|
This Day In History
|
The Brontosaurus
- Monty Python's flying creationism.
Michael Behe is the originator of the term Irreducible Complexity and
extols the mousetrap and the bacterial flagellum (flagellar motor) as
classic examples of this principal. See
Michael Behe for more information on his beliefs, ideas, books, etc.
By William Saletan
See www.slate.com/id/2128755/ for the full article - It has even more
Behe lunacy!
Monty Python Skit
Q: You say you have a new theory about the
brontosaurus.
A: Can I just say here, Chris, for one moment, that I
have a new theory about the brontosaurus.
Q: Exactly. Well, what is it? …
A: Oh, what is my theory?
Q: Yes.
A: Oh, what is my theory, that it is. Well, Chris, you
may well ask me what is my theory.
Q: I am asking.
A: Good for you. My word, yes. Well, Chris, what is it
that it is—this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is—my theory that
I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine.
Q: Yes, I know it's yours. What is it?
A: Where? Oh, what is my theory? This is it. My theory
that belongs to me is as follows. This is how it goes. The next thing
I'm going to say is my theory. Ready?
Q: Yes.
A: … This theory goes as follows and begins now. All
brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle;
and then thin again at the far end.
Michael Behe during
cross-examination Pennsylvania school board case.
Q: Please describe the mechanism that
intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures
arose.
Behe: Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many
ways. … When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we
can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological
structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. …
Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design
proposes?
Behe: And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what
I replied to your question the first time?
Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you.
You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design
theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex
biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the
mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex
biological structures arose?
Behe: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the
sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose.
But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which
these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.
The interrogation goes on like this for pages and pages. Like the
theorist in the Monty Python sketch, Behe throws up a blizzard of
babble: process, intelligent activity, important facts. What process?
What activity? What facts? He never explains. He says the designer "took
steps" to create complex biological systems, but ID can't specify the
steps. Does ID tell us who designed life? No, he answers. Does it tell
us how? No. Does it tell us when? No. How would the designer create a
bacterial flagellum? It would "somehow cause the plan to, you know, go
into effect," he
proposes.
See www.slate.com/id/2128755/
for the full article - It has even more Behe lunacy, plus many
more great articles.
Astrology in the Classroom?
Does Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe think
astrology is a valid high school subject? [click here]
|
Add your Comments
Submit a
Rebuttal
Submit an
Article on another topic
2006-07-27 15:10:08 J.T., Young Earth Creationist, wrote
So So, Bogus, Biased to Evolution
Nothing of substance at all in this article. As a Creationist, even
though I may not agree with every opinion that Behe holds, I can
understand that those in the "intelligent design" camp are necessarily
vague as to what exactly said intelligence is. Being based less in
history and tradition and more in the scientific method, it follows that
exactly what intelligence designed life (God, or some other apparently
non-observable entity, as well as the steps such intelligence took to
create life) is not within the scope of their studies, but that
recognizing its role in the formation of life and the monumental
improbability of the purely naturalistic view clearly does. The
inability to scientifically verify the identity of the Creator is no
more a hindrance to the study of intelligent design than the inability
of mathematicians to prove the continuum hypothesis is to mathematical
theory (or inability of evolutionists to produce even one concrete
example of when and where macro-evolutionary change has occurred). This
article, as well as the original one on Behe rate rather low in
objectivity as well as scientific validity. They produce no
counter-evidence or logical rebuttal to Behe's claims of irreducible
complexity. No facts, no real evidence to the contrary, no addressing of
the specifics of his arguments, merely the feeble and desperate defenses
of popular opinion and ad hominem. Standard fare for the religion of
Darwinism. Drawing comparisons to a Monty Python sketch as evidence
against the man instead of actually attempting to refute his theory? A
drowning man will indeed clutch at a straw. |
|
