(part of a response to someone who says that evolution disproves the Bible)
Speaking of all the proof for evolution, you might want to read a book by a secular (meaning he is not a Christian) Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. The book is titled Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. It might surprise you to know that he does not believe in creationism, but he knows that Darwin's theory of evolution can't be true. You owe it to yourself to read his book, that is if you are truly interested in the facts. Like I said, he does not preach creationism, in fact he believes we did come from a common ancestor, but he admits it can't have happened in the way evolution tries to explain it. What is my point? My point is that evolution has too many scientific holes to be true. Does that prove the Bible? No of course not, but it sure takes the air out of your evolution proves the Bible wrong theory.
35 comments
I thought the name Behe looked familiar, so I did a quick search for him.
You might want to research the massive fail produced by this Behe. He has abandoned every claim he made at the Dover trial be cause every bit of it was comically disproven, but now he has a completely new batch of nonsense to support ID.
Also he's a fundie catholic. He has a gay son who has been excluded from the family because of it. So, no, he is not secular, he is as batshit fundie as you are.
Well, I wonder how he lost a court case whereby he had to demonstrate that creationism was true and separable from its religious antecedents. He failed to convince, of all things, a conservative judge.
Behe 's book is nothing more than irreducible complexity dressed up with a lot of handwaving to the point a number of scientists regard it as pseudoscience. Some of these scientists have pointed to out-right lies in the book, including two scientists who supposedly peer-reviewed the book.
In fact, Behe's book is such a disappointment, I understood most creationist websites have taken it off their recommended reading list.
secular (meaning he is not a Christian)
Secular does NOT mean "not a christian".
Behe is a christian fundamentalist who wrote "Darwin's Black Box" in support of his creationist doctrines and ideologys.
That Behe is more OEC than YEC does not mean he is not a christian.
the thing about science is that, say Behe produced a hypothesis and worked to disprove it but couldn't, nor could his peers using his hypothesis, then it would replace the existing theory (or amend it).
Unlike "goddidit"
Michael Behe is not a Christian and don't believe in Creationism? Wasn't he the one who was laughed out of court in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, by Bush-appointed conservative Judge Jones?
One silly dolt who "knows" something isn't going to change more than 150 years of constant testing and questioning of the ToE.
"Our" evolution doesn't concern itself with the Bible, one way or the other. God might have created life (Abiogenesis), and then kick-started evolution, and the stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are just what God thought the ancient Middle-eastern goat-herders could understand.
In the central place of worship of the Protestant Church of England, Westminster Abbey:
image
Have I blown your mind, Ralphiepoos?!
You owe it to yourself to read this link if you are truly interested in this fact: The Church of England openly admit that much of the Bible - including Genesis - is nothing more than fable & metaphor: as in you're not supposed to take it literally .
The Bible proves itself wrong. Just ask the Conservative Christian Judge John E. Jones III, re. the court case that utterly annihilated the Cre(a)ti(o)nists' cause once & for all, and made Behe a laughingstock in the scientific community.
Because if the Church of England still exists to this day, then just your 'argument' alone has gone the way of the Hindenburg, and has crashed & burned just as spectacularly in it's absolute FAIL.
And here's Lehigh University's position:
Lehigh University on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. 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."
Yea, check out how well his testimony went over in Dover.
Also funny how these retards dismiss any and all scientists that disagree with their beliefs but find one that supports and that guy HAS to be right.
Not the first time I've seen Secularism described as not Christian, not the first time I've seen claims that non-religious scientist believe in divine creation due to evidence although we should never hear of such blatantly dishonest shit.
I'm thinking with the likes of S E Cupp playing 'Atheist who thinks Christian rule is best' this is just another example of creationist lies, pretending scientists think creation and intelligent design are 'more scientific' and 'logical' then evolution. S E Cupp is a fulfilment of their wishes over the years of 'even most Atheists admit society and freedom are the product of Christians'. Cupp decided to play into it and has enjoyed much success wool-pulling the rubes.
How many times have they asserted creationism has 'a growing number of scientists' advocating it? Same such shit above.
@ #1727664
"Did ancient aliens employ cloning and genetical engineering?"
Yes. Yes, that's it exactly. I know, because Erich von Däniken told me so. And he had pictures and everything. So there [Hah!].
[Doug Piranha mode to OFF]
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Except that all the examples of irreducibly complex systems Behe provides in his book--the clotting cascade, the bacterial flagellum, etc.--have been long since 'reduced'. He made the fundamental and elementary mistake of presuming that biological systems we observe today must have arisen and must always have existed exactly as they exist today.
There's a simple two-step process by which evolution can generate 'irreducibly complex' systems:
1: Add a component
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
