Michael Behe Lecture Recommend
| August 7, 2010 | Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design |
Check out this lecture by Michael Behe about his book, The Edge of Evolution.
Two questions posed by members of the audience were of interest to me. Sean Carroll criticized Behe in a review of The Edge for not considering cumulative, sequential mutations, and Carroll used a specific example. Behe points out in the lecture that this specific example was addressed in his book, and that the subject of cumulative selection was addressed in detail. Behe goes on to speak about the resistance of “science” publications to print his rejoinders to his critics, and that the editors often say something like, “Your response would not be of interest to our readers.”
Really? Pointing out flagrant misrepresentations — might I even suggest lies, or evidence that the book reviewer did not even read the book? — would not be of interest to our readers?
This is the tyrannical Darwinian way: Suppress dissent. Vilify the opponent. Tell the population that the matter is settled, and that those who question are evil destroyers of “science.”
These tactics sound more like those of a depraved theocracy than those of a truth-seeking “scientific” establishment.
The other interesting question posed by a member of the audience — after Behe presented his probabilistic, empirical evaluation of the mutational factors required to defeat chloroquine by the malarial parasite — concerned the human population of the earth, the fact that it is currently about six billion, and that this represents about half of all humans who have ever lived since “Lucy” presumably evolved into modern humans through the now-indisputable mechanism of random mutation and natural selection.
The probabilistic resources have never existed for the Darwinian mechanism to do anything of any significance — except break things that can promote survival in a pathological environment — and this should be obvious to anyone who has not been blinded by Darwinian anti-logic.
39 Responses to Michael Behe Lecture Recommend
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
zeroseven, it seems that you have set a very unfair ‘test’ for God that you yourself do not even require for your ‘god’ of evolution. Indeed, I have not seen any evolutionist ever present any evidence for any violation of Genetic Entropy (any gain in functional information above what is present in a parent species) that has withstood scrutiny, much less have I ever seen an evolutionist create a novel appendage for say a fruit fly or even a bacteria. Yet despite this stunning lack of evidence for your ‘god’, ‘almighty’, evolution, you refuse to even consider the mountains of evidence for design in life itself. Evidence of such staggering functional complexity that adjectives fail. Yet despite this blatant unreasonableness on your part for even fairly considering all this other ‘scientific evidence’, you find yourself willing ‘to give God one more chance’ if He jumps through this just this one hoop for you. Now zeroseven which of these adjectives best describes your attitude in this situation,,,,
1) Gracious???
2) Arrogant???
3) Insane???
It is simply remarkable that you would appeal to such a ‘scientific’ hoop for God to jump through all the while refusing the overwhelming ‘scientific’ evidence for design from all other fields of science investigated!!!
Let me relate my experience to you zeroseven, when God revealed Himself to me, in a very subtle way I might add, and I have absolutely no doubt that He is real after that particular experience on that particular day, it was in no way a ‘test’ from me for God to prove Himself to me. When God revealed Himself to me, He choose to do so, in the tender and loving way that He did, because I was in a desperate situation, and I called out to Him from that point of need that I was in, and He had compassion on me. And I might add He continues to have gentle compassion on me to correct me in the myriad of mistakes I make in this world in my walk with Him.
Hi BA77,
I don’t think its an unfair test at all. I don’t claim evolution can make a limb grow back in front of my eyes, or create a novel appendage for an animal while I watch. These things take many steps over a lot of time as you know. And there is no shortage of evidence of those steps, as there is for all aspects of evolution.
On the other hand, there is no empirical evidence of amputees growing back limbs. Strange isn’t it?
BA77,
zeroseven is surrounded by the greatest creative miracle there ever was, yet remains an unbeliever. In a passage of scripture, which has been quoted on UD several times, and which I wholeheartedly believe, Romans 1:20, such are said to be without excuse for their unbelief. God very subtly revealed himself to you. Zeroseven is asking for a revelation, a creative miracle. Why give him 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of eyewitness testimony. According to the Youtube video greater things are going on right now. I’m sure zeroseven can find someone with a missing appendage who is interested in having it restored. Tell zeroseven where to go.
My faith came by hearing the word of God. I believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. I believe in the miracles of Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Paul, etc., not because of anything I see today, but because of what is written. John 20:30-31.
Should zeroseven believe God sends laughing gas into assemblies of his people today? Do you?
Perhaps this is not the forum to debate this, especially since it is so far off the topic in the OP.
suckerspawn you start off correctly in surmising that reality gives zeroseven overwhelming evidence of the greatest ‘creative’ miracle ever. Namely that the universe has been brought into existence and is indeed sustained in its existence by God who is completely transcendent of time and space. Yet you then try to justify zeroseven’s demand on God by implying he is merely asking for a revelation from God, when in fact he is not ‘asking God’ for any ‘revelation’ but is in fact ‘testing God’. and I’m pretty sure you know the relevant scriptures on that particular line of thought.,,, Suckerspawn you then go on to try take digs at some of the strange things heard about going on in the Pentecostal church, such as ‘spontaneously laughing congregations’ (Now we all know spontaneously laughing in church is not scriptural in the least don’t we suckerspawn???
, and then you ask me if I believe if these strange things, you have heard about from Pentecostals, are truly manifestations of God’s spirit (well actually you use the term ‘laughing gas’). Well of course I don’t believe ALL of these strange things, that you have heard about, are true and are from God, just as I don’t believe the current glut of ‘name it and claim it’ preachers that pollute the airways of TV with their God wants everyone to be a millionaire claptrap, Yet I do firmly hold to the fact that God does indeed move ‘miraculously’ in many mysterious and strange ways to reach hardened men’s hearts, since I have indeed seen, and heard, of Him doing many ‘strange’ things in unexpected ways for many different people.,,,, Much like Gil’s testimony of his atheistic mother seeing ‘Nuns’ in her hospital room, though probably not as dramatic, so yes I am fairly skeptical of much of what goes on ‘in the name of God’ by some of those who claim to be ‘specially anointed by God’ above others, but I do not let that detract from the fact that I know all things are possible with the God who created and sustains this universe, and the God who indeed defeated death on the cross and grants eternal life to those who believe on His name. And just think about it Suckerspawn, just who are we to be so hasty to judge anything as ‘too strange’ to be of God’s hand, when in fact we believe in the fact that God chose to defeat death in such a ‘strange’ way as the cross!?! Surely there are more ‘socially acceptable’ ways for death to be dealt with don’t you think?!?
The words “God’s laughing gas” are not mine, they were used in part two of the Youtube video you linked to. The genuineness of the laughing gas was affirmed by the same fellows affirming the genuineness creative miracles at the Azusa Street meetings.
Yes, God’s ways are not man’s ways. We are told to “test the spirits”. I don’t know how do that other than by lining them up against the word of God. Satan is also active and able to produce lying signs and wonders. Discernment is essential.
suckerspawn for your information I claim no ‘denomination’ when asked about my religion, but simply reply that I am a Christian when asked. That being said, I think it extremely poor taste for you to try to link any denomination of Christianity, no matter how misguided in doctrinal accuracy they may be, to Satanism. HMMM,,, A scripture about us being ‘one body’ comes to mind ? Do you recall the one I’m thinking about suckerspawn?
If We Are The Body
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExJ9od-0zQ
I claim no denomination either. I am simply a Christian.
All I did was follow your link to Youtube. I then, out of fairness and in search of truth and discernment, looked for an opposing viewpoint. I had never heard of Azusa Street before yesterday.The article I found linked Azusa Street to certain denomination(s) and Satanism, not me. I did not claim to embrace everthing in the article any more than you claimed to embrace God’s laughing gas mentioned in your link.
I believe God wants His people to be united in one body. I believe He is unhappy about the existence of denominations. Jesus did not die to build denominations. I’m not sure how to have unity with those who believe God sends laughing gas into their assemblies. It would require a departure from the word of God and I’m not willing to go there.
Maybe we could all use some of that laughing gas right now.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!
There.
Can we now get back to the op topic?
Zeroseven,
It’s funny that you said “third-hand” to talk about a limb regrowing. Haha.
Anyway, in defense of my citation, I think it was taken from the mother’s journal.
Anyway, CannuckianYankee is right. Let’s get back on topic.
Concerning the person who responded to Behe’s lecture by saying that he did not consider successive/cumulative mutations: wouldn’t that be even less probable than a single beneficial mutation. Am I missing something?