The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Creation vs. Evolution


Subject:  Re: Discover magazine review of Behe Date:  7/31/2007  8:04 AM
Author:  Goofyhoofy Number:  10348 of 27162

I'd like to see Behe get fair treatment in the science journals.

What, exactly, would you like to see? "Well, we disagree with the Flat-Earth Research Team, but there might be something to it, so we're going to mute our criticism"?

The reality is that anyone challenging established theory gets a hostile reaction. The concept of plate-tectonics wasn't greeted with open arms, heck it took 50 years from "proposal" to "adoption". Charles Lyell didn't come to public acclaim for discovering geologic time in 1830. Cripes, look what happened to Galileo or Copernicus.

The simple fact is that evolution is a widely understood, predictive, falsifiable scientific theory. Behe's saying "This is too complicated to understand" is not science, it's an admission of the limitations of his brain. His bringing up of a couple of pieces of minutae which are not yet explained is not persuasive; we don't understand gravity, yet no one goes around saying "the theory of gravity is wrong."

If Behe wants to convince people then he needs to convince people; not with negative arguments that lead nowhere, but by providing proof of what he is saying. To date he has supplied none and seems incapable of doing so. And every time he is criticized he trots out the same response, and luddites who can't get past the idea that their 2,000 year old book might contain a few errors of fact rush to his side with the self-same proof, which is to say, "none."

Perhaps that is why his own peers at his own university, with whom he presumably has plenty of time and discussion and argument have disowned him and want nothing to do with him, because he is an embarrassment to them and to the entire scientific community at large.

Copyright 1996-2021 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us