Education

Creative Editing of Michael Behe

Spread the love

This just in from a colleague in Australia:

Michael Behe was misquoted on the Aussie Catalyst program as follows.

From Australian ABC Catalyst program slamming ID. (Thurs 20th October 2005)

According to the ABC “the purpose of the report was to explain what is meant by Intelligent Design and to ask whether it is, in fact, a science.”

From Catalyst transcript:

“Paul Willis: It’s simply not science. And the ‘claimed’ scientific clout behind Intelligent Design is very small.

Prof. Michael Behe: There are not that many people who are actively involved in it. Probably, oh maybe a handful you know, five to ten, something like that.

Paul Willis: And this handful of scientists have a good idea just who the Intelligent Designer is.”

I asked the ABC what was Michael Behe really asked? The ABC provided me with a transcript of part of the Behe interview.

“Interviewer: How many scientists are actively researching intelligent design?

Prof. Michael Behe: We’re a small but hearty group. There are not that many people who are actively involved in it. Probably, oh maybe a handful you know, five to ten, something like that. But we hope to increase our numbers over time.”

This is yet another example of twisting the words of ID proponents to mischeivous ends.

8 Replies to “Creative Editing of Michael Behe

  1. 1
    mtgcsharpguy says:

    Obviously, the evolutionists are desparate. Why do they need to lie in order to chastise an “unscientific” theory such as ID? Because they can’t any other way, and they know it!

  2. 2
    Brian says:

    Sadly, this seems about par for the course for at least that side of the debate. The “sin of spin” doesn’t seem to be something they’re afraid of doing.

    Sometimes I don’t think it’s because they’re desperate but because they’re so over-biased against ID and its proponents that they don’t think it’s unethical to spin things whichever way they want.

  3. 3
    DaveScot says:

    Evolution is a theory in crisis. Soon to be a theory six feet under.

  4. 4
    jboze3131 says:

    how did we get to the point where a group of men and woman are allowed to define what is and isnt science? if they dont want to define it as science, for whatever reason, they can claim it isnt science and thus claim the right to ignore it.

    dictionary.com gives me this as the defintion of science:

    The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
    Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
    Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

    lets consider that most of the famous scientists throughout history were devout christians who actually put their religion directly into their science- they only practice science to begin with to learn more about gods creation.

    so, because they often times injected their faith into their science- would their work and theories not be science as defined today?

    ID is clearly not a religious theory, because some IDers dont believe the designer was god at all…you cannot deny these people exist and still try to claim its a religious idea. which is why ID knows its limits (unline darwinists who claim that they know that life has no goal, no purpose, and no meaning- as provine from cornell has said!). ID stops at naming the designer, because thats a philosophical and religious question. BUT- somehow, in our society, weve gotten to the point where science is the dominate branch of knowledge, and too many scientists and laymen alike want to bash religion and philosophy and other paths to knowledge as somehow being lesser. that religion and philosophy are meaningless, that theyre based on irrational ideas and such. how did we get to this point in the last 150 yrs?

    how did science become so narrowly defined? further- how do darwinists claim, with straight faces, a million just-so stories that arent backed by the evidence?

  5. 5
    johnnyb says:

    I don’t see the issue. I don’t see what was twisted about his words. Can someone point it out to me? It looks like a shortened, but still correct, version of what he said.

  6. 6
    jboze3131 says:

    the writer wanted to it seem as tho behe said only a handful of people were involved in ID period…when in fact, he was saying that only a handful are currently doing active research on ID related topics.

    thousands of people support ID and consider themselves proponents of the theory- but there arent a lot out there who are currently in the lab using the theory for testing and research…but the reason behind that surely has to do, in part, with the witch hunts on anyone even supporting ID let alone trying to gather the funds and the lab space to actively research the issue.

  7. 7
    johnnyb says:

    “the writer wanted to it seem as tho behe said only a handful of people were involved in ID period…when in fact, he was saying that only a handful are currently doing active research on ID related topics.”

    I don’t know — I see “involved” and “doing active research” as the same thing.

  8. 8
    jboze3131 says:

    well, we know there are more than 5 or 10 ID theorists out there. anyone reading that article would be under the impression that only 5-10 existed period.

Leave a Reply