriminate against someone who's only crime was to allow a peer-reviewed article that advocates an alternative scientific viewpoint to be put on the table.
All the best,
Prof. Macosko
P.S. Thanks for the MSNBC link, though. I had fun voting along with the 80% majority that felt Robertson's comments were "pure idiocy". :)
Prof. Macosko,
I think the thing that makes this story newsworthy is this line:
“The 700 Club claims a daily audience of around 1 million.”
Unfortunately, there are close to 1 million people who hang on this guy’s every word, especially when he tells them “go out and vote for…” or “do as I say.” I do find it interesting, however, that this person doesn’t seem too far removed from pure creationism, yet now many will probably see him as the leader of the ID movement. As I’m sure you know, the support of a group like this is akin to the support of any other radical group; moderates would rather not be on their side. If I were a lawyer planning to take on an ID vs. Evolution case, I would be ecstatic to know the possibilities this story brings. To be able to say something like, “But Dr. Behe, didn’t one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design say that if you do not support ID, God will smite you?” Clearly, if the whole of the United States spent the time to read Behe, Dembski, Haught, Miller, etc, we’d probably have a better representation at the polls of what this country’s beliefs on the topic are. In the meantime, general ignorance reigns supreme.
From the NPR article, I thought this line was great:
“The secular perspective of most scientists, however, is sharply at odds with the religious perspective of most Americans. And that's adding passion to the debate…”
It’s the classic problem, isn’t it? Those who spend the time and money to educate themselves are snubbed by those who don’t. Those who don’t are inevitably going to be the majority. So the mainstream fight isn’t between the labeling of the bacterial flagellum as a designed motor, and the result of a long series of natural selections, but it’s between those who don’t think deeply enough to look much beyond their religion, and those who are proponents of evolution. Unfortunately, Behe (who I thought made some interesting arguments) gets drowned out because his argument isn’t TV-friendly.
Jan
p.s. I also voted “It’s pure idiocy,” but I contemplated “It's justifiably righteous anger” just for the gag. Righteous anger coming from a Christian. How people can distort the meaning and purpose of a religion in front of 1 million people should go down in the Guinness Book of World Records as the greatest close-magic trick ever played.
