Behe on Christian Radio

| 84 Comments

At 4:00 Eastern time today (Jan 18), Michael Behe will be on Christian radio KKMS in Minneapolis. It’ll be streamed live – I haven’t yet figured out whether it will be archived. It’s advertised as

Dr. Michael Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University will explain why Darwinism just isn’t factual and why Creationism is a very plausible reality.

I’ll be interested to see just how (or whether) they integrate Behe’s self-professed acceptance of an old earth and common descent into their young earth worldview, and how they treat his view that malaria was intentionally designed.

RBH

(There ought to be a hat tip here, but I can’t remember where I read about it the other day – Pharyngula, maybe?)

84 Comments

But remember, kiddies: ID is science; it’s not creationism, it’s not religion. (I feel sorry for the DI – they must be sooo tired of the local rubes blowing the cover story)(Actually, I have no sympathy for the lying bastards).

Yup, the hat tip goes to Pharyngula. They link to Pharyngula’s post from the program’s blog, warning that it’s “… laced with profanity.”

He talks about “breaking genes” rather than “Making genes” when asked “What are the limits of “Darwinism”.

Behe was asked how old he thought the Universe is, and he just didn’t answer - he said it is all speculation. CHICKEN!!

RBH we only cuss at the fundies… well most of the time. But then who doesn’t? One thing I will point out. If you get a chance watch the PBS documentary called Judgment Day. It goes over the Dover case pretty well. Hehe also makes Behe look like a fool, granted it isn’t that hard.

“What are the limits of “Darwinism”.

Well, it hasn’t produced cars, airplanes, bionics, metal tools, Pegasus, invisible pink unicorns, Scylla, Charybdis, Medusa (the snake-haired, not the jellyfish), chariots, or even wheels, afaik. :p

Henry

I want to hear *Michael Behe* explain “why Creationism is a very plausible reality.”

That would be news.

I already know what he thinks about Intelligent Design.

Stacy S:

Behe was asked how old he thought the Universe is, and he just didn’t answer - he said it is all speculation. CHICKEN!!

You weren’t listening very carefully. He said that theories that the universe is eternal are “iffy” and seem to be based more on speculation than data. And he wasn’t asked how old he thought the universe was, but we he thought about the various theories about the age of the universe. So he did answer the question.

Everything you need to know about Behe is embodied in this quotation where he is summarizing his argument:

In the past 10 years or so data has become available which really answers the question ‘How much can Darwinian processes do?’ If you talk to Darwinists it’s easy for them to dream up scenarios where, you know, a bacterium turns into a cat in, you know, a couple hundred years or so. (Emphasis in his voice)

I hope some of his colleagues at Lehigh listen to that. The man is a total loss.

RBH

The man is a total loss.

what about it, DM, is Behe a total loss?

base your answer on the quote above, and do NOT stray, you dishonest little shit.

Donald M:

You weren’t listening very carefully. He said that theories that the universe is eternal are “iffy” and seem to be based more on speculation than data. And he wasn’t asked how old he thought the universe was, but we he thought about the various theories about the age of the universe. So he did answer the question.

I was listening carefully - I was VERY excited about the question and thus listening intently. All I heard was him “DUCKING” the question.

They did say that if you missed it - you could listen later via their website. http://www.kkms.com

Behe dissing ERV, “She misread the book.”

Behe on Darwinists, “Darwinists find it easy to dream up scenarios where bacteria turn into cats in a few hundred years.”

Behe did a good side-step on the age of the universe, “It all sounds speculative to me.”

What a shit-for-brains he has become since being trashed in K v D.

My favorite Behe testimony started, “Q. Let’s discuss archaeology a little bit more. Matt, if you could pull up Exhibit 722? May I approach, Your Honor?”

My favorite Behe testimony

the central argument is one I have often used myself, but it’s pretty clear why you like that specific part of the testimony, Gary.

:)

you should get more credit for that, actually.

I admit I’m not volunteering for the job (I’m a lousy typist), but somebody needs to get a transcript of the interview up before the station’s higher-up actually listen to the interview and yank it from their web site.

DPR

RBH:

“… laced with profanity.”

Well, at least it’s not “laced with Darwinism.” Wait a minute – oh, never mind.

Ichthyic:

My favorite Behe testimony

the central argument is one I have often used myself, but it’s pretty clear why you like that specific part of the testimony, Gary.

:)

you should get more credit for that, actually.

Thanks, but Eric Rothchild, and Nick Matzke deserve the credit for using my chapter so well. This actually was antisipated when Behe was deposed. It would have gone over hard on Dembski as well. I did get a huge charge out of it.

Henry J:

“What are the limits of “Darwinism”.

Well, it hasn’t produced cars, airplanes, bionics, metal tools, Pegasus, invisible pink unicorns, Scylla, Charybdis, Medusa (the snake-haired, not the jellyfish), chariots, or even wheels, afaik. :p

Henry

Actually, Pegasus is the genus name of the sea moth, a relative of the sea horse and pipefish, Charbydis is a genus of swimming crab, Scylla is a genus of sea slug that rides in sargassum weed, and some sand dollars have been observed moving onto their side, and roll like a coin.

As for unicorns… Will you settle for a white one? http://www.pbase.com/ronsc/image/55221355

D P Robin, they may have already yanked it, or else I’m just a worse surfer than you are a typist. However, if it is still there and someone more skillful than me can link me to it, I’ll take a whack at it.

Stacy S Wrote:

Behe was asked how old he thought the Universe is, and he just didn’t answer - he said it is all speculation. CHICKEN!!

Not chicken, weasel. And pathetic, since he is on record for 12+ years as agreeing with mainstream science. A bit late to join the “don’t ask, don’t tell” chorus. In any case, the more relevant question is not the age of the Universe or the Earth, but of life on Earth. There too, Behe is on record agreeing with mainstream science (3.5 - 4 BY). At the 2005 Kansas Kangaroo Court he had no problem answering the question about the age of the Earth, and affirming common descent. One other respondent answered the age of the Earth question with the age of the Universe. Yet another person pulled the same switch on me recently, here or on Talk Origins. You have probably noticed that it’s very common for anti-evolution activists to answer the wrong question.

Donald M Wrote:

And [Behe] wasn’t asked how old he thought the universe was, but we he thought about the various theories about the age of the universe. So he did answer the question.

But I did ask you these questions on the “Dissent from Darwinism” thread:

1. Do you think that humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs? Dogwoods? Both (like some IDers)? Neither? Please clearly pick 1 of the 4 choices - a best guess will do.

2. Also, do you agree (as many creationists do) that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do.

I have been unable to find an answer. Would you be so kind to point me to where you answered?

You sciency types are whats wrong with America. Yall flip-flop all the time. First you thought we were born from monkeys, then you say we came from giant clams, then back to monkeys. Make up your mind, what is it? Clams or Monkeys? No doubt you will respond that we came from dinosaurs.

Jorde, let me remind you of a few things:

1. Those “sciency” types are what brought you the ability to type your drivel on a keyboard and have it seen by anyone in the world. You want to place THAT on what’s wrong with America?

2. Giant clams? Monkeys? Dinosaurs? Your ignorance really shines bright in this forum, and I propose, for the sake of the discussion, that I (a non-scientist) be the only one to respond to your tripe. Let’s let the scientists discuss more important things - stuff _I_ can learn from - rather than waste their time trying to educate you.

If I didn’t have a better sense, I’d post your quote on FSTDT. Idiot.

Well Jorde, if you are trying to convince us you didn’t come from monkeys, aping creationist arguments is hardly the way to go.

Isn’t it fascinating how the wingnuts portray all changes of mind as a flip-flop, and therefore a bad thing? It’s as if they think one can live one’s life with the knowledge one acquired as a 5-year-old.

Oops.

Russell’s Law is proved once more.

Anyway, does “Teach the Controversy” apply to the Scientology theory that I mentioned? According to L. Ron Hubbard’s “The History of Man,” Hubbard has “scientific proof” all life(?) evolved from a giant clam.

Jorde, DUH. Everyone knows that people came from monkeys, and monkeys came from the rib bone of a giant clam.

The giant clam was then BBQ’d over the burning bush. Mmmmm… boneless clams is good eats!

They are running a poll on the presidential election. According to Pharyngula Mike Huckabee was leading, and Clinton was dead last when he saw it. Well, when I looked at it, (after voting for Clinton, just to spite them) Clinton 34%, Obama 23% and Edwards 20% were beating their blue eyed boy, Huckabee 18%. Good.

then you say we came from giant clams

???

I gotta find out where that one came from.

Yo, Jorde. It was a giant clam job on the monkey, you know… Do the dino!

Get it right!

wait, I know where that came from!

did you ever see the Adventures of Baron Munchausen, where Venus rises from the giant clam (as enacted in sensual fashion by the lovely Uma Thurman)?

there ya go, even the greeks and romans knew that man (or woman) came from giant clams:

http://waltm.net/bvenus.htm

:p

Looks like a cockle shell to me. :)

It’s a scallop, not a cockle shell, you’ll see the scallop’s “wings” near the center, underneath Aphrodite’s feet. That, and cockles are deeper and less wide than scallops.

And technically speaking, Venus/Aphrodite was born from “sea foam” born from the mingling of salt water and the blood dripping from Uranus’ mutilated genitals, NOT a (clam) shell. The shell was a prop/theme used by artists when they were emphasizing the goddess’ maritime roots.

it’s the pedant parade!

Wheee!

Ichthyic, why else do you think we’re all here…?

Cockles are a symbol of love and … Venus is the Goddess of what? I don’t remember! :)

OT - This made me giggle today.

http://manwiththemuckrake.blogspot.[…]-heaven.html

I think this I-35 guy is brilliant! LOL! (we have nothing to worry about)

Stacy S. :

Cockles are a symbol of love and … Venus is the Goddess of what? I don’t remember! :)

No doubt cockles are a symbol of love because of the suggestive shape of the cockle’s foot, which is used to pull the creature through sand and mud. During the late Miocene, there was an inland sea, called the Pontian sea, where Crimea and the Ukraine are today. In the Pontian, cockles had underwent a huge diversification event, with countless modified shells for all sorts of niches, though, exactly what sort of countless niches can be had for mud-grubbing is still under investigation.

And Venus is the patron goddess of love, match-making, romance, and most importantly, sex, especially on the beach.

Stacy S.: Cockles are a symbol of love and … Venus is the Goddess of what? I don’t remember! :)

Well, they say memory is the second thing to go. :p

Henry

I almost hate to ask … but what’s the 1st thing to go?

Stacy S. — Err, I forget.

:-)

Stacy S. :

I almost hate to ask … but what’s the 1st thing to go?

That would be the ability to look like an active cockle.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/food/b[…]s/Cockle.JPG

Ichthyic, why else do you think we’re all here…?

the colorful balloons?

Ichthyic:

Ichthyic, why else do you think we’re all here…?

the colorful balloons?

Do you really, really want to leave such a tempting straight line like that lying about in the open?

RBH:

Everything you need to know about Behe is embodied in this quotation where he is summarizing his argument:

In the past 10 years or so data has become available which really answers the question ‘How much can Darwinian processes do?’ If you talk to Darwinists it’s easy for them to dream up scenarios where, you know, a bacterium turns into a cat in, you know, a couple hundred years or so. (Emphasis in his voice)

I hope some of his colleagues at Lehigh listen to that. The man is a total loss.

RBH

ANYHOW

To get back on topic…

I get the distinct impression that Behe is either a sniveling, two-faced hypocrite who jumps at even the remotest opportunity to pander to the Discovery Institute’s target audience, or, he has gotten genuine brain damage from associating himself with Intelligent Design.

Is it wrong of me to come to this conclusion?

Stacy S.:

I almost hate to ask … but what’s the 1st thing to go?

Rats, David beat me to the punch line. :)

Henry

Do you really, really want to leave such a tempting straight line like that lying about in the open?

it seemed appropriate.

Is it safe to come back in yet? LOL!

Stacy S. :

Is it safe to come back in yet? LOL!

Now that we’re moving on from cockle-calling Ichthyic, is it wrong of me to try to decide whether or not Behe is a sniveling panderer or has become brain-damaged from his long association with the Discovery Institute?

Well, Satanton, I think there is definitely something wrong with Behe’s ability to reason. He seems to accept the overwhelming evidence for common descent, and accepts that many aspects of the natural world are unpleasant (to say the least), while being unable to exclude the concept of a deity who intervenes on a regular basis.

I cannot understand why any person of faith would feel the need to limit the ability of their deity by claiming that he/she/it cannot foresee the consequence of a chain of events and must therefroe tinker with his/her/its creation.

Stanton, you have my sincerest apologies for mistyping your name in my previous post. What can I say? Mea culpa.

Still, it was quite a funny typo…

“A very plausible reality” ? What the hell does that mean ? A reality isn’t plausible. It just is. Plausibility is for hypotheses.

Nigel D:

Stanton, you have my sincerest apologies for mistyping your name in my previous post. What can I say? Mea culpa.

Still, it was quite a funny typo…

You are so lucky that my trident is still in the shop, otherwise, such a jabbing I’d give you.

Christophe Thill:

“A very plausible reality” ? What the hell does that mean ? A reality isn’t plausible. It just is. Plausibility is for hypotheses.

I’m thinking it’s Discovery Institute codespeak for “yes, I think it’s science.”

HAT TIP to gabriel who found this :-) I know this is WAY old but if you are still interested in listening to Behe “Dance” here is the link -

(It disappeared shortly after it’s original airing)

http://www.kkms.com/11565100/

Just above where it says 4:00 hour you’ll see “Click Here to Listen”

Question: Why did God deliberately create evil when He gave life to Lucifer?

Answer: https://sites.google.com/site/chris[…]onmovement/1—the-creation-of-lucifer-1

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on January 18, 2008 2:12 PM.

Reporting on Clay County and St Johns County was the previous entry in this blog.

Happy 100th Birthday, Jacob Bronowski is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter