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 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:20 amWhile 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.
Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
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 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:31 amI 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 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:20 amWhile 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.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
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.thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:43 amI 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 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:31 amI 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 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:20 am
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.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
OMFG are you serious?
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
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.Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:49 amNothing 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.thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:43 amI 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.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Oh, at the Discovery Institute! Well, that settles it, then -- the institute has the word discovery in it!Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:03 amWhy is he in no position to be in authority?thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:17 pmMichael 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.
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.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Isn't the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture the end all and be all of scientific thought?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23230
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
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
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:04 amThat'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.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
I see, and I agree.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:04 amThat'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.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23230
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Intelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:36 pmFair enough.
What particular issue was on your mind when you posed the OP?
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.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
We're evolved, not intelligently designed.Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:04 pmIntelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:36 pmFair enough.
What particular issue was on your mind when you posed the OP?
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.