ID Trial Recap III: Everything He Said? Simple Opinion & Religion - Not Evidence, Not Fact & Not Science
ID in a Nutshell
'Intelligent Design' Advocate Testifies, Attacks Scientists
Updated: from The Associated Press / Reuters
HARRISBURG, Pa. -
A biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and he believes God is behind them.
Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class. Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether intelligent design can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called Darwin's Black Box, said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."
Behe, however, argues that evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.
The intelligent design concept does not name the designer, although Behe, a Roman Catholic, testified he personally believes it to be God.
"I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors," he said.
The school board is defending its decision a year ago to require students to hear a statement on intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, Of Pandas and People, for more information.
Behe
contributed to Of Pandas and People, writing a section about blood-clotting. He told a federal judge Monday that in the book, he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting "is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design."
Eight families sued to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum, contending the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Mainstream scientists have rejected intelligent design as scientifically untested and contend that its supporters focus on attacking evolutionary theory rather than providing evidence for design.
Behe testified that intelligent design specifically questions whether life at the molecular level evolved through natural selection.
"That's the most poorly supported aspect of Darwin's theory," he said.
Behe, who was expected to resume testifying Tuesday, compared the outcry over intelligent design to the early criticism of the big-bang theory some 70 years ago. "Many people thought it had philosophical and even theological implications that they did not like," he said.
On Tuesday,
he accused two scientific organizations of politics and misleading the public in their rejection of intelligent design.
"The National Academy of Sciences treats intelligent design in a way what I consider utterly misleading. Talk about scholarly malfeasance!" he said.
He refuted the Academy's statement that intelligent design theory attributed the complexity of nature to "the hand of God." Behe personally believes the designer was God but said that belief was not part of his intelligent design theory.
"I advocated none of those ideas," Behe said. "I take this as a political statement unsupported by any references."
Behe also accused the American Association for the Advancement of Science of issuing a "political document" when it stated that intelligent design should not be taught in high school science classes.
A lawyer for the parents produced an article by Behe saying the theory of intelligent design would be undermined without the existence of God. Earlier in the day Behe denied intelligent design was equivalent to creationism.
"Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory," Behe said. "One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design."
Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory." He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which means he can express his views without the threat of losing his job.
Updated: from The Associated Press / Reuters
HARRISBURG, Pa. -
A biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and he believes God is behind them. Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class. Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether intelligent design can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called Darwin's Black Box, said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."
Behe, however, argues that evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.
The intelligent design concept does not name the designer, although Behe, a Roman Catholic, testified he personally believes it to be God.
"I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors," he said.
The school board is defending its decision a year ago to require students to hear a statement on intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, Of Pandas and People, for more information.
Behe
contributed to Of Pandas and People, writing a section about blood-clotting. He told a federal judge Monday that in the book, he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting "is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design."Eight families sued to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum, contending the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Mainstream scientists have rejected intelligent design as scientifically untested and contend that its supporters focus on attacking evolutionary theory rather than providing evidence for design.
Behe testified that intelligent design specifically questions whether life at the molecular level evolved through natural selection.
"That's the most poorly supported aspect of Darwin's theory," he said.
Behe, who was expected to resume testifying Tuesday, compared the outcry over intelligent design to the early criticism of the big-bang theory some 70 years ago. "Many people thought it had philosophical and even theological implications that they did not like," he said.
On Tuesday,
he accused two scientific organizations of politics and misleading the public in their rejection of intelligent design. "The National Academy of Sciences treats intelligent design in a way what I consider utterly misleading. Talk about scholarly malfeasance!" he said.
He refuted the Academy's statement that intelligent design theory attributed the complexity of nature to "the hand of God." Behe personally believes the designer was God but said that belief was not part of his intelligent design theory.
"I advocated none of those ideas," Behe said. "I take this as a political statement unsupported by any references."
Behe also accused the American Association for the Advancement of Science of issuing a "political document" when it stated that intelligent design should not be taught in high school science classes.
A lawyer for the parents produced an article by Behe saying the theory of intelligent design would be undermined without the existence of God. Earlier in the day Behe denied intelligent design was equivalent to creationism.
"Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory," Behe said. "One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design."
Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory." He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which means he can express his views without the threat of losing his job.
Darren Said, Let There Be Post! at 2:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home