Bottle
10-02-2005, 13:11
As if Americans weren't already being spoon-fed enough superstitious lunacy by Talibangelists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, now the New York Times has elected to waste otherwise useful ink and wood pulp on the ramblings of an oft-refuted and bumbling Creationist. Michael Behe's column, entitled "Design For Living," sets out to illuminate the arguments surrounding the modern vision of intelligent design. It succeeds perhaps even better than he realizes. For anyone with a rudimentary understanding of science or logic, Behe's arguments are ludicrous almost to the point of satire, and they neatly sum up the stupidity of contemporary creationism.
[The article may be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?ex=1265518800&en=
b530716e1f96e7ba&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland]
Behe begins by asserting that creation theory rests on "physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic." However, you won't find any of this evidence presented in Behe's column, nor will the straightforward application of logic allow you to accept any of his conclusions.
According to Behe, the contemporary argument for creationism is composed of "four linked claims," the first of which is that "we can often recognize the effects of design in nature." Behe baldly states that this first claim is undisputed, even though it is disputed by a great many people. A little thing like reality can't stop Behe. His idea of support for this claim is to point out that natural geological forces cannot explain the current form of Mount Rushmore.
Yes, he actually said that. Yes, the New York Times actually printed that.
Who wants to be the one to tell Behe that the "intelligent designer" behind Mount Rushmore was a guy from Idaho? Or that nobody with the brains to tie their shoes needs creationism to explain where sculptures come from? Or shall we just let him continue?
The second claim in the argument for intelligent design, according to Behe, is that there is physical evidence of intelligent design in aspects of biology. As before, Behe assures us that this claim is uncontroversial, and in one sense he is right; no reputable scientists agree with that claim, so there really isn't any controversy to speak of. There is ambiguous evidence, features or traits of biological systems that we haven't currently explained, and there are many beautiful and ordered aspects of biology, but no true scientist would claim any of these are evidence of intelligent design. Behe also takes this opportunity to dishonestly portray the famous researchers Watson and Crick as supporters of creationism, despite the fact that both were quite vocal about their rejection of any such model.
The third claim Behe presents is the statement that "we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence." This is a complete falsehood, since we not only have plenty of good non-ID explanations for the foundation of life, but we also don't have a single good explanation that DOES involve intelligent design. Behe makes a classic creationist mistake by persistently attacking the theory of evolution, as opposed to producing any evidence at all for intelligent design, apparently with the belief that any flaws or questions remaining in modern science will automatically justify belief in a magical creation scenario. Of course, claiming that the holes in evolution theory confirm intelligent design is like claiming that Columbus' misidentification of the West Indies means that the world really is flat after all.
He also lies, point blank, when he claims that "although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell." As a matter of fact, it's not at all difficult to find an extensive list of studies showing exactly that (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html).
The fourth and final claim in the argument for ID is that "in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life." This is essentially the same as saying that because we haven't been able to determine if there is/was life on other planets, we are justified in thinking that Jupiter is inhabited by a race of 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs.
In the end, the only thing sadder than Michael Behe's latest effort is the fact that it was given space in an otherwise reputable publication. Well, that, and the fact that the majority of Americans probably wouldn't see a damn thing wrong with it.
[The article may be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?ex=1265518800&en=
b530716e1f96e7ba&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland]
Behe begins by asserting that creation theory rests on "physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic." However, you won't find any of this evidence presented in Behe's column, nor will the straightforward application of logic allow you to accept any of his conclusions.
According to Behe, the contemporary argument for creationism is composed of "four linked claims," the first of which is that "we can often recognize the effects of design in nature." Behe baldly states that this first claim is undisputed, even though it is disputed by a great many people. A little thing like reality can't stop Behe. His idea of support for this claim is to point out that natural geological forces cannot explain the current form of Mount Rushmore.
Yes, he actually said that. Yes, the New York Times actually printed that.
Who wants to be the one to tell Behe that the "intelligent designer" behind Mount Rushmore was a guy from Idaho? Or that nobody with the brains to tie their shoes needs creationism to explain where sculptures come from? Or shall we just let him continue?
The second claim in the argument for intelligent design, according to Behe, is that there is physical evidence of intelligent design in aspects of biology. As before, Behe assures us that this claim is uncontroversial, and in one sense he is right; no reputable scientists agree with that claim, so there really isn't any controversy to speak of. There is ambiguous evidence, features or traits of biological systems that we haven't currently explained, and there are many beautiful and ordered aspects of biology, but no true scientist would claim any of these are evidence of intelligent design. Behe also takes this opportunity to dishonestly portray the famous researchers Watson and Crick as supporters of creationism, despite the fact that both were quite vocal about their rejection of any such model.
The third claim Behe presents is the statement that "we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence." This is a complete falsehood, since we not only have plenty of good non-ID explanations for the foundation of life, but we also don't have a single good explanation that DOES involve intelligent design. Behe makes a classic creationist mistake by persistently attacking the theory of evolution, as opposed to producing any evidence at all for intelligent design, apparently with the belief that any flaws or questions remaining in modern science will automatically justify belief in a magical creation scenario. Of course, claiming that the holes in evolution theory confirm intelligent design is like claiming that Columbus' misidentification of the West Indies means that the world really is flat after all.
He also lies, point blank, when he claims that "although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell." As a matter of fact, it's not at all difficult to find an extensive list of studies showing exactly that (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html).
The fourth and final claim in the argument for ID is that "in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life." This is essentially the same as saying that because we haven't been able to determine if there is/was life on other planets, we are justified in thinking that Jupiter is inhabited by a race of 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs.
In the end, the only thing sadder than Michael Behe's latest effort is the fact that it was given space in an otherwise reputable publication. Well, that, and the fact that the majority of Americans probably wouldn't see a damn thing wrong with it.