Intelligent Design News

Tim Kershner’s interview with Mike Behe

Spread the love

Here:

How he, originally a typical Darwinian, got involved with design theory.

Michael J. Behe (/’bi?hi?/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design (ID) advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

6 Replies to “Tim Kershner’s interview with Mike Behe

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Excellent Interview.

  2. 2
    leodp says:

    I remember how Behe was roundly rebuked after DBB was published. Irreducible Complexity was sneered at and smeared, but not shown wrong. For anti-ID bias, there’s an interesting parallel in climate science today. The US government funds 2.5 billion in research on climate change each year. But only those lines of inquiry and researchers who want to further the theory of “human caused and carbon sourced” climate change can get this funding. The founder of the Weather Channel, meteorologist John Coleman, says the facts and science do no support this conclusion. In fact the models and nearly all the predictions based on CO2 in the atmosphere have proven false. Widely. But the ‘consensus, bought and paid for’, is that it is a fact. However scientific ‘fact’ (always provisional) rests on actual data and objective research and analysis, not consensus. At what point do we consider this theory falsified? At what point do we consider NDT, at least as it is commonly presented today, falsified. Or at least declared inadequate. Just as the bias against ID is philosophic and religious, not scientific.

  3. 3
    Edward says:

    But leodp, is John Coleman a trained, certified climatologist? Remeber that arguments from authority is the gold standard in concensus science.

    Glad I could help,
    Ed

  4. 4
    leodp says:

    Thanks, Ed. I probably did but didn’t mean to simply appeal to Coleman’s authority. The facts don’t align with the C02 warming theory predictions, and haven’t for some time. In the same way, the facts do not align with a non-intelligent law/chance explanations for either life or the precision universe.
    It is theologically inconvenient for me, but I hold to an old earth because I believe the evidence is strongly in support. I wish the prevailing consensus in regards to ID would do the same.

  5. 5
    Edward says:

    I’m sorry leopd, I didn’t think anyone would take that post seriously. It was meant as satire. Those arguments don’t make any position true any more than any more than that position appearing in a peer reviewed journal makes it true.

    Ed

  6. 6
    Robert Byers says:

    Its excellent that in all those years this man was not intellectually refuted in any persuasive way but he is still strong about his conclusions.
    also shows how books do matter in persuading thoughtful people.

Leave a Reply