Michael Behe Speaks at Penn State

THE intellectual crown jewel of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, Michael Behe, is in the news again because of another speaking engagement. We always enjoy Behe’s public appearances. The last one resulted in our writing this: Behe Admits He Has No Theory.

At the website of the Daily Collegian, published at Pennsylvania State University, we read: Author defends intelligent design. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Behe, who was brought to Penn State by the Science and the Bible club (SciBle), spoke about his belief in the intelligent design theory.

We assumed he wasn’t invited by the biology department. Let’s read on:

Michael Behe gained notoriety after testifying in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, in favor of teaching the intelligent design theory in the school system, and has also written numerous books about the subject.

Notoriety is the appropriate word for Behe’s courtroom performance — as a star witness for the losing side. See: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Michael Behe’s Testimony. And it’s true that he’s written books on ID; but like all other ID promoters, Behe has had no ID research published in any peer-reviewed science journal. We continue:

Behe began with a disclaimer that his beliefs do not reflect the beliefs of Lehigh University, where he is a professor of biochemistry, his colleagues, or even his mother, he added jokingly.

Was it really a joke that Behe’s mother thinks he’s a clown? It could be true. We already knew that his colleagues at Lehigh University have bestowed upon Behe the remarkable distinction of publicly disassociating themselves from him. See: Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”.

Here’s more:

His arguments in favor of intelligent design included what he thought to be obvious indicators. Behe said design is not mystical, explaining that one can tell when something is designed. Behe used Mount Rushmore, compared to natural mountains, as a designed structure.

Most persuasive! Moving along:

Behe’s [sic] also said that those in the science field agree that aspects of biology appear designed and cited other scientists, including those in support of Darwinism.

Breathtaking! In one brief statement, Behe has quote-mined the whole world! What else has he got to say?

“Many people think science should stay away from something beyond nature,” Behe said. “I disagree.”

This is becoming tragic — he thinks scientists should be out there ghost-hunting or something. Here’s another excerpt:

Behe then moved on to rebut several objections to intelligent design; however, he spent a large amount of this time discussing the trial, in which intelligent design was unsupported, and poking holes in the judge’s findings.

Still re-arguing the Kitzmiller case! Well, creationism requires that one must reject reality, so this makes sense — in its own way.

Behe has become the ID movement’s Harold Stassen. Surely you’ve heard of Stassen — he contended for the Republican party’s Presidential nomination nine times between 1948 and 1992. Without success.

Hang in there, Michael — your day may come.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “Michael Behe Speaks at Penn State

  1. John Phillips, FCD

    Hang in there, Michael — your day may come

    Maybe he should take up that other ‘science’ he admitted would have to be labelled as science by his definition during Dover, i.e. astrology, to see whether his day will come.

  2. I LOVE how they are still bawwing over Dover! LUV IT!!!

  3. ERV says: “I LOVE how they are still bawwing over Dover! LUV IT!!!”

    As I’ve said before, if they feel so confident that Jones was wrong, why don’t they jazz up some other hayseed school board somewhere else and have another go at it?

  4. As I’ve said before, if they feel so confident that Jones was wrong, why don’t they jazz up some other hayseed school board somewhere else and have another go at it?

    And notice how, since 2005, “intelligent design” is nowhere to be found in any of the bills and the handful of “peer-reviewed publications supporting ID” on the DI web site has dried up completely? Now, why would that happen if it were a purely scientific matter…hmmm……

  5. James asks: “Now, why would that happen if it were a purely scientific matter…hmmm……”

    It’s because they’ve been expelled! That’s why “academic freedom” bills are vital, to protect teachers from “Darwinist” retaliation.

  6. retiredsciguy

    Curmy says,
    “As I’ve said before, if they feel so confident that Jones was wrong, why don’t they jazz up some other hayseed school board somewhere else and have another go at it?”

    I think they’ve moved on to bigger arenas, such as state school boards and state legislatures. Just as hayseed, only bigger.

  7. conservativeconcepts4thenewmill

    My first impressions of this blog are that it has very little substance as far as refuting what intelligent design proponents claim.

    [Blather deleted]

    The fact is that this theory IS science and is based completely in science. The implications do take us into other fields of study, like theology, philosophy, and metaphysics. However, it does have the strongest explanatory power among all theories.

    Expelled is a very pertenant movie that explains what exactly is going on here.

    [Blather deleted]

    Seems to be that Darwinists are fearful of something… However, freedom of inquiry is being trampled on in most of the educational institutions across the country. Why?

  8. John Phillips, FCD

    blather deleted said

    However, it does have the strongest explanatory power among all theories.

    Please, do share this strongest explanatory power. After all, that is what we have been asking the IDiots for all along, with all of their supporting empirical evidence of course.

  9. John Phillips said: “Please, do share this strongest explanatory power.”

    I hate to disappoint you, but I don’t think we’ll be hearing much more from that source.

  10. John Phillips, FCD

    The Curmudgeon said

    I hate to disappoint you, but I don’t think we’ll be hearing much more from that source.

    Say it ain’t so Joe :-)