Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

[Viveka]

Why is he in no position to be in authority?

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.

While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

So much for his position at Lehigh University, he seems to be on his own there.

The Discovery Institute is just a vehicle for IC which has been disproved in every case that has been investigated by science, Behe is wrong about just about everything. The only way you can support IC is if you ignore and deny all the evidence against it.

I hate to appeal to authority or jump on a bandwagon, but if he is a professor of biochemistry, don't you think he'd have an idea of what he's talking about, and if so, isn't it not a far leap to say he might be right?

[thedoc]

Why is he in no position to be in authority?

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.

While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

So much for his position at Lehigh University, he seems to be on his own there.

The Discovery Institute is just a vehicle for IC which has been disproved in every case that has been investigated by science, Behe is wrong about just about everything. The only way you can support IC is if you ignore and deny all the evidence against it.

I hate to appeal to authority or jump on a bandwagon, but if he is a professor of biochemistry, don't you think he'd have an idea of what he's talking about, and if so, isn't it not a far leap to say he might be right?

I understand that an appeal to the majority opinion is a logical fallacy, but in this case I believe the majority of scientists do not hold Behe's ideas as valid, and I think the majority is correct. Behe might have learned the correct ideas but he has been influenced to the wrong conclusions by the Discovery Institute.

[Viveka]

While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

So much for his position at Lehigh University, he seems to be on his own there.

The Discovery Institute is just a vehicle for IC which has been disproved in every case that has been investigated by science, Behe is wrong about just about everything. The only way you can support IC is if you ignore and deny all the evidence against it.

I hate to appeal to authority or jump on a bandwagon, but if he is a professor of biochemistry, don't you think he'd have an idea of what he's talking about, and if so, isn't it not a far leap to say he might be right?

I understand that an appeal to the majority opinion is a logical fallacy, but in this case I believe the majority of scientists do not hold Behe's ideas as valid, and I think the majority is correct. Behe might have learned the correct ideas but he has been influenced to the wrong conclusions by the Discovery Institute.

Nothing wrong with that as long as you, yourself don't believe he's correct. If you simply quoted scientists or said something about all scientists denying it then I would accuse you of the bandwagon fallacy.

[davidm]

To deepen his morals and ideas about Lust and how it is intended by God since life is intelligently designed.

Evidence?

Refer to the writings of Michael Behe and others.

OMFG are you serious?

[thedoc]

I hate to appeal to authority or jump on a bandwagon, but if he is a professor of biochemistry, don't you think he'd have an idea of what he's talking about, and if so, isn't it not a far leap to say he might be right?

I understand that an appeal to the majority opinion is a logical fallacy, but in this case I believe the majority of scientists do not hold Behe's ideas as valid, and I think the majority is correct. Behe might have learned the correct ideas but he has been influenced to the wrong conclusions by the Discovery Institute.

Nothing wrong with that as long as you, yourself don't believe he's correct. If you simply quoted scientists or said something about all scientists denying it then I would accuse you of the bandwagon fallacy.

Behe and IC has been demonstrated to be wrong in every case that has been investigated by science. A fallacy is not necessarily wrong, it is just not a valid argument.

[davidm]

Refer to the writings of Michael Behe and others.

Michael Behe and those like him are just about the least likely to be an authority to define anything. If you insist on your own definition, I would suggest that you find another term, as "lust" already has an accepted and well understood definition, and it isn't what you say it is.

Why is he in no position to be in authority?

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.

Oh, at the Discovery Institute! Well, that settles it, then -- the institute has the word discovery in it!

[thedoc]

Evidence?

Refer to the writings of Michael Behe and others.

OMFG are you serious?

I think he is. He believes that Behe actually has a valid argument.

[davidm]

Refer to the writings of Michael Behe and others.

OMFG are you serious?

I think he is. He believes that Behe actually has a valid argument.

Just mind-blowing.

[thedoc]

Isn't the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture the end all and be all of scientific thought?

[Immanuel Can]

Adultery is generally out of wedlock sex, or breaking wedlock, right?
Then why would he create our bodies the way they are with pleasure centers that have nothing to do with marriage or not?

That's like asking, "If God didn't want us to murder or steal from each other, why did He allow us to experience anger and greed, and give us two hands?"

There is a right use and a wrong use for everything. The existence of a faculty that has both a right use and a wrong use doesn't suggest it's alright to use it wrongly...or that the Supreme Being is approving of the abuses we make of the things He gave us. And that doesn't even touch the question of what is said about that in the Bible; it's just basic logic and basic ethics that one cannot deduce a justification for bad behaviour from the existence of a potential for that bad behaviour. One can see that in practice every day.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Adultery is generally out of wedlock sex, or breaking wedlock, right?
Then why would he create our bodies the way they are with pleasure centers that have nothing to do with marriage or not?

That's like asking, "If God didn't want us to murder or steal from each other, why did He allow us to experience anger and greed, and give us two hands?"

There is a right use and a wrong use for everything. The existence of a faculty that has both a right use and a wrong use doesn't suggest it's alright to use it wrongly...or that the Supreme Being is approving of the abuses we make of the things He gave us. And that doesn't even touch the question of what is said about that in the Bible; it's just basic logic and basic ethics that one cannot deduce a justification for bad behaviour from the existence of a potential for that bad behaviour. One can see that in practice every day.

Or here's an easier explanation: He doesn't exist, and we partly evolved hands for fighting each other, fucking ourselves and each other, and hunting animals.

[Viveka]

Adultery is generally out of wedlock sex, or breaking wedlock, right?
Then why would he create our bodies the way they are with pleasure centers that have nothing to do with marriage or not?

That's like asking, "If God didn't want us to murder or steal from each other, why did He allow us to experience anger and greed, and give us two hands?"

There is a right use and a wrong use for everything. The existence of a faculty that has both a right use and a wrong use doesn't suggest it's alright to use it wrongly...or that the Supreme Being is approving of the abuses we make of the things He gave us. And that doesn't even touch the question of what is said about that in the Bible; it's just basic logic and basic ethics that one cannot deduce a justification for bad behaviour from the existence of a potential for that bad behaviour. One can see that in practice every day.

I see, and I agree.

[Immanuel Can]

I see, and I agree.

Fair enough.

What particular issue was on your mind when you posed the OP?

[Viveka]

I see, and I agree.

Fair enough.

What particular issue was on your mind when you posed the OP?

Intelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.

Also, I can see a need for desire in Intelligent Design. Humans must inherently desire after food, water, clothing, and so on. What was not intended was our free-will based changes on what is needed to be desired. For instance, cars, television, computers, etc. I think the ultimate need for desire is to desire Goodness.

[davidm]

I see, and I agree.

Fair enough.

What particular issue was on your mind when you posed the OP?

Intelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.

Also, I can see a need for desire in Intelligent Design. Humans must inherently desire after food, water, clothing, and so on. What was not intended was our free-will based changes on what is needed to be desired. For instance, cars, television, computers, etc. I think the ultimate need for desire is to desire Goodness.

We're evolved, not intelligently designed.