The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by jaywill
I mean your homie. Look, the guy who advocates for your position.

Deniest thou that ?


Oh, Ken Miller wrote "Finding Darwin's God". He is Catholic. I don't know much about his Christian experience. I have not read his book.

I have read and heard a lot of his comments defending Evolution and criticizing ID.

Well i guess you learn something everyday jaywill.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]And I must admit your boy Biologist Kenneth Miller got in some good points indeed.

What do you mean by 'your boy'? Kenneth Miller is a Christian.[/b]

What do you mean by 'your boy'? Kenneth Miller is a Christian.

And Berlinsky, as far as I can detect, is an agnostic. And he advcates ID.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Behe is by definition an evolutionist. He accepts common descent and also accepts that humans evolved. For instance -

"Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."

Darwin's Black Box pg 5-6

and

"For example, tures on earth are biological relatives".

The Edge of Evolution pg 71-72

Behe is by definition an evolutionist. He accepts common descent and also accepts that humans evolved. For instance -

Behe wrote that in his first book that he believed in common descent - "Darwin's Black Box" . And I believe it was said as much on the back cover.

We knew what we were getting when we read the outside flap of the book, as I recall - common descent. Or I recall it saying that he was not a Creationist.

Originally posted by jaywill

Behe is by definition an evolutionist. He accepts common descent and also accepts that humans evolved. For instance -

Behe wrote that in his first book that he believed in common descent - [b]"Darwin's Black Box" . And I believe it was said as much on the back cover.

We knew what we were getting when we read the outside flap of the book, as I recall - common descent.[/b]

Well i know that, you know that, but RJHinds doesn't.

He's advocating Behe would be a good ID teacher without realising that he actually supports common descent, something RJHinds; being a YEC, doesn't.

Behe is by definition an evolutionist.

And my chair, by definition is an atheist. It lacks belief in god.

Originally posted by jaywill
And I am getting a little tired of you hurling around that this, that, and the other guy lies.

And I am getting tired of you going off into streams of youtube videos with little or no relevance in response to a simple point.
I am also tired of you generalizing about me 'hurling around that this, that, and the other guy lies.'

The fact is that you made a claim regarding Behes possible future behavior given a certain eventuality, and I pointed out that according to the Judge in the Dover court proceedings, he made a similar claim in the past but did not go through with it.
When we are discussing possible future behavior of a person, that persons character and past behavior are entirely relevant and not Ad Hom. So you can start by admitting that you were wrong to accuse me of that in this case.

I don't know about the Dover court preceedings. I am not interested right now and going off and wading through those preceedings to see if I agree with you and some judge.
You don't want to know because it would hurt your case. It is also not about whether or not you agree with me and some Judge, it is about whether or Behe made a similar claim in the past then didn't follow through. I am sure that with your Googling skills you could verify what Behe actually said without taking the Judges word for it. You could probably even get us a youtube video of him saying it.

I respect the attitude of integrity of Behe. I have personally talked with him. He told me that his decision to adopt ID did not come from what he doesn't know but from what he does know.
Well then he doesn't seem to understand what the concept of ID is all about. To make an ID argument you must know that there is no possible naturalistic explanation for something.

In one of those C-SPAN videos he says that we are at a STALEMATE now with one side arguing that Evo explains all biology and IDers who say it does not. (Or something very close to that observation). I respect that he says he is trying to break the stalemate the scientific way - with evidence.
IDers must show not only that it does not, but that it can not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I am getting tired of you going off into streams of youtube videos with little or no relevance in response to a simple point.
I am also tired of you generalizing about me 'hurling around that this, that, and the other guy lies.'

The fact is that you made a claim regarding Behes possible future behavior given a certain eventuality, and I pointed ou ith evidence.
IDers must show not only that it does not, but that it can not.[/b]

The fact is that you made a claim regarding Behes possible future behavior given a certain eventuality, and I pointed out that according to the Judge in the Dover court proceedings, he made a similar claim in the past but did not go through with it.

I have many things I want to read that I have not gotten to yet. The Dover trial proceedings may be one.

But let's say you are right. Let me step back again and look at the big picture. Are you saying because Behe is shady and may not keep his word, THEREFORE, there is no intelligence behind a human sperm and a human egg joining together and cascading marvelously into another human being?

Is that the bottom line here ? Since Behe suspicioned as a purjurer under oath, I should be more open to human reproduction as a process totally void of any intelligent design ?

When we are discussing possible future behavior of a person, that persons character and past behavior are entirely relevant and not Ad Hom.

Okay. I drop the ad hom charge. Forget about it. You no use adhom on Michael Behe. You have some serious reservations about his ability to keep his word.

All granted.

Now, back to the big picture. Because Behe is not a "saint" in the slang or colloquial expression, therefore it follows that I should consider that his entire book has no good point and no intelligence could possibly be behind the blood clotting mechanism ?

Behe, is shady. So I should not consider plausible that operation of the human digestive system is due to no intelligent forethought and design ?

So you can start by admitting that you were wrong to accuse me of that in this case.

I withdraw the accusation.

Should I burn my copy of "Darwin's Black Box" ?

Because some skillful high paid lawyer, who makes his living on tripping up people on the witness stand and making them appear to be contradicting themselves, gets Behe to come out like lying, therefore I know ID is not science ?

Detection of Insurance Fraud is a science.
Homicide detection is a science.
Detection of fraud in gambling is a science.
Archeology is a science.
Even SETI and detection of intelligent messages from outer space is a science.

But throw out Intelligent Design in Biology as a science because you might have to grapple with theistic implications ? No thanks. You go that route if you want to.

Darwin's work was not always peer reviewed.
He said nasty things about women.
He said nasty things about races.

Do you discard his work because of his character flaws ?
Do you assume the unlikelihood of his mechanism because of his character flaws?

An attorney's job is to make the opposing side's client look like a liar.
Maybe what you saw was just the result of skillful legal manuevoring.

You don't want to know because it would hurt your case.

If my "case" here is that Dr. Behe is a skilled science researcher who has something, at least SOMETHING, which merits my consideration, my "case" has surely not been devasted by any of this.

And as far as the case for Intelligent Design ? Let's say Behe is the biggest liar in the world. So because of that I should believe that the functioning of my brain is all due to NOTHING of intelligent forethought, design, plan, and know-how from SOME source ?

Maybe the case is that YOU need some rational as to NOT read his research. Now you have a handy excuse. He appeared to lie under oath. So you don't need to read the writings of a Phd. in biology who goes against the grain.

Maybe you need to think of him as a liar in order to dismiss him quickly.

It is also not about whether or not you agree with me and some Judge, it is about whether or Behe made a similar claim in the past then didn't follow through. I am sure that with your Googling skills you could verify what Behe actually said without taking the Judges word for it. You could probably even get us a youtube video of him saying it.

I'll get around to reading the Dover matter. I see some things on Dover out there which I can view or read.

I am going to need more than Behe looking bad under the preasure of a hostile attorney to convince me to believe no intelligence, forethought, know-how, and plan was at work in the workings of the human reproductive system.

Well then he doesn't seem to understand what the concept of ID is all about. To make an ID argument you must know that there is no possible naturalistic explanation for something.

Where did you say you earned your Phd. from ?
Or maybe you didn't say ?

Your comment is absurd on one level.

There's plenty of naturalistic explanations that Mike Behe goes through. He goes on for hours about naturalistic causes. He only says that behind this causing that, and that causing this, ... etc. the evidence points to intelligent forethought, intelligent planning, intelligent know-how.

I am not sure what you mean. But review of natural processes for why things happen abounds in his lectures and book/s. It is that ultimately this cause and effects look to him like the result of Intelligence.

You FREAK because it implies God which hurts your cherished godless, atheistic worldview.

You freak out if someone says the evidence leads to a MIND other than the human mind.

IDers must show not only that it does not, but that it can not.

Not sure what this comment meant.

However, in this country, US, the current state of the constitutional law is this ( I do not know about your country) :

The Constitution garuantees Freedom of Religion but not freedom FROM Religion.

IF you freak because some science seems to you to have unspoken "religious" implications, that is your own problem. You have freedom of religion. You are not gauranteed freedom FROM religion.

That is the first amendment forbidding a state run religion - ie. Church of England - a mandated church or denomination.

The US Supreme Court also ruled that any explanation of the origin and development of the universe and of life that shows scientific integrity and credibility can be taught, regardless of theological implications. That was a 1987 Supreme Court ruling.

The Constitution in this country cannot be used to force bad science into the schools or keep good science out of the schools. Some bad creation science is rightly kept out of the public schools.

When I do look into the Dover case I will keep these matters before me. Of course it should be no surprise that in the legal realm cases come and are won or lost and often re-opened on other levels.

It would be naive for me to think everything on the matter of ID being in the free market of science ideas taught in public school is all over forever in the US.

I am not a legal expert by any means. But I will review the Dover case through this perspective. Because I don't believe that good science will be able to be kept out of the public schools eventually.

Originally posted by jaywill
But let's say you are right. Let me step back again and look at the big picture. Are you saying because Behe is shady and may not keep his word, THEREFORE, there is no intelligence behind a human sperm and a human egg joining together and cascading marvelously into another human being?

Is that the bottom line here ? Since Behe suspicioned as a purjurer u ...[text shortened]... hould be more open to human reproduction as a process totally void of any intelligent design ?

Where on earth is that coming from? I have said nothing of the sort, and that you are even suggesting it shows that you are totally failing to follow the conversation.

Okay. I drop the ad hom charge. Forget about it. You no use adhom on Michael Behe. You have some serious reservations about his ability to keep his word.

All granted.

Now, back to the big picture. Because Behe is not a "saint" in the slang or colloquial expression, therefore it follows that I should consider that his entire book has no good point and no intelligence could possibly be behind the blood clotting mechanism ?
No.

Behe, is shady. So I should not consider plausible that operation of the human digestive system is due to no intelligent forethought and design ?
No.

Should I burn my copy of "Darwin's Black Box"?
No.

But throw out Intelligent Design in Biology as a science because you might have to grapple with theistic implications ? No thanks. You go that route if you want to.
ID is not science because it doesn't fit the most basic descriptions of what science is. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Behe, nor with its theistic implications.

Darwin's work was not always peer reviewed.
He said nasty things about women.
He said nasty things about races.
And those nasty things, should not be accepted as good science.

Do you discard his work because of his character flaws ?
Do you assume the unlikelihood of his mechanism because of his character flaws?
No and no, and I do not discard Behes work because of his character flaws, nor have I ever suggested that I do.

If my "case" here is that Dr. Behe is a skilled science researcher who has something, at least SOMETHING, which merits my consideration, my "case" has surely not been devasted by any of this.
Your case, was that "Behe would be swayed if a reasonable testable experiment with a flagellum would be conducted. "
This was immediately following a discussion of whether or not Behe would:
a) make a good science teacher.
b) be willing to change his views given new evidence.

I think your case was devastated before you started.


I can't be bothered to read the rest of your over long post because you clearly are attributing to me claims I haven't made and as usual have totally lost track of what your own original claim was.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words, you admit that it is religious, not science. It therefore has no place in the science classroom.

No. I did not admit nothing of a sort. Michael Behe is a biological scientist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No he wouldn't. It doesn't matter if he said he would, he has lied on this subject before, as the Judge pointed out.

I am also willing to bet that you too would not be swayed by such an experiment or even by Behe changing his opinion.

Where is the record of him being convicted of purjury. I think you are
the liar.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Behe is by definition an evolutionist. He accepts common descent and also accepts that humans evolved. For instance -

"Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."

Darwin's Black Box pg 5-6

and

"For example, ...[text shortened]... tures on earth are biological relatives".

The Edge of Evolution pg 71-72

Behe was once an atheist too. Things are different now that he has more
information and is not just taking the word of his professors, who apparently
did not know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]And I must admit your boy Biologist Kenneth Miller got in some good points indeed.

What do you mean by 'your boy'? Kenneth Miller is a Christian.[/b]

Looks like another one has saw the Light.

Originally posted by jaywill
I mean your homie. Look, the guy who advocates for your position.

Deniest thou that ?


Oh, Ken Miller wrote "Finding Darwin's God". He is Catholic. I don't know much about his Christian experience. I have not read his book.

I have read and heard a lot of his comments defending Evolution and criticizing ID.

Oh. That's different, most Roman Catholics are Christian in name only.

Originally posted by jaywill

The fact is that you made a claim regarding Behes possible future behavior given a certain eventuality, and I pointed out that according to the Judge in the Dover court proceedings, he made a similar claim in the past but did not go through with it.

I have many things I want to read that I have not gotten to yet. The Dover trial procee ...[text shortened]... od science will be able to be kept out of the public schools eventually.

Don't assume he is right. Because he was wrong yesterday, is wrong
today, and will be wrong tomorrow unless he has a visit from the Holy
Spirit to repair his twisted mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Where on earth is that coming from? I have said nothing of the sort, and that you are even suggesting it shows that you are totally failing to follow the conversation.

[b]Okay. I drop the ad hom charge. Forget about it. You no use adhom on Michael Behe. You have some serious reservations about his ability to keep his word.

All granted.

Now, ba ...[text shortened]... 't made and as usual have totally lost track of what your own original claim was.

Good. You don't need to read any long claims about anything. You would
not understand them anyway. You need to go to the Help forum.