Michael Behe scores an “own goal”

shooting onesself in the footWhen it comes to expertly witnessing, Michael Behe is the science community’s friend. He confidently declares that science textbooks explicitly contaminated with religious “overrides” are good science. On the way to his own goal line, he explains that it’s bad to force students to come to a pre-determined conclusion. Score!

One of the books that he approves, Biology for Christian Schools, starts with:

  1. “‘Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,’ is the only [position] a Christian can take . . . .”
  2. “If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.”
  3. “Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible.”


Ed Brayton has the story at Dispatches from the Culture Wars:

And Mike Dunford has a very nice summary at The Questionable Authority

Geek humor: inbox

You have one new—message?

Humorous Pictures
see more crazy cat pics

Posted in humor. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

Darwin distorted: how creationists do it

From the left coast, S E E Quine blogs about the distortions that creationists use to argue against evolution. Read her article, “Darwin vs. Darwin: If you can’t beat ’em, caricature ’em” on Introspection of a Struggling Mad Scientist.

“Tet Zoo needs you”

Darren Naish at Tetrapod Zoology is asking for illustrations for his new book of Tet. Zoo blog posts.  The illustrations can be drawings or photos—but they’ll be printed in black and white, so they must have some contrast. Orange & light green just isn’t going to show up. Pop over there to see his list of needs.

Ursula K. Leguin: Science vs. wonder?

Le Guin in 2001

Ursula Le Guin reviews a Salman Rushdie book in The Guardian. This is perhaps the best part:

Some boast that science has ousted the incomprehensible; others cry that science has driven magic out of the world and plead for “re-enchantment”. But it’s clear that Charles Darwin lived in as wondrous a world, as full of discoveries, amazements and profound mysteries, as that of any fantasist. The people who disenchant the world are not the scientists, but those who see it as meaningless in itself, a machine operated by a deity. Science and literary fantasy would seem to be intellectually incompatible, yet both describe the world; the imagination functions actively in both modes, seeking meaning, and wins intellectual consent through strict attention to detail and coherence of thought, whether one is describing a beetle or an enchantress. Religion, which prescribes and proscribes, is irreconcilable with both of them, and since it demands belief, must shun their common ground, imagination. So the true believer must condemn both Darwin and Rushdie as “disobedient, irreverent, iconoclastic” dissidents from revealed truth.

(Hat tip to Missingpoints)

%d bloggers like this: