Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

I can understand why the intelligent design argument exists. It is not as offbeat as the entire creation/god argument as it does seem to leave room for evolutionary, law-abiding processes. However, the intelligent design argument is still a fabrication, to an extent. The concept of irreducible complexity seems to be a basis for the intelligent design argument. This is a viable argument if each instantaneous snapshot of the earth system were exactly the same. However, science suggests the earth system is anything but static, and further insinuates continuous change perpetuates the earth system. A simple example of this might be the relationship of earth to other matter, spatially. If the earth stopped orbiting the sun, or stopped spinning, life would drastically change. It would be premature to say life would cease to exist. The balance of life lies in the fact that life can adapt. If a change were so great that the adaptive mechanisms of life cannot respond, then life would likely cease to exist. However, if a change presents life with a need to which life can adapt, then we can say life will persist. In contrast, intelligent design seems to argue irreducible complexity cannot arise from evolution, thus evolution cannot be true. I find this argument to be somewhat oversimplified. I can think of a loose analogy to this issue that may serve to better articulate my objections. Look at the case of dependency on drugs/alcohol/etc. Before one starts to consume alcohol or drugs, they are perfectly fine on their own, without such substances. When one imbibes alcohol or uses drugs to the point of dependency, they cannot function without them, as various organs would shut down. Does this constitute an irreducibly complex system? The consumption of alcohol/drugs may be seen as the subtle change or evolution or continuity to the next irreducible system–as crude/complex as it may be.

I can understand why the intelligent design argument exists. It is not as offbeat as the entire creation/god argument as it does seem to leave room for evolutionary, law-abiding processes. However, the intelligent design argument is still a fabrication, to an extent. The concept of irreducible complexity seems to be a basis for the intelligent design argument. This is a viable argument if each instantaneous snapshot of the earth system were exactly the same. However, science suggests the earth system is anything but static, and further insinuates continuous change perpetuates the earth system. A simple example of this might be the relationship of earth to other matter, spatially. If the earth stopped orbiting the sun, or stopped spinning, life would drastically change. It would be premature to say life would cease to exist. The balance of life lies in the fact that life can adapt. If a change were so great that the adaptive mechanisms of life cannot respond, then life would likely cease to exist. However, if a change presents life with a need to which life can adapt, then we can say life will persist. In contrast, intelligent design seems to argue irreducible complexity cannot arise from evolution, thus evolution cannot be true. I find this argument to be somewhat oversimplified. I can think of a loose analogy to this issue that may serve to better articulate my objections. Look at the case of dependency on drugs/alcohol/etc. Before one starts to consume alcohol or drugs, they are perfectly fine on their own, without such substances. When one imbibes alcohol or uses drugs to the point of dependency, they cannot function without them, as various organs would shut down. Does this constitute an irreducibly complex system? The consumption of alcohol/drugs may be seen as the subtle change or evolution or continuity to the next irreducible system–as crude/complex as it may be.

I liked the idea of intelligent design. I liked this idea much better than the idea of creation because it does not necessarily claim to be absolute and finite. Intelligent design seemed to be a good way to let creation/religion and evolution/science co-exists and work together to explain life and all of the events and objects that make life what it is. Both science and religion what we had learned thus far both seem to be pretty separate ideas and this lets ones mind cover ground in both areas. The article by Sam Brownback was something that I like to see coming from some kind of political figure. I think in the history of the U.S. and most other parts of the world countries are run based on religious beliefs whether or not we like to believe this. I think that this is a good direction to go in believing that we do not have to believe in one direct path, it allows room for uncertainty in what goes on around us without making others feel pressured to believe what the popular majority believes in. I think that the intelligent design theory is correct about it’s mention of our world being filled with unexplainable events that we seem to have no where to pull the correct answer form. However, I am not quite sure that intelligent design will be able to give any answers regarding these events or even settle people’s thought on how this uncertainty can not be explained. In general I think that the intelligent design theory will actually just leave us with the same questions as we had before but just give us yet another option of something to be believed by a few and ridiculed by others.

In these readings, I noticed that intelligent design advocates using man made things to compare with creation. This seemed off to me since we know they are mad made, and such objects as a mousetrap are made with a purpose. If we know this ahead of time, it seems pointless to compare them to the workings of the universe, which we do not know if there is a creator. The reference to Contact was made a few times, which I think deserves some addressing. Again, it is the fact of knowing that this complexity has a designer. The Fibonacci numbers are a sequence, designed by a mathematician. Yes, it showed that this particular instance of complexity had an intelligent designer, but that is because we already knew that the pattern of numbers has a designer. I guess the real issue here is determining what kind of complexity correlates with design. The degree of complexity has to be taken into account as well, which is difficult since as we make scientific advances so many more concepts that we initially thought were complex are relatively simple.

I disagree with Senator Brownback’s statements on evolution, creation, and inclusion of ideas in the debate over what it means to me human. I tried my best to read Sen. Brownback’s op-ed with an open mind (but that is harder said than done considering some of Sen. Brownback’s previous statements equating stem cell research to slavery, touting cures for Parkinson’s disease, saying embryonic stem cells spoke to him, etc.). I agree with Sen. Brownback that the framing of the evolution debate does not have to be exclusively between evolution and creationism in the strict Biblical sense. The moderator at the debate he references could have worded the question in a more neutral tone. What the moderator did is political posturing, and good for made-for-TV debates. It is not good for open discussions of policy or personal belief.

Sen. Brownback writes, “The heart of the issues is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I wholeheartedly believe there cannot be any contradiction between the two.” Most people think of the wedge driven between faith and science. There is a subtle but significant difference between the words “reason” and ‘science.’ It appears that Sen. Brownback goes beyond seeing the current disagreement between science and faith—he sees a disagreement between faith and mainstream reasoning. By saying there “cannot be any contradiction” between faith and reason, it almost seems that Sen. Brownback thinks anyone who does not have faith is not a reasonable person. If this is what he is implying, I disagree. I think you can be a reasonable person without having faith in a higher power.

Referencing the discussion about man’s origins, Sen. Brownback says “I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion.” In his last paragraph he later writes that theories that contradict or undermine aspect of evolutionary theory should be “firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.” He gets upset when his views are excluded, but then “firmly rejects” views that contradict his own. This is incredibly narrow-minded, and a dangerous decision making flaw considering that Sen. Brownback sits on the Appropriations and Commerce, Science and Transportation committees in the U.S. Senate. Excluding opposing viewpoints on their face without discussion or consideration does not lead to good policy. I’d encourage Sen. Brownback to open his mind to the possibility of other viewpoints and to become more tolerant of people who have different beliefs than his own.

Sam Brownback is trying to find a way of putting his faith and religion into evolution. Evolution simply states that things (humans) can come into an existence without a creator i.e. evolve through a series a simple mutations over a period of time using natural selection. Also, he tries to play off like he's being neutral in this entire subject, giving each it's own chance, but he's completely biased. Sam wants evolution to at least admit to the possibility of there being a creator (which I'm sure it does) though many religious figures, such as himself, would never be open for the possibility of a God not existing. Why? Well because in order to go to heaven you have to have %100 certainty that God exists i.e. total and complete faith. I always seem to find these hypocritical ideas on the religious sides...

Sam is just trying to fit his religious views into a scientific theory that doesn't deem it necessary in order for it to exist and be accurate. Though, his religious views deem it's own existence necessary in everything. Make sense?

This week’s readings brought up so much, there’s so much to say. But first, I want to say that all of the readings lately have been extraordinarily interesting for me because they bring up an entirely new concept to me: that maybe evolution is not the only explanation as to how we got here. I have always been taught that evolution is the only way we have evidence for in support of how humans got here. But these last few weeks, and this week especially, the readings have brought up counter evidence! I find this fascinating because I never know there was any sort of evidence to support anything but evolution, and as a Christian, this was quiet disheartening. They have shown me that creationism is not just something out of left field. Although, I admit, not all of the evidence presented to us in these readings has been the most infallible, but nonetheless, they bring up enough evidence to make room for creationism, to make room for another conception story besides evolution. This is so strange for me!

From the New York Times piece, I really liked the idea that creationism and evolution are not black and white, that there is gray area that allows for the ideas to coexist. I think this idea is important because I feel that some creationists and some evolutionists feel the need to argue with each other when the ideas are mutually exclusive. This idea gives hope that they can coexist!
I was really intrigued by the whole of the “Intelligent Design” exchange from Natural History. The intelligent design authors brought up some really interesting points that I had never thought about and even thought they were refuted, the existence of their ideas brings up a point that evolution is not the only explanation as to how we got here. I liked the back and forth set up and that the counter-essays were directly rebutting the previous one. It was a helpful setup.
Lastly, from chapter 26, I found the quote by Cicero on page 336 about seeing the movement of the heavens in the same way we see something moved by machinery simply beautiful. It reminded me of the watch argument and I found it be very intriguing evidence in support of design.

Sam Brownback and other supporters of Intelligent Design have found an effective way to promote their beliefs: on a scale of the political response to such a polarizing issue with evolution on one extreme and creationism on the other, ID lies right in the middle. However, on a scale evaluating support of empirical data on these three beliefs, creationism and ID are both equal polar opposites of evolution.

In the article “The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science,” Barbara Forrest makes a number of crucial points about some of the strongest promoters of ID – the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. In contradiction to their title, Forrest states that the CRSC has no research programs to support these ideas, but instead relies on public relations!

While this article seemingly comes off as neutral to an uninformed reader, those familiar with Sam Brownback (as some in our class seem to be) recognize this as a ploy to appeal to those who lie in the middle of that political spectrum. Sam Brownback says,
“Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”

He clearly opposes any form of science that contradicts his beliefs in a ‘designer.’ His beliefs lack any empirical proof, yet he claims that theories denouncing his unsupported beliefs in a designer are themselves “posing as science.” Just because science is (usually) objective and does not suggest a designer or creator does not mean that it is false or “atheistic.”

Dembsk’s article left me wanting more details towards the argument for design, but I suppose it is difficult to list proof when it comes to the Creator’s plan since we are only human and cannot perceived things outside of what we can see. I enjoy Kant’s thoughts on how design theory at best proves there is an architecture and not an actual creator. While these two words basically have the same meaning, an architecture is more involved and thinks things through before setting their plans into reality. The term creator could define their very being and not just a title; it is their purpose to merely create and they let life develop as it may.

The exchanges from Natural selection offered the examples Dembok’s article was lacking. It was a very thoughtful look on both sides, but I find myself aligning against the idea of design. While I believe in miracles and life does seem too spectacular to exist without some nudge in the ‘right’ direction, I cannot fathom how it is possible for a being to put all this together Ofcourse this being is all powerful and is capable of creating life, but I do not know how or why they want to plan and keep track of every single atom. I enjoy randomness because out of all the chaos in our lives, it brings the possibility of something unpredictable and I want a life full of little unexpected moments.

I usually do not discuss religion with others since it ends up with me becoming too inquisitive and the person I am talking with feels as if I am questioning their faith, but I would like to have a conversation with Brownback. His article was very sincere. Even though he does not want science and religion to be in direct competition, at the same time he recognizes the need for the two to be separated so we can go through our daily lives without be driven to madness at the contradictions.

I really enjoyed the back and forth demonstrated in the Action Bioscience article. It is interesting because they always have the Intelligent Design advocates make their case before having an evolutionary-believing scientist completely refute their claims, by essentially pointing out how baseless and clueless their claims are. Although, I think that Intelligent Design is utter b/s in the scientific realm, I thought it was a little unfair for the advocates did not get a chance for rebuttal. However, there are a few good points that were brought up through out the essay that I want to touch on. First, it’s the difference in the idea of “specified complexity”. In my opinion, the author ignores the dimension of time in his argument because of its undivided attention on the processes in one period in time (i.e. a span of a few years), which is minute in the grand scheme of things (i.e. billions of years). Thus for example, even some “specified complex” organism at time t may be morph into a totally different complex organism at time t+10^100. Secondly, as I have repeated multiple times, Science does “require a model that can be tested” for it consists of hypotheses that scientist then test for their validity. In this sense, it is concern with the study of the natural and not supernatural processes in this world. Therefore, since I.D. cannot be tested, it is not a hypothesis; it is a claim and certainly not a scientific one. Therefore, for whatever business it does have in a classroom, it will definitely not be in a science classroom, at best in one that concerns humanities. Lastly, The reason I want to state that the reason why the theory of evolution still stands today as a valid theory , is due to the fact that newer scientific discovery since Darwin, such as research on genetic DNA, symbiosis and such all support, not contradict, his model about the origin of species. Therefore, it is interesting that it is pointed out in the article that the tactics of advocates of I.D. is to swaying politics and public opinion but not the scientific community. This clearly shows that their motive is not in the pursuit of scientific TRUTHs, but for corrupted and sinister manipulation of our children’s minds. In my eyes, they are TRUE evil.

What I found curious about Sen. Brownback’s article was that he said he rejects arguments that dismiss the possibility of divine causality. I think it is unreasonable to accept some scientific principles, but not others, based on predetermined beliefs. This shows that the idea of Intelligent Design cannot really be a scientific theory, because it begins with a belief, and tries to find a way to get there. Scientific theories can begin with a hypothesis, but they can be found false. In ID, the belief of there being a God cannot be “proven wrong” in the eyes of the believers.
I also found it strange in the “Intelligent Design?” articles that believers of ID accept “small changes” when it comes to evolution, but they are unwilling to accept the possibility that these small changes can compound over time to produce a new species.
I was surprised to read that the supporters of ID have given up on trying to persuade the scientific audience of the validity of ID, and have instead made the general public and educational systems their targets. Do they think that the public holds more power? Or maybe that, no matter their arguments, they could never persuade the scientists?

I have found that intelligent design is good at giving people who cannot make up their minds a place to be. To me it is almost like a loop hole for those who have seen the evidence of evolution and can agree with it, but also cannot let go of their beliefs. If you needed to sit on a middle ground I suppose ID is where to do it. I can agree that there are many things that we do not know, or understand about evolution which does leave room for the argument for God, but I do not think that it should be brought into our school system.
Coming from someone that went through the public school system, I do not think that it would be appropriate to teach ID in schools. I think children should be taught what is known about intelligent design and how these conclusions were met. They then can form their own conclusions on how to fill the empty spaces left by the scientific research. I remember in sixth grade a girl getting upset that our science teacher started talking about evolution. She thought it was against the law that he was talking about natural selection, and she seemed very uncomfortable about the lecture. He told the entire class that if we felt uncomfortable with the material we could take it up with the school board and any one who wanted to leave could, but they would receive zeros for the day. No one left and we never heard anything from the school board.

The argument around Intelligent Design (and around all religious arguments) comes down to one crux. We cannot know who is right, we cannot pick a winner, and we never will be able to. Unless God somehow reveals himself very obviously to the entire world, we will never know the truth. This is the problem with arguing one side or another of the evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. creation issue. Any of these hypotheses could turn out to be the truth (while of course each person has their preferred, seemingly “obvious” correct one). The major problem that I find is that neither evolution nor Intelligent Design can be disproved. Not only can they not be proven, they also cannot be disproven, and this is what makes things difficult. Granted, it is possible that there was some aspect of design at some point in the past, but while this is possible, I cannot prove or disprove it. Evolution, with much evidence to back it up, cannot say what happened in the very beginning, and thus cannot eliminate the possibility of design. It is possible then that design has had a hand at some point. While it is stimulating to think about both sides, I almost consistently find myself coming back to the same idea of agnosticism, that we cannot possibly know for sure.

"When we see something moved by machinery, like an orrery of clock..., we do not doubt that these contrivances are the work of reason; when therefore we behold the whole compass of heaven moving with revolutions of marvelous velocity and executing with perfect regularity the annual changes of the seasons with absolute safety and security for all things, how can we doubt that all this is effected not merely by reason, but by a reason that is transcendent and divine?" (cicero- 336).
It is easier to see and believe when something is moved in front of your eyes. It is easy to say that is being moved for a reason. But when something moves and produces great things that we have not seen with the naked eye, we can question it and see what the reason for that is. What is the reason that we do not know that side of life.

I was very surprised by what Sam Brownback had to say in an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. In that op-ed, Brownback said he believes that faith and science can not contradict each other and that the two are complementary. I guess I would say in response that science and religion contradict themselves frequently. However, that was probably the biggest thing that I disagreed with him on in the entire piece. I was quite surprised because as he mentioned in the op-ed, he raised his hand during a Republican presidential debate and said that he did not believe in evolution. However, Brownback went on to explain that he believes in evolution but he believes that God was behind the process. I would be curious to go back and see what kind of response this question evoked from the public. I would be willing to bet that this was a response to a drop in poll numbers following the debate and Brownback believed that he could recover somehow by a greater explanation.

I believe in Intelligent Design! And I say this unsatisfied: 'believe in' implies faith, although now that I think of it, viewing the world in anyway requires a sort of faith. We reach the limits of fact and stare down the void of what we don't know. People don't like not knowing, it implies weakness. This gives rise to science and religion, the two debaters--one that says It is. while the other asks Is it? and -then- says It is.
My belief in intelligent design stems partially from an attempt to reconcile the warring factions in my head that -believe- the scientific evidence of evolution and geology while recoiling from the concept of random oblivion. I think things like My soul will forever be conscious in another plane, and Everything happens for a reason. While I was fidgeting, trying to post a semi-coherent response, I thought of all the cells that make up my hands and how they move, and I thought of mitochondria and farandolae and DNA, and how SNPs can result from a ray of sunshine that was put into motion at the initial Bang. I like to think that motion can be traced back to the Big Bang, we just haven't got ways to measure it yet, and that the same can be said about the future. This is of course an entirely simplistic distillation of my understanding of physics, but the point of my mental gymnastics is that I am able to live with myself in my place in this world.

I cannot foresee a time when the debate between believers of Intelligent design and Evolution actually ends. However, where I take issue is the reasoning behind both ideas. It seems that Intelligent design is not grounded in scientific reasoning. To me it seems all to easy for proponents of ID to say a greater power holds responsibility for things yet to be scientifically proven. It is difficult for me latch onto this theory because there have been so many things that once were thought to be impossible to comprehend or understand, but yet eventually were proven. This also brought my thoughts back to the students in Indiana fighting for creationism to be taught alongside evolutionism. Personally I cannot fathom this occurrence. Evolution is grounded in scientific experimentation. How can schools justify teaching students that if there has yet to be a scientific reason for it, then it must have arose from some higher power? This seems to be a dangerous notion to me because it could lead students to use that as an excuse for many other unexplainable phenomena. It closes the door to continued experimentation that may uncover the answers for such phenomena. In essence it also limits the mind.

This weeks readings are all put lost somewhere on a beautiful beach in florida (i wish). It seems like a long time has passed since I last wrote in this blog. I actually enjoyed these three reading quite a lot. I recently met kristine and she is very interested in coincidences. In my conversations with her I have been bringing up the ideas of coincidences being god telling us the right path. I don't know how true that is put it has been interesting discussing the possibility. In the light of these readings it makes a lot of sense. God made the universe in a may that makes sense. If it was from chaos that we were born in the big bang and primortial soup than it would be chaos in which we live. However, for atleast the people in this class we are far from it. Everyday we awake to a world of wonder and possibility. Who are we to say that beauty is not the work of god. If someone holds that idea and is not harming anyone than what does it matter. In my opinion god is what is in the cracks, the mysterious space between neutrons that continues our universe's existance. At any moment so many things could go wrong and the universe could explode, collapse, or disapear without a trace. But every day we wake up and the sun is still there, the planets are still there (except for pluto), and we still exist. That is more than enough evidence for me that this is the result of a intelligent design. Someday I hope to meet the true designer but for the mean time I will continue fallowing the path of a excellent designer here on earth that I call mom.

When Sam Brownback said that science and faith can not conntraict each other I totally agree with him. I do however think that our incomplete understanding of science and faith can contradict each other. This is to say that science and faith have to fit together in some way, however we may not now or ever know how that is. We can only guess and search for the truth within ourselves and within the world. I see intelligent design as the religious world simply coming to grips with the way that God works in the real world. If you are to believe that God is in control of everything in our world, then it only stands to reason that he would be in control of evolution and the process by which we came to be here.

I never really distinguished creationism from intelligent design in my mind before. I didn’t even think about it. So doing this week’s readings opened my mind in many senses. I think that intelligent design is a means of sort of rejecting science or other explanations, rather than giving proof of another alternative. Whereas creationism gives specific answers to how things came to be the way they are (also specifically in Christianity), intelligent design simply states that a creator is behind it all and no other theories make sense. Personally, I think this is a little short-sighted. How could we possibly know all there is to know about the natural world? To think that we have all the answers, and that all the answers point to a creator is giving humans way too much credit.
As far as the Sam Brownback article, I found myself arguing to an imaginary Brownback as I read it. Particularly this quote intrigued me: “The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos.” A purpose for every human being is not a fundamental truth: it is an egotistical untruth (or a maybe-possibly-truth at best). Brownback is just so certain that humans are more special and important than any other animal, but how does he know this? We are just one species on one planet in one galaxy out of thousands in the universe. Sure, this idea may be a little scary, but it is a lot more realistic. And I would rather be more realistic than idealistic.

On the debate between evolution and creationism Brownback asserts that "limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason." All well and good, a discussion in which the merits of science, faith and reason are acknowledged by all parties has the possibility of fruitfulness. Brownback argues against placing a wedge between faith and reason, but justifies their relatedness saying that "the truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God." His premise, then, is that science has merit because it has been created by God. This is a very different premise than the "undecideds" that ID seems to appeal to might have. In this way ID seems to be an unclear idea, a pseudo-theory that becomes whatever advocates need it to become, be it justification of the supreme Christian God, a way for scientists to reconcile their reason with their faith or a way for unsure people to claim something less "wishy-washy" than agnosticism.

Charles Darwin once admitted, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Since then, proponents of intelligent design have tried to do just that. Michael Behe argues that certain organisms can be proven “irreducibly complex;” in other words, they could not function if any one of their individual parts was taken away. He uses the household mousetrap as an analogy. He argues that taking away the spring or the base, for example, would no longer allow the trap to catch a mouse. However, this assumes that the trap’s only objective must be to catch a mouse. Perhaps the parts of the trap could by themselves have other objectives. Behe also points to the flagella of bacteria as an example. Bacteria use this multi-part, whip-like propeller to transport themselves through liquid environments. Behe argues that taking away any of the flagellum’s parts would cease it from functioning. Again, though, this assumes that the flagellum and the ability of self-propulsion are necessary for a bacterium to survive. This is equivalent to saying that I could not survive without my legs. Without my legs and without the flagellum, neither the bacterium nor I can propel ourselves forward. However, I can still survive without my legs, and the bacterium could still function without its ability of self-propulsion. Thus, it is possible that more primitive forms of such a bacterium existed without flagella, perhaps serving other functions than those requiring it to propel itself. Also, Behe’s argument that he can simply “take away” one of the parts of a flagellum assumes that that part suddenly appeared one day as a result of evolution, but natural selection does not work that way. For example, natural selection does not argue that humans at one time did not have legs and that they then just appeared one day on a mutant newborn baby. Legs likely began as small appendages that eventually evolved into complex structures with knees, muscle, bone, etc. Behe’s concept of “irreducibly complex” organisms is a vast oversimplification.

It is interesting that I did not read the rebuttal against Behe’s argument until after I wrote the above paragraph. To my surprise, the rebuttal made an argument almost identical to mine without prior knowledge or collaboration. This tells me that Behe’s concept is not well-thought-out.

I have trouble writing posts after reading what everyone else wrote because I don’t want to repeat the same jargon... Intelligent design is a nice try. When I first encountered Behe’s arguments years ago it was from a very religious friend of mine who had just finished reading Darwin’s Black Box. He was a couple years older than me in high school and so I looked up to him, highly valuing his opinions. The idea of irreducible complexity sounded really good to me and I thought that my friend might be on something until I went home, thought critically and did about minutes of research. I wanted Behe to be right, he just isn’t. We all read why he is wrong, so I won’t repeat it. One interesting point that I will add is that if you type in Michael Behe in Wikipedia and take a look at his page, Lehigh University in Pennsylvania where works has actually issued an official statement rejecting his work, “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."

The article by Bering that we got through e-mail tonight really sums up why someone with absolutely no credibility in the scientific community can be legitimized by the mainstream. People just can’t stand the idea of having the ultimate answer; they need the satisfaction of “knowing”.