That was actually "sense" as in "Sensemilla"
Excellent post Pat. It was a point I'd never quite thought of in this way, but I think you're right on the money.
I promoted your post and added some comments on my blog.
In other words, lying for Jesus.
Another aspect of this is that the Behe, pretty much the only person in the ID camp with actual biological research and publication credentials, has to keep a very low profile about his own theories. Behe quite clearly believes that most life evolved from a common ancestor by essentially Darwinian mechanisms--including the much-reviled common ancestor for apes and man. He just thinks that evolution was "primed" at one or more points with the introduction of intelligently designed organisms containing systems (such as the bacterial flagella or certain complex biochemical networks) that he thinks are too interdependent to have evolved on their own.
These are views that would horrify the biblical literalists who provide much of the backing for ID organizations. Behe cooperates by focusing on attacking Darwinian theory while minimizing public discussion of his own hypotheses. He did a lot of damage to the ID cause, however, when plaintiffs in the Dover case cornered him into admitting that he does not agree with much of the content of "Pandas & People," despite lending his name to it.
Behe's motivations are unclear. He does not seem to be a liar, unlike much of the ID crowd, and if pressed will come clean on what he believes. His views, although fringe, appear sincerely held, and are not really all that far away from hypotheses that have been suggested by the likes of Hoyle and Crick. Of course, without ID, Behe is a competent but run-of-the-mill biochemist who appears to have his best work behind him. With ID, he is virtually the only large fish in a very tiny pond (Dembski, while talking a pretty good game, being basically a crackpot, lacking Behe's biological credentials). And of course, ID presumably offers a source of funding for ideas that are unlikely to attract much financial support from mainstream scientific institutions and foundations.
"Sensimilla," of course, being a mutation of "san semilla," or "without seeds."
Excellent post (but as other have noted, it was "sense", not "scents".
I like your site, will add it to my subscriptions in Bloglines...
In a way it's probably an advantage not to be so steeped in the drug culture... can't say it ever did me a whole lot of good
Of course the issue of Logos does get at the real issue for the ID crowd and that is the nature of intelligence. Intelligence to them, and this is clear if you read Dembsky closely is bound up in will or intent. After all the WORD is really wil or intent. It is no accident that Dembsky has also been critical of the whole notion of artificial intelligence, because intelligent machines would either lead to the conclusion that intelligence does nor require intent or will, or intelligent machines would suggest there is nothing special about intent or the WORD- that God need not be immediately involved.
Excellent post. I would like to add that since they have no scientific case to make, so they are using churches and religious organizations to promote their ideas. This gives the overwhelming impression that this is all about religion, and they have assured their followers that it is in order to exploit them for advertising. They have in effect been shunted into this position, and have to deal with the fact that outside the fundamentalist churches there is a different standard set for acceptance.
If there was ever anything of merit to intelligent design, they would not be promoting it through these channels. They would not need to.
Great post, well written. The Dembski quote is highly damaging, what a stupid thing to publish. I have recently been corresponding with Mike Behe through email. He would debate me until I flat out asked him if ID could be tested experimentally. At this time he told me he didn't have time to respond and told me we would have to "agree to disagree". It is not just the religious aspect that is the problem. It is clear that they must also state that ID is science (while they know it is not), while being careful not to engage certain basic questions/arguements: such as can their hypothesis be tested.
As to the question of whether Behe lies or not: I find it hard to believe that as many times as his flagellum example has been demolished, by Ken Miller and many others, he would still be using it if he were not being disingenuous.
His "IC" blood-clotting cascade ID example has also been trashed effectively, yet he still refers to it (or did when last I knew).
He claimed his book was peer-reviewed, and it turned out that the crucial player in the publisher's decision to print it was a friend of Behe's who didn't read it, but said, in a 10-minute conversation during which the basic ideas were described to him, that they sounded interesting, and that the publisher should publish the book.
Maybe it's possible for true believers to lie without thinking they are lying. But I can't imagine that's the case with Behe.
Don't apologize for showing evidence that you haven't spent time on the "seedier" side of life!
MIller's claim to have demolished Behe's example is the LIE...in Darwins God he refers to all these articles demonstrating the many small steps acounted for in the development of the flagellum.
Having finally dug up the articles MIller sites, I find that they do no such thing,
Miller is a liar.
I would like to throw my two cents into the debate. I have recently published a book called Intelligent Design of Personality. In Intelligent Design of Personality I make, I believe, a strong and definitive case that Personality development is more a science then an art form.
In particular, as referenced against the characteristics of science accepted in U.S. law from the 1982 court decision, McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education, my theory of personality development justifies itself on all accounts.
The essential characteristics of science are:
1) It is guided by [physical or biological] law;
2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3) It is testable against the empirical world;
4) Its conclusions are tentative, are not necessarily the final word; and
5) It is falsifiable[or, more accurately, makes predictions that can be tested by observation],
My new personality development theory, Intelligent Design of Personality, first of all, uses Natural Law, those “unchanging moral principles common to all human beings” Oxford Dictionary, 1998, as it’s foundation. In the second instance, I use many natural biological processes such as homeostasis, reflexes, imprinting and the Pleasure Selection Principle; that an organism has the tendency to repeat any activity firm which it derives pleasure, all governed by Natural Law, to explain how organized, orderly and explicit the biological processes are at arriving at their universal objective, the production of a moral human being. Thirdly, I reveal, with many examples, how testable, predictable and definitive the theory is against the real or empirical world. In the final analysis, it is readily accepted that the theory is tentative, i.e., that it will be improved upon in the future and that it is falsifiable not only by observation but would stand the scrutiny of the laboratory on all accounts. In essence, the proof of man's native morality is the real and present existence of Natural Law.
I believe the proponents of both evolution and creation will find the text very informative, uplifting and restorative of faith in human nature and human dignity. The two sides, I submit are one continuous string, evolution does its thing slowly of fast depending on the circumstances. In the meantime, the intelligent design of the natural personality,compliments of Mother Nature, force morality on every individual that has the opportunity to develop a naturalized personality. Naturalized personalities all speak the same language, i.e. the same realistic thoughts, integrated with the same realistic feelings, producing similar moral behaviour driven by Natural Law. In other words, an atheist has the same natural ability to be as moral as a religious person if raised in a natural family environment where basic human nature is allowed to thrive. In effect, the best traditions of positive religions, cultures and philosophies come from the warm embers of a naturalized human heart.
You
Commenting by HaloScan
