Discussion of Big Science Today, by an Important Member of the National Association of Scholars

Which is just the typical of radical right-wing anti-scientific denialism that Behe and the rest of the DI promote. Similarly, such people are fond of saying “Yes, we agree that the climate is changing. But is it really true that human activity is causing it to change?”

And, no, it is not just @T_aquaticus’s explanation that Behe denies. It is the correct scientific explanation, supported beyond reasonable doubt by empirical evidence, that Behe denies. Do try to be more careful in the words you choose, “Eddie.”


As apposed to radical left wing design denialism :slight_smile:

No, I’m saying there is something duplicitous or deceptive about calling him a creationist – as you and Eugenie Scott have done. If the shoe fits, wear it.

It is also duplicitous and deceptive to mention only Behe’s differences regarding mechanism unless one also reminds the reader of Behe’s agreements regarding the earth’s organic history, including changes of form from unicellular creatures to man. (Changes which no creationist accepts – on that scale.)

I am quite willing to agree that the sentence, “Behe is an evolutionist” requires some discussion, and I have never shied from that discussion. But to say “Behe is a creationist” is simply false, unless one decides to adopt a meaning of “creationism” that made its appearance only after ID appeared, and with the obvious purpose of being able to label ID with a culturally negative [negative among the sort of readers the NCSE is trying to influence] characterization.

If people here were reasonable, and were willing to argue, say, that we need a new category to class someone like Behe, neither traditional “creationism” nor traditional “evolutionism”, I would be quite open to such a nuanced discussion. But because of the gauntlet-throwing hard-liners here, nuanced discussions can’t be held here. And they never will be, at least, among the majority of atheist posters currently present.

You aren’t competent to state the correct scientific explanation, as you have zero training and zero publications in the relevant fields and rely entirely on hearsay and dominant opinion. And even if you were competent, I would disagree; your statement is an overclaim. But darn it, here I am on this page again! Move your objections to the definitions page!

“Hearsay and dominant opinion”. That’s a very odd way to describe familiarity with the scholarly consensus of a scientific discipline.

Since, as far as I know, you have no training or publications in astronomy or geology, does that mean you are not competent to state what the current scientific position is regarding the shape of the earth?

Ah, I see. Based on your extensive contribution to the peer-reviewed literature on evolutionary biology, I presume?

No, based nearly 50 years of thinking about epistemology, and therefore having become much more cautious about declaring that something is “known” than many people who engage in origins debates.
See you on the other thread. Bye.

Oh, I see. Well, why don’t you share with us how one can determine a single thing about biology thru nothing more than “thinking about epistemology”, and without any knowledge of a single empirical observation or experiment.

I’ll be right here.


I won’t be. See above.

That’s a shame. I was hoping you would share your secret. Imagine how much time and money could be saved if scientists could figure things out just by sitting on their asses “thinking about epistemology”, and forgetting about that bothersome stuff like labs and data and experiments.


I think you will find many supporters of Behe who maintain Mike Behe does not accept evolution. Devolution, perhaps?


Evolution is a specific type of modification, not just any modification. That’s the problem with these short definitions.

Can Denton even be classified as a proponent of Intelligent Design? It would seem that a naturally forming water molecule is as designed as life is, according to Denton’s definition of ID.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to label someone as rejecting evolution if they claim that biological structures are not the product of the mechanisms described in the theory of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientists.


Start a new topic if you want to discuss Behe. That’s not the topic here. I may reply under a new topic, if you create one, but not until I’m satisfied that people here have made a sincere effort to discuss definitions on the definitions page. Bye.

Especially since Behe rejects most evolution by its most accurate definition, “Allele frequency changes in a population over time,” because he doesn’t acknowledge that most selection and drift is acting on existing variation–Behe routinely misrepresents evolution as “waiting for a mutation” or “waiting for two mutations.”

Yeah, the notion that Behe isn’t anti-evolution is pretty bizarre. Sure, yes, he accepts common descent, but there has to be a magic whiz-bang workaround in the form either of YHWH’s magic DNA syringe or the miraculous “pool shot” uber-miracle in which, if you whack the atoms just so, a universe where evolution’s impossible will have it anyway. These notions are just utterly asinine and I don’t think there’s a good word for someone who advocates things like that other than “creationist.” Creationist with qualifiers, perhaps: “ID creationist”; “Wacky-ass creationist”; “creationist who scored entirely too much acid back in the 1970s,” and so on; but always, consistently, creationist.


One would think that someone steeped in so many decades of deep epistemological thought wouldn’t call a bunch of people who can’t even come up with a single ID hypothesis between them “ID theorists.”

And arguing that “nanocars” are worthy of a Nobel, while an actual Nobel that confirmed the most important prediction of the RNA World hypothesis was nothing more than a mere classification of a molecule–because his guru misrepresented it (and has never corrected it, demonstrating intent).

1 Like

Incredible. Eddie, is there any scientific knowledge level at or below which we can assume that you have a minimal understanding?

Let’s not forget that according to Eddie, he was great at science as an undergrad!

One doesn’t have to have much scientific knowledge at all to realize that @Eddie’s point above refutes Denton’s argument, based as it is on the premise that all the physical parameters on a planet vary independently of one another (i.e. whether there is liquid water is completely independent of the temperature of the surface of the planet.)

Spending 50 years “thinking about epistemology”, OTOH, ought to suffice. But I guess not necessarily.


We could call it ‘evolution through miracles’. Isn’t that what it is?

1 Like

It’s a method used to infer design in nature. If someone is open to this it could be a useful tool for the scientific tool box.

I don’t see how concluding that, say, the flagellum originated via a miracle could be of any use for science. Can you enlighten me?