If you give us a question–one specific question–and we’ll provide you with an answer. If you just repeat that Behe poses unanswerable questions without ever actually providing one…well, that doesn’t make you look very good, does it?
So how about it? What’s a question that Behe asks and you believe modern evolutionary science can’t answer?
BTW, Brad, how do you explain retrogenes, or exon shuffling?
And are you actually going to look at what has been said about Behe previously in this forum, or are you yet another creationist who demands private tutoring?
As I understand him, Behe is not presenting his stuff as the End of Neo-Darwinian Evolution.
As for classifying Behe, anyone who doesn’t believe that nature is a closed system allowing for no interventions by intelligence that does not orignate in or is determined by nature, is considered a creationist by the really hard-core atheistic Darwinian establishment (Gould, Dawkins, etc…) And of course, because Behe allows for “macro” evolution, he is an evolutionist to the young earthers who hold that there can be no theistic evolution.
At any rate, doesn’t asking tough questions forward the whole process? The establishment Darwinians are acting more and more like an entrenched, embattled priesthood with the National Academy of Sciences as the Secular Office of the Inquisition. That’s the interesting thing in all of this to me. What are they afraid of?
Give a specific example of a question you think evolutionary science can’t answer.
Give a specific example of something you think falsifies evolutionary theory.
if that was what he was doing. But it seems to be he just ignores the answers and keeps asking the same questions. I’ll have to read his book for sure, but from what i’ve gone over of his recently he seems to sidestep anything that contridicts him, if he acknowledges it at all.
Afraid? No. More like tired of answering the same questions only to be ignored by idiots who ban evolution because fish don’t five birth to apes or some other misunderstood crap. Most IDers can’t even debate with facts and fight some perverted version of evolution where animals regularly give birth to unrelated animal species after mating with unrelated animal species.
Here is a good article that shows the 15 most common anti-evolution arguments and why they are wrong.
Always remember that Evolution is a Theory… its not the holy grail… but it has endured until now. If someone comes up with something reasonable or a better version of evolution theory, then most will accept it… but to simply state that the missing link is God… hhmmm… doesnt sound too scientific.
I am thankful that we dont have creationists in Brazil… not any relevant number at least.
I assume you never read Darwin. Darwin was inspired by how humans breed animals for desired characteristics. Nothing in evolution says intelligent intervention is impossible. All someone has to do is to show why it is required, how it happened, when it happened, and who did it.
I’ve never seen an IDer say if the intervention happened at one time or throughout the evolution of life. Did the interveners intervene only for the irreducibly complex features or for everything?
Nothing. Has Behe’s work ever been published in a refereed journal. (His ID work - I believe he has plenty of publications in other areas, so he knows how the system works.) Has he tried? If so, has he honestly addressed the comments?
My impression always has been people making comments about “the priesthood of science” know nothing about how science works. A strongly supported refutation of evolution would be worth a Nobel Prize, at least. Popular books targeted to creationists and the unlearned are worth nothing.
The above’s a snippet from the article Tars Tarka cited, that adress Behe directly
I think your view of Gould is a little off.
See here:
Well, until you do him the courtesy of reading his book (we’re all busy people, I understand that) perhaps you ought not to try and say what he is or isn’t doing in it.
I assume no one held a gun to your head and forced you to type the above answers to the ‘same questions.’ As for “idiots” who want to ban the teaching of Evolution that is as much a political matter as it is a scientific one. I think there are sound reasons for challenging evolution on scientific grounds, but I would not advocate banning the teaching of it for those reasons. There might be other good reasons to rattle a few cages though.
I’m sure that article you linked is intersting, but I, too, am busy, and I’ll get to it around the same time you get around to reading Darwin’s Black Box. 
On an unrelated note, why does this board take so long to load? I’ve got a nice, fat pipe. Is it because of its size and the number of posts and posters?
You assume wrong. But I would like for you to point out where, until now, I referenced Darwin specifically. I spoke of Neo-Darwinism, which is not exactly the same thing.
As for “nothing in evolution says intelligent intevention is impossible” (to answer you on your own level) I assume you haven’t read the Neo-Darwinians. Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker by acknowledging that “biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Francis Crick, also a fervent Darwinist and atheist, says in his memoirs that “**iologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Dawkins and Crick, like other scientific materialists, do not give serious consideration to the possibility that organisms look designed because there really is a designer. They exclude that possibility because they think science is by definition committed to explaining the history of life solely by natural–i.e., unintelligent–causes. Along comes Behe who tries to make a case for why intelligent interbvention might well be required and he gets hacked from multiple angles by people who haven’t taken the time to read his book (see above.)
Once, at least. At the very beginning. Are you admitting that the interventions took place then?
Always? You are much given to impressions and assumptions. Wrong ones.
Are you really so enamored of the your side’s alleged objectivity that you think the Nobel Committee, that paragon of neutrality that would never, ever, ever have its own agenda cough, chortle, snort, would admit that such a thing had ever been proven?
Prof, since the OP seems unwilling, why don’t you give us an example of one of your “sound” reasons for questioning evolution, whether it comes from Behe or elsewhere.
At this point, a “refutation” of evolution is about as likely as a refutation of evaporation.
Did you ever sift sand through a screen?
Okay, in messenger RNA there are four elements. Outside the stasis of an already formed cell, those elements cannot exist in the same place at the same time because two of them require near boiling tempratures to form naturally and the other two require near freezing tempratures to form naturally. So how did those elements exist in the same place for the length of time required for the cell to evolve and incorporate them into the Messenger RNA structure? Provide links for your answers as to where this has been demostrated in a lab, and duplicated by other labs.
Re: The lack of an edit function. This board is different. I guess one uses the preview function before posting. Very well.
Behe asks a lot of hard qujestions, sure. But, he also makes unfounded assumptions regarding the answers.
It’s important to note that Behe engages in a bit of mental slight-of-hand, to mix metaphors. He points to “irreducible complexity” as a challenge to Darwnian mechanisms, then uses specific pathways as his evidence. or, more correctly, a lack of knowledge of specific pathways.
There are two major components to what is generally referred to collectively as “evolution”: the mechanism, and the pathway. The mechanisms are processes such as natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. The pathways involve the specific historical events which led to an end product, be it the vertebrate eye, a bacterial flagellum, or an entire species of ape.
What Behe does is to point out that there is an “unknown” pathway – how did flagella evolve, for example – and extrapolate from there that, since the evolutionary pathway is unknown (or, in his terms, perhaps, “unexplainable”), the mechanism must therefore be incorrect. This is the essence of “irreducible complexity”.
Unfortunately for him and his proponents, it is not logically sound. That we cannot describe a specific historical sequence does not in any way alter the fact that there are historical sequences for which we do have ample evidence. Thus, his argument becomes ad hoc – IC might apply in this case, but not that, and it’s anyone’s guess who gets to determine which is which. When a pathway is finally discovered, another target is found: “Yeah? Well what about…this, then?! Huh?!”
Behe also makes the mistake, whether through design or through ignorance, of neglecting as a possible explanation the fact that a complex structure can easily be assembled piecemeal if the intermediate structures performed different tasks than the final product. An example is the oft-mentioned bacterial flagellum, which, aside from the fact that it’s a poor choice for being irreducibly complex*, can be explained from the perspective that components may have once acted as secretory units. While it may be Behe’s criterion that structures must evolve piecemeal in a Darwinian fashion, with each intermediate form performing a “proto” version of its final function, it is clearly not nature’s criterion. Structures can evolve and change function as they do so.
*Behe delights in pointing out the complexity of one of the most-complex versions of flagellum, by citing 60-odd parts that all work together. He conveniently neglects that there are several much-simpler flagella which get by with significantly fewer parts. This would seem to imply that it is not, in fact, necessary for all 60 parts to be present, thus rendering the structure *not IC.
While I haven’t read the book, I’ve read several reviews and critiques of it which have given me no insentive to start. The arguments presented by Behe are bankrupt and dishonest and have been thoroughly refuted. I have better things to do with my time.
I disagree. The only reasons for banning the teaching of evolutionary biology are political. There are no valid scientific reasons that have been presented. If you believe you know of one, please present it here. Lots of folks have been asking for someone to present one for a long time and the opponents of evolution never seem to follow through.
Slow hampsters. We need to breed faster ones.
1.) Please explain what it means to say that something “looks designed” (hint: it doesn’t mean anything).
2.) Please give a single specific example of an instance where intevention is “required” in evolution or anywhere else in nature.
This is a perfect example of Behe’s tactics: point to an unknown and immediately make the “logical” leap to “God did it.” Suppose we are unable to show you the required pathway. How does that prove IC? Perhaps too much time has passed for us to replicate the correct environment to duplicate the event. Perhaps the technology simply isn’t advanced enough. Perhaps the even didn’t even occur as you are positing. At what point do you get to claim victory?
See, in order for IC to be proven, it must be shown that a structure or behavior or whatever cannot have evolved. And that’s where the burden falls upon you, I’m afraid. You now have to attempt to essentially prove a negative, while all it takes to show that a structure isn’t IC is to find a relevant pathway. It may be that the pathway is never found, but that still cannot rule out all potential pathways - which, again, is what is necessary for IC.
IC thus becomes a “God of the gaps” argument. Once a suitable explanation is found, IC can no longer hold sway, and it must be used elsewhere. It provides no contrary explanation to what is known, now. It depends entirely on what is not known, now.
That makes more sense with an extra “t”:
He also ignores the fact that there are much simpler eyes which serve the creatures who have them. I’m only a layman but in only 10 minutes with Britannica I came up with:
Insect eyes, two types, which are light sensitive cells hooked to nerves to the brain forming a mosaic.
Nautilus’ eyes which are nothing but light sensitive pits. Octopus and squid eyes which approach those of mammals in acuity.
Cats eyes which are built along the same lines as ours but “wired” differently.
He appears to take advantage of the fact that we are so dominated by sight that we forget that a dog, with much poorer eyes gets along just fine because of other highly developed senses such asf an elaborate sense of smell.
If the writer of the OP would go to the cites in talkorigins and widen his education, then come back and talk about specific points maybe it would be worth the time.