Joined: May 2007
Since I don't know quite how to properly "fix it for you", I just have to point out that in my opinion, it should rather have read "Behe will never recognize..."
IANAS, but my initial reaction to DBB when I first read it in 1996 was a strong sense that here way a guy that I was not prepared to believe.
History has proven me right; unless I am too dogmatic, science has shown why Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information are little more than fancy terms designed to impress the gullible.
Behe struck me as someone more like being on a mission than a scientist. And we know that he is; he has made it clear that he thinks the designer is God. Wishful thinking is probably not the best approach for doing science. But then we know that Behe is not doing proper science as we know it, his definition of science includes things like astrology.
This passage from p233 of DBB forever etched in my mind stands out as a prime example of the sort of kitch/camp Behe is capable of producing; making me very suspicions about his entire enterprise:
|The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur, and Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta. The magnitude of the victory, gained at such great cost through sustained effort over the course of decades, would be expected to send champagne corks flying in labs around the world. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka!" from ten thousand throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take a day off. |
But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at that.
Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God.
Edited by Lou FCD on Jan. 18 2009,08:45
The fundamental choice to be made, given the available information, is not whether chance provides a better explanation than design, but whether natural laws provide a better explanation than a design.