G
GoSeminoles!
Guest
From the NY Times;
I was not aware of even this one. Apparently, Behe is referring to:
Behe M.J., Snoke D.W. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci13:2651-2664.
Does anyone know what this article says?
And why would they not be? If I write an article saying my falling apple experiment resulted in an apple falling to the ground, it will be treated in a ho-hum manner by those reviewing submissions to the scientific journals. But if I report that instead of falling, the apple appeared to fly around the meadow on its own power before jetting into space, then I imagine my article would be reviewed much more skeptically.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Mr. Behe. Neither you nor anyone else has supplied any (haven't read your Protein Science paper, though).
Behe is woefully wrong on this one. This guy is an academic hack.
Fortunately, I have good news. Not only did I save a lot of money on my car insurance, the judge's body language suggests he's not impressed by Behe:
Body language seldom lies.
Unfortunately, there is also this from the Washington Post:
Meanwhile, South Korea takes the lead in stem cell research. If we eschew real science in our public schools, what will it mean for our economic future? The primary economic advantage the US enjoys, for now, is being the world's engine of science and technology. If we disrupt the supply of home-grown scientific talent by yielding even a millimeter to pseudoscientific wackjobs, then this advantage will evaporate within a generation.
HARRISBURG, Pa., Oct. 17 - Michael J. Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, has spent the last eight years traveling to colleges promoting intelligent design as a challenge to the theory of evolution.
On Monday Mr. Behe brought his lecture and slides to a closely watched trial in federal district court, where a judge will decide whether the town of Dover, Pa., violated the boundary between church and state when it required students to hear a statement about intelligent design in a high school biology class.
...Asked whether intelligent design is religion, or "based on any religious beliefs," Mr. Behe said, "No, it isn't." "It is based entirely on observable, physical evidence from nature," he said.
...For three weeks, the plaintiffs called expert witnesses, including a biologist, a theologian, a paleontologist and two philosophers, who testified that intelligent design did not meet the definition of science because it could not be tested or disproved. They said that intelligent design proponents had not published scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals and that most scientists did not question evolution's basic tenets.
Mr. Behe testified that intelligent design was science and that it made testable claims. Mr. Behe said he had been able to publish only one article on intelligent design in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, a piece he co-wrote in Protein Science in 2004.
I was not aware of even this one. Apparently, Behe is referring to:
Behe M.J., Snoke D.W. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci13:2651-2664.
Does anyone know what this article says?
Robert Muise, a defense lawyer, asked Mr. Behe, "Do you perceive a bias against publishing articles on intelligent design in peer-reviewed journals?"
Mr. Behe said he did. "My ideas on intelligent design have been subjected to a thousand times more scrutiny than anything I've written before."
And why would they not be? If I write an article saying my falling apple experiment resulted in an apple falling to the ground, it will be treated in a ho-hum manner by those reviewing submissions to the scientific journals. But if I report that instead of falling, the apple appeared to fly around the meadow on its own power before jetting into space, then I imagine my article would be reviewed much more skeptically.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Mr. Behe. Neither you nor anyone else has supplied any (haven't read your Protein Science paper, though).
Mr. Muise then asked whether natural selection could "explain the existence" of DNA, the immune system or blood clotting. Mr. Behe said no.
Behe is woefully wrong on this one. This guy is an academic hack.
Fortunately, I have good news. Not only did I save a lot of money on my car insurance, the judge's body language suggests he's not impressed by Behe:
As Mr. Behe's responses grew increasingly long and arcane, Judge John E. Jones III slumped in his chair. When Mr. Muise asked the judge whether he should stop for the day, Judge Jones sat up and agreed, saying, "We've certainly absorbed a lot, haven't we?"
Body language seldom lies.
Unfortunately, there is also this from the Washington Post:
More school boards are considering mandating mention of intelligent design. Randy Tomasacci, a school board member from Shickshinny, north of Harrisburg, said his board is debating whether to require teachers to spend a few days on intelligent design. "We're thinking about it," he said. "But we don't want to get sued out of existence."
Meanwhile, South Korea takes the lead in stem cell research. If we eschew real science in our public schools, what will it mean for our economic future? The primary economic advantage the US enjoys, for now, is being the world's engine of science and technology. If we disrupt the supply of home-grown scientific talent by yielding even a millimeter to pseudoscientific wackjobs, then this advantage will evaporate within a generation.