Michael Behe
Michael Behe
Michael J. Beheis an American biochemist, author, and intelligent designadvocate. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for his stance on irreducible complexity, which argues that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases...
NationalityAmerican
ProfessionScientist
CountryUnited States of America
Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory. One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design.
The National Academy of Sciences treats intelligent design in a way what I consider utterly misleading. Talk about scholarly malfeasance!
Evolution no longer looks like a random process to me; it looks like a set-up job. My sense is that we'll discover the means to detect the design scientifically.
Intelligent design relies on physical, empirical, observable evidence from nature plus logical inferences.
The first point one has to get straight in discussions like this, is that ID is not the opposite of evolution. Rather, it is the opposite of Darwinism, which says life evolved by an utterly unguided, undirected mechanism. If god directed the process of evolution, or rigged the universe to produce complex life, then that is not Darwinism - it is intelligent design.
We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box.
The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it.
scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.
That was a real drag. I think he really went way over what he as a judge is entitled to say.
The question of how the eye works - that is, what happens when a photon of light first impinges on the retina - simply could not be answered at that time.
But sequence comparisons simply can't account for the development of complex biochemical systems any more than Darwin's comparison of simple and complex eyes told him how vision worked.
The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion.
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
This fact immediately suggested a singular event - that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event - the creation, the beginning of the universe.