Michael J. Behe on the Colbert Report
From Wikipedia:
Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952, in Altoona, Pennsylvania) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He advocates the idea that some structures are too complex at the biochemical level to be adequately explained as a result of evolutionary mechanisms. He has termed this concept "irreducible complexity".Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community. The Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University, published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." [1] His comments about intelligent design have been characterized as pseudoscience.[2][3][4]
The Colbert Report (IPA: [kol'bɛɹ rɪˈpɔr]) is an American satirical television program on Comedy Central that stars comedian Stephen Colbert, previously a correspondent for The Daily Show. The Colbert Report is a spin-off and counterpart of The Daily Show which, like The Daily Show, critiques politics and the media. It parodies personality-driven political pundit programs, particularly Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor.[1][2] The show focuses on Stephen Colbert, a semi-fictional anchorman character, played by the actor and comedian Stephen Colbert. The character, a "well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot", is a caricature of televised political pundits.[3][4]
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
Comments
I love how he goes on about "irreducible complexity", but solves it with an even more sophisticated irreducibly complex thing - i.e., God. It's still more likely that it "just happened" by blind chance.
As I understand it, Behe has now backed up to the point where he's saying that God is simply the source of mutations. That smells of pantheism to me. Which is fine by me, but (1) it's dishonest to argue for a pantheistic or deistic God and use it as reason to believe in the Christian God, and (2) it's dishonest to call it science.
In effect, the ID proponent, Behe, is arguing for Anthropic principle. The Atheist might ask the Christian ID proponent how they start with said principle, and arrive at "Yahweh".
Now, what specifically, do you feel is being blown out of proportion about that?....or if not that, what other point do you feel is being blown out of proportion?
Post a Comment