Dr. Bechly specializes in the fossil history and systematics of insects, particularly dragonflies. From 1999 until the end of 2016, he served as the curator for amber and fossil insects in the Department of Paleontology at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart.
Chosen to organize the largest museum exhibit in Germany celebrating the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth in 2009, Bechly ended up having gnawing doubts about Darwin after he read books by intelligent design proponents Michael Behe and William Dembski. Initially keeping his scientific heresy a secret, he began years of private discussions with intelligent design proponents including CSC Director Stephen Meyer.
Dr. Bechly was one of the presenters at the “Beyond Materialism” conference co-organized by Discovery Institute and the U.K.-based Centre for Intelligent Design at Cambridge University last November. He wowed the audience with his comments about the challenges to traditional Darwinism in the fossil record. He was also present for the Royal Society meeting, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” in London where he provided us with excellent on-the-scene reporting, commentary, and photography. More.
Now that he doesn’t need a job any more, he can think safely. Massive citations. Sad if he probably couldn’t get published again no matter what he found. But the, science isn’t about that any more, its about marchin’, marchin’.
Here’s his website: Includes his publications in the field. His blog.
Content warning: Bechly is an actual Catholic, like G.K. Chesterton, thus no fan of Darwinism.
See also: Webinar with Dr. Bechly
Follow UD News at Twitter!
6 Replies to “What can happen when a paleontologist actually reads ID theorists”
Unlike, say the last few popes, who are presumably, therefore, not actually Catholic.
I keenly await Denyse’s report on the sanitary habits of bears.
Wonderful to read. No. Not your own reported eager anticipation, Robertoh.
Bob O’H. “Content warning: Bechly is an actual Catholic, like G.K. Chesterton, thus no fan of Darwinism.”
So what is the point made by the “Content warning”? Is this a trigger point to elicit a specific response? Such as Catholic thinkers and scientists are biased, and noncatholic, atheistic, nontheists, thinkers and scientists are either less biased or not oblique in their presumptions. If this is the point of the Content warning then it is disingenuous and the author is simply ill-informed or poorly educated.
Possibly, we have need of Content warnings for all scientists, philosophers, published thinkers. Exempli gratia, Content warning: The scientist is an actual meat eater, thus no fan of Phytology; Content warning: The philosopher is an actual axiologist, thus no fan of Krauss; Content warning: The published thinker is an actual human, thus no fan of AI machines.
My point should be obvious, but in the case that ob viam is not an ” actual” ob viam, your content warning is absurd.
redwave – whatever Denyse’s faults, I certainly don’t think she’s disingenuous.
Bob O’H. Thanks. I might have overreacted or mistaken a humorous thought for a serious thought.
It’s a shame he did not elaborate on his criticism of the co-optation counter-argument regarding the flagellum…