[Note to readers] Posted this article before - sadly, the thread was turned into a flame/spam fest by several individuals.
eyrei has given me permission to re-post this, and adds a warning: anyone who flames, trolls, insults, spams will get a lengthy vacation. The thread will be closed if this happenes, so I will PERSONALLY REPORT anyone trying to do so ASAP.
I will not tolerate anyone flaming in order to close the thread either!
[/note]
Michael Behe admits ID is religious, not science, speculation, not theory
article by 'Die zeit', a prestigious and highly reliable German weekly:
http://www.zeit.de/2005/44/Harrisburg?page=all
Now, what does that mean?
it means that ID supporters have lost their self-proclaimed 'expert', the authority they used to quote when their position was challanged.
My question to all who believe in ID: how does this affect your opinion? Are you willing to have a new look at the evidence? Or do you disassociate yourself from Mr. Behe?
eyrei has given me permission to re-post this, and adds a warning: anyone who flames, trolls, insults, spams will get a lengthy vacation. The thread will be closed if this happenes, so I will PERSONALLY REPORT anyone trying to do so ASAP.
I will not tolerate anyone flaming in order to close the thread either!
[/note]
Michael Behe admits ID is religious, not science, speculation, not theory
article by 'Die zeit', a prestigious and highly reliable German weekly:
http://www.zeit.de/2005/44/Harrisburg?page=all
Darwin on trial
In American Dover a court trial is to decide whether the evolution theory has gaps and whether an "intelligent creator" may be mentioned in biology lessons
By Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff (translation carlosMM - errors and texts in [ ] are mine)
On the tenth day of the trial the question arises suddenly whether science could be, what sounds like science? Before the Federal court to Harrisburg (Pennsylvania) the most important witness of the defense takes the stand. The man looks grey and palely, like an owl his face. A book worm, obviously. He talks endlessly. His arguments seem complicated. He speaks a still more complicated style. In short: The man is the ideal cast for the role of the professor. Michael Behe is actually a real life professor, at Lehigh University. He is considered Americas most prominent critics of evolution teachings. His book Darwins Black box was sold 200000 times. According to the desire of the defenders Behe is to show in Americas Great Trial on Intelligent Design that the science out of thought structural drawing of the world [intelligent design of the world] is more than a new wrapping for the old faith in the Biblical version of the creation of the world.
Every few decades evolution teachings are on trial in America. First in 1925, then 1968 and 1987. In the year 2005, again the question is: What may, and what must biology instruction cover? Is the theory of the "intelligent organization" a religious conception or is it based on facts and tests, experimentally examinable and falsifiable, thus science? Then and only then it may find mention in public school.
Therefore Michael Behe must first be established as an expert. He is a biochemist, has 23 years of teaching experience. That could be summarized fast and takes full three hours nevertheless in court. A beamer throws pictures on a canvas, excerpts from proceedings, books, and essays. He writes in "established magazines", says Behe. At times he is reviewed by a "famous researcher", at times he makes an appearance at an "elite university". Princeton, Harvard, Tufts are named. Once Behe mentions a book, in which he published, and the defense lawyer asks: "Did it appear in an academic publishing house?" "", Behe says, "Yale University Press." "That is a renown publishing company?", the lawyer asks, apparently naively. "Very outstandingly", Behe can say about it. All the boasting serves to promote the realization, that there is no zombie in the witness chair, but the recognized representatives of a scientific minority opinion. If "Intelligent Design" would be seen no longer as disproved, but only as disputed, then the monopoly of evolution teachings in public schools could be maintained only with difficulty.
Slowly Behe turns into attack mode. Smartly, he avoids completely rejecting Charles Darwins teachings. Instead, he credits it with "partial explanation value", but criticizes "gaps", "contradictions" and "errors". With molecular structures Behe finally sees "non-reducible complexity" at the work, which suggests an "intentional arrangement of parts". With the evolution alone, wonders such as blood clotting, immune system or cells cannot be explained anyhow. Here the hand of a "carrier of intelligence" emerges. Who this "carrier" is, Behe does not know. "Personally," he believes that it means the Christian God. But that is not provable, "therefore scientifically irrelevant".
After nine long hours of the testimony the note pads of the reporters remain strangely empty. It is, as if he spoke Chinese: One recognizes the language, however no word is understood. If a Nobel price carrier was speaking, it would possibly sound exactly the same. Therefore a tiny doubt gnaws at some observer: What if Behe isnt a confused spirit, but a misjudged genius? If his self-portrayal was the truth, and he a modern Copernicus, who rejected the geocentric conception of the world to the laughter of his contemporaries?
Anyhow, a school committee in close-by Dover had convinced itself last year of Behe. Since that time, biology teachers in high school must read a statement to their 9th graders. It claims that the "theory" of the evolution means has "gaps". Intelligent Design is an alternative explanation model, about which there is read more in the school library. There, interested pupils then find a text book, whose co-author is Michael Behe. Because it is called Of Pandas and People, the critics call the legal proceeding Panda Trial. Eleven parents have sued. They believe that their children were being religiously affected. That would be unconstitutional. Therefore the court is to clarify the question whether Design is intelligent religion or science.
The Sect fears nothing more than a state church
Dover, a town of 22,000 inhabitants, used to be a nice small village. Wooden arcades from the last century still line the main street. But recently Dover is changing into a sleeping suburb of the large Harrisburg. A Lego landscape from prefabricated buildings and manicured gardens grows rampantly around the historical core. The conflict between tradition and modern times already stands out in this settlement structure. Dover lies in the middle in the most German of all American landscapes. The jeweler at the central road crossing is called Botterbusch and the neighboring town East Berlin. Here, to the hilly countryside of Pennsylvania, were the Amish and the Mennonites and all the German free churches attracted, when founder father William Penn proclaimed his Utopia of religious tolerance. Nowhere in America do so many faiths and sects live together. Most are, however, unified by their conservatism. They stick, in each case, to their traditional faith. Therefore, the Panda process a quiet echo is to be heard of the time of religious intolerance in Germany.
These sectarians, during the time of the founding fathers, in alliance with the secular Enlightenment around Thomas Jefferson pushed through the separation of state and church. The sectarians feared nothing more than a state church, which might cut - as in the old homeland - the religious liberty of dissidents. Thus, Americans today view religious education in German schools as a violation of the requirement of the separation of state and church. And incompletely secularized Germany would nevertheless be probably capable of dealing more easily with an attack of the religious tradition on the scientific conception of the world. The fact that God created the world in six days could simply be discussed in religious education. America must instead suffer a culture fight.
This fight can be observed in the trial breaks. Then, the advocates of the intelligent Design seek the cameras. They report of suppression by the Godless America. Sometimes the defender speaks of the plaintiffs wanting to "banish each expression of the faith from the public" and "implement atheism ". Sometimes members of the school committee complain about "censorship". Against the dictation of a "science bureaucracy" they defended "academic liberty". One opinion about the emergence of the world is not to be withheld from their children, if there are two. This is the typical victimology of the religious rights: retreat combat against the secular modern times. Their present revival under the auspice of President George Bush can change little. Within one decade the portion of the Americans without church connection almost doubled. And without its secularism America would hardly have become the country of the series Nobel prices.
Jim Grove comes to court each day. He is a minister of an a Revival Community and wants to show flag. He made his community in Loganville close to Dover a center of evolution criticism. To weeks ago he invited, and 150 people came. They saw a video, that for the two hours of its duration explained why the evolution theory are "dead stupid". Apart from the word stupid, alternatively silly was to be heard. Minister Grove views such evenings as election campaign meetings. Soon, in neighboring Dover, the school committee is up for election. So far only the traditionalists have engaged themselves. Now the evolution camp mobilizes, with their own list of candidates. Well possible that the Panda teachings remain an interlude in Dover. But the Panda trial might not end after the verdict, which is expected in November, and continue on in appeal procedures in the Supreme Court.
Did God use the evolution for his purpose?
Initially, it seems additionally complicating, that trial supporters such as Jim Grove do not take the doctrine of ID seriously. It is only "a half full glass", says the minister. For Grove Professor Behe is a "theistic evolutionist", who believes, God "used evolution for his purposes". That, says Grove, "I do not believe". He pronounces himself a creationist, who takes Christian creation history literally. The party fellows of an intelligent, but unknown master of world building are for him only allies against Americas "secular fundamentalists", who wanted to keep their "monopoly over the educating system".
The sued members of the school committee obviously see things similarly. Quotations about their religious motives are legion. Only recently they seem to have understood that they thereby diminish their victory chances during the trial. By now they stress - tactically smart - that it is all about scientific accuracy. If they want to win, they must eliminate all finger prints of religion on the theory of Intelligent Design, since in 1987 the Supreme Court banished creation teachings from schools, as they concerns religion. Can it be coincidence that the science of "thought organization" developed right in the years after this verdict? "Intelligent Design" only a legal phraseology in the eternal culture fight? Quasi an evolution product of creationism, which seeks to hide its origin?
Eric Rothschild, plaintiffs lawyer, wants to prove just that! His instrument of choice is cross examination. Like a beast of prey he circles witness Behe. At first, the lawyer stays at a distance, asks apparently harmless questions. In truth he leads Behe it into a quagmire of contradictions: "You state that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory?" "Yes." "If you speak of a scientific theory, do you not define that term rather strictly, as the Academy of Sciences does?" "Yes, that is correct." ( ) "and, according to the definition of the Academy, Intelligent Design would not be a scientific theory, correct?" Now Behe is caught. He must admit the being "not certain", and according to a lax definition, "astrology would also be a scientific theory". After all, he says, a theory does "not have to be true". In this moment, he himself has down-graded Intelligent Design to pure speculation. And in this vein, things continue: "Is it true that not one article supports Intelligently Design, providing an independent consultant reviewed it?" "Thousands of articles mention the non-reducible complexity, one or two also Intelligent Design." "Once more: not one peer reviewed article supports your theory, correct?" "Yes, correct."
The cross examination reaches its high point when lawyer Rothschild reads out the definition of the intelligent Design from exactly that Panda book, which Behe recommends to the pupils. There, it says that "the different ways of life developed abruptly with the help of a carrier of intelligence", already with "pronounced characteristics", fish e.g. "with fins". "Ita God-centered theory, isnt it?" lawyer Rothschild asks and forces Behe to dissociate itself from a book which he co-authored. These sentences, Behe says, are "badly worded" and the conclusions "provisional". The lawyer follows up: "If one exchanges the words carrier of intelligence by Christian Creator, the definition would by no means lose its sense, right?" Perhaps the lawyer found the finger print of the religion in this moment.
Pretty disheveled, Michael Behe steps outside after several hours. There, the cross examination by the media waits for him. After some minutes all quotes are taken up; only one journalist stays. For the professor, his introduction becomes the surprise of the day: "My name is Matthew Chapman, I am the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin." After a second of astonishment Behes face lightens up. "Pleased to meet you", he says, as if he felt honored by high attendance. Whereupon Chapman asks: "I would like to make a movie about America and rationality. Would you be interested to take part?" Thus Darwins descendant and Darwins critic make a date for a debate. And then they embrace each other; even if only for the memory photo.
Now, what does that mean?
it means that ID supporters have lost their self-proclaimed 'expert', the authority they used to quote when their position was challanged.
My question to all who believe in ID: how does this affect your opinion? Are you willing to have a new look at the evidence? Or do you disassociate yourself from Mr. Behe?
It's a matter of faith.
