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
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.
Because of the immense publicity that's mushroomed around this issue in the past six months, more people are getting emotional about the topic. And it's generally not on my side.
Many systems in the cell show signs of purposeful intelligent design. What science has discovered in the cell in the past 50 years is poorly explained by a gradual theory such as Darwin's.
It's the nature of bureaucracy, I think, to issue statements like this.
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.
It was a real disappointment. It's hard to say this chills the atmosphere, because if you're publicly known as an ID supporter, you can already kiss your tenure chances goodbye. It doesn't help.
it's dangerous to your career to be identified as an ID proponent.
The fact that most biology texts act more as cheerleaders for Darwin's theory rather than trying to develop the critical faculties of their students shows the need, I think, for such statements.