Pharyngula: Ooo, that has gotta sting

More than 10 years ago, my Lehigh University faculty colleague Michael J. Behe asked me to read a chapter of a manuscript that was later published as ''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.'' In this book, Dr. Behe suggested that biochemical systems inside of cells are ''irreducibly complex'' and cannot have evolved without the hand of a supernatural designer. Over the past decade, I have had considerable time to ponder the ideas Dr. Behe put forward in his book, and time and again I concluded that his arguments lack scientific credibility and are equally offensive to religious faith.

It's a bit sad that all 5 of the context-sensitive Google ads attached to the Cassimeris op-ed (at least when I looked) are all pro-ID/creationism. It would have been nice to see some more "uplifting" links in there.

The lack of ads is understandable; the pro-science side doesn't have anything to sell.

Whether this is fortunate or unfortunate depends on your point of view.  After pondering for a second, being able to point to the utter lack of mercenary motives on the part of science compared to the IDC camp is probably a good thing.

http://tinyurl.com/b5xaw Eh, don't worry too much. :)

It's somehow been a detraction for me over the past decade to live only five minutes from Lehigh U. and to partake of the many community opportunites knowing that the university supported (at least financially) a bankrupt such as Behe. I had even considered pursuing another advanced degree in geology there, until I decided to just keep those I have and be content.

I am glad to see that the university has had the chutzbah to publicly take a stand in contradiction to one of its tenured faculty.

I am also glad to see that the Morning Call actual ran the Op-Ed. Most of my letters to the editor of that paper pertaining to IDiocy never see the light of day.

Engineer-Poet:

I see your point, but it's not necessarily about selling stuff, the ads could be just for websites like PT or TO. It's not a big deal, the battle won't be won or lost here, it's just a minor observation.

kay:

LOL! Yes, but do a google fight between "evolution" and "creation" instead ... much less re-assuring. Plus, three more pro-creation google ads on the side :(

Brett:
Plus, three more pro-creation google ads on the side :(

Is that a polite way of saying "three more f***ing google ads"? :)
Bruce

I am also glad to see that the Morning Call actual ran the Op-Ed. Most of my letters to the editor of that paper pertaining to IDiocy never see the light of day.

one of the "heads up" issues to all scientists is the realization that intelligent design isn't a "scientific" alternative to evolution but is a metaphysical alternative to science. Although there isnt a scientific theory of intelligent design there isn't any way that whatever it is could operate without total control of all natural aspects of the observable universe from quantum mechanics to general relativity. IMHO evolution is the target only because it is the most "hated" of basic science theories. I.D. is in fact an attack on the scientific method and thus impacts far more than biologists.

one of the "heads up" issues to all scientists is the realization that intelligent design isn't a "scientific" alternative to evolution but is a metaphysical alternative to science. Although there isnt a scientific theory of intelligent design there isn't any way that whatever it is could operate without total control of all natural aspects of the observable universe from quantum mechanics to general relativity. IMHO evolution is the target only because it is the most "hated" of basic science theories. I.D. is in fact an attack on the scientific method and thus impacts far more than biologists.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences. GOALS Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. Five Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Wow- I've never read the "Wedge Document," But from what Lenny Frank quotes, these people aren't just ignorant jerks, they are completely delusional. I wonder on what date that document was written. It reminds me of the predictions of Rapture that come and go, leaving the predictor utterly discredited. In 5 to 20 years when they are still writing books for the lay public and lobbying school boards, still with absolutely no real scientific credibility, will they admit defeat? I doubt it, but when that day comes I won't feel any shame in the enjoyment of reminding them of their once ambitious goals.

Wow- I've never read the "Wedge Document," But from what Lenny Frank quotes, these people aren't just ignorant jerks, they are completely delusional. I wonder on what date that document was written.

Wow- I've never read the "Wedge Document

Gonzalez's colleagues speak out, and Behe's...

How long will it be before Dembski's colleagues at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary make a statement on the scientific vacuity of Intelligent design?

I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

Interestingly, Dr. Behe's faculty web page at http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html includes a disclaimer as well. As for the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, I think their Abstract of Principles at http://www.sbts.edu/aboutus/abstract.php says it all.

According to this page, the Wedge document was written in 1998. You can read it in its full glory here. Since we're in 2005, we should be in the middle of the "5 year objectives". It's a pity they never managed to create that positive theory of ID they were planning in phase 1, though.

It ought to be noted that never do the ID crowd actually respond to the criticisms made. For example, Wesley Elsberry and my paper was never addressed by Dembski beyond a few throwaway comments. An attempt to deal with the logical issue was made once on ISCID but it too failed to deal with the issue, as Pim van Meurs pointed out there.

What is the more common is that the ID crowd leave the points made behind, make some more, and then assert that they haven't been shown to be wrong, even when they have.

It ought to be noted that never do the ID crowd actually respond to the criticisms made.