Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Public Debate I Would Love to Hear: Behe Versus Dawkins

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s how a debate between Behe and Dawkins would go:

Behe would present this.

In response, Dawkins would counter:

Once upon a time there was a squirrel-like creature that jumped from a tree at a certain height; let us call it H. Then, through random mutations, the squirrel-like creature got some flaps under its arms, which broke its fall. Just follow this logic and it’s easy to see how birds and bats evolved by random mutation and natural selection from non-flying ancestors!”

Dawkins won’t debate Behe because Dawkins’s version of “science” is the above, and Behe’s version of science is actually evaluating the evidence.

Comments
Astrology makes falsifiable predictions against model that can be empirically tested.
Which in itself puts it light years ahead of intelligent design.Single_Malt
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Astrology makes falsifiable predictions against model that can be empirically tested. Of course, it fails miserably, but how is that not scientific?mike1962
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Phillip Johnson, though not near the refined 'scientific caliber' of Dr. Behe, actually took that 'squirrel-like creature' argument on, rather effectively, in this blast from the past video, starting at the about the 20 minute mark:
Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
bornagain77
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
For Behe's version of science we can do little better than examine his 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover testimony.
Q: And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
Behe: Yes
Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
Behe: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
So there you have it; Behe's version of science.Single_Malt
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply