Creationism vs Evolution Debate - Is Intelligent Design a Front for Hustlers?

[thomhartmann]

Creationism vs Evolution? Which is the real truth?

The creationist Michael Behe doesn't believe in the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin and championed by scientists ever since; Instead Professor Behe believes that life was intelligently designed by a creator.

Author of a new book Darwin Devolves, Behe joins Thom Hartmann to put creationism vs evolution to debate.

Do you think Behe has a point or is there a missing link in his logic?

[kooth]

1. He's a joke!

He is a joke of a professor and cannot defend his positions -- they go against long established facts! He's just trying to justify (again) Creationism (Intelligent Design).

[TlalocW]

2. Doesn't have science so he relies on the Watchmaker Fallacy

And he's trying to argue micro-evolution versus macro-evolution when there's just evolution, or if you prefer, macro-evolution is not a radical change from one generation to another like a dinosaur popping out a chicken. It's time-based. You get a bunch of micro-evolutions over millions of years, and where you end up is vastly different from where you began.

TlalocW

[Moostache]

3. This guy has been debunked more than recruits on Paris Island during basic at 0500...

He is a shattered shell of a joke in scientific circles; and I am willing to bet that somewhere in his "argument" he STILL will bring up 'irreducible complexity' as a legitimate talking point instead of the debunked joke that it is...

Young Earth Creationists are a special breed of stupid in my mind...ignorance is understandable, its just an absence of knowledge and can be overcome...stupidity is the willful suspension of logic in service of a foolish literal interpretation of the creation myth in Genesis right down to the woman hating BS about Eve, the Devil-serpent and Tree of Knowledge. I find adherents to this line of thought beyond redemption and worthy of mocking and scorn.

For them to be "right", then Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Physics, Logic and Math must ALL be wrong because....an edited version of a collection of goat-herder fables of unknown origin suggested in ONE OF ITS TWO CREATION stories that we should all hate women forever because its all their fault and she (Eve) tricked the righteous man (Adam) into sinning against god, thus dooming ALL of humanity forever because...he bit a fucking apple. Eat me. If you believe that tripe, you need to be institutionalized not recognized.

[Botany]

4. Pure crap

n/t

[shadowmayor]

5. Nope

There is not a debate about evolution. Rather, it's people who insist on denying reason. Much like having a "debate" about the tooth fairy. Just because a number of people believe something to be true, that doesn't mean that there's an element of truth in their beliefs.

[Botany]

7. Evolution is a fact

Evolution = change in gene frequency / time

It does not say there is or there is not a God.

[shadowmayor]

8. Meant no implied ideas about god

Just used the simile about the tooth fairy as an example.

Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science. The Dancing Wu Li Masters

[paleotn]

6. Why?

What's the point? It's like discussing medical science with an anti-vaxer. They're not moored to even basic, easily provable facts. It's hopeless.

[Aussie105]

9. Not a problem.

Scientists believe in the HOW of life on Earth, through many pieces of historic evidence like the fossil record and lab proof like antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Creationists believe in the WHY of Life on Earth, through pure faith, proof not needed.

I know which side I'm on, but argue about it, no, I'm not bothering. Someone who thinks faith outweighs facts and evidence can't be argued out of that.

[Red Pest]

10. Behe is a failed scientist

Michael Behe clearly has no research program and has barely published any peer reviewed papers in a 33+ year career at Lehigh University. His most recent peer-reviewed publication was in 2010 and that paper was a review, not the product of any new research done in his lab. I suspect that he does not maintain an active research lab for the simple reason that no student would work under the direction of someone who rejects the most fundamental idea that drives all biological research since Darwin - EVOLUTION.

Here's the point about Theory of Evolution: there are no reproducible experimental data that refute/falsify evolution.

So, why did Thom Hartmann waste time interviewing Behe? Further,why not at least have another biologist on at the same time to specifically refute the self-serving and false information that Behe puts out? Thom Hartmann does not understand enough molecular biology to point out just how wrong Behe was in virtually all of his statements.

One example: Behe stated that most loss of function (knockout or KO) mutations result in a gain in fitness for organisms. This is demonstrably incorrect. My students, postdocs, and I have (over many years) made thousands of mutants in the bacteria that I study. The vast majority of KO mutations result in a loss of fitness for those bacteria. There are, of course, some exceptions that typically occur in rather special conditions, such as when the ability to metabolize a specific compound will result in a lethal product. Clearly in that special case the loss of function will increase fitness, but not when that compound is absent. My lab's observations are no different than those of everyone else.

Anyway, I could go on writing about all the other fallacies that Behe attempts to sell the gullible for the next hour, but I have other work to do. Or to steal a phrase from Nancy Peloci, "he's just not worth it."

[maxsolomon]

11. Why are you posting this here as if it was an unsettled question?

ID is just another Conservative grift, like ACC Denial, or the Prosperity Gospel, or Trickle-Down Economics, or the Republican Party.

Don't tease DU, Hartmann. We give you free content every day.