Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")

Hi ICANT,It would be great if science is really religion, because then I could claim tax-free status for the website. Can I take your word for it that my application for tax-free status won't meet with any problems?If you want to argue that science is a religion then I'll let you hash it out with creationists who claim science is atheistic. Get back to us after you guys work it out, okay? I said there was no *scientific* controversy. Where do you get "or otherwise?"Of course there's a controversy. There was the whole hullabaloo down in Dover just a year and a half ago, there's Kansas always in the news as control of the state school board oscillates every other year between creationists and secularists, there's Ohio's state standards, there's the creationist museums, there's Behe's new book, and on and on and on. The controversy is why this website exists. Look at the top right of the page. See right underneath "EvC Forum" where it says "Discussion and Controversy"? I wrote that.So of course there's a controversy. There's just no scientific controversy, and this is where the dishonesty of creationists like Behe becomes most evident as he makes his public case that there's a scientific controversy that he knows in his heart does not exist.--Percy

We're drifting off-topic now, but I share Jar's curiosity about what that might be. We evolutionists take issue with Behe for advocating the teaching of ideas that lack acceptance within the scientific community, and that's true regardless of the nature of the idea. I am as against including ID in education as I am against including ESP, alien visitations and homeopathy. As an advocate of excellence in science education I would be far more upset than you to learn of unsupported ideas being taught in science class. There are many, many likeminded people out there, and it seems unlikely that unsupported science could be taught to any significant degree without coming to our attention, and that is so egregious that even evangelical pastors with little science background notice it.I have to also note that your point is the same type of fallacy that NJ keeps introducing, the "Oh yeah, well you're doing it, too!" fallacy. First, you're obviously implying that the science community is responsible for promoting these false ideas in education. Ask yourself if that makes sense, scientists promoting the teaching of non-science.And second, you're asking how we could possibly object to an unsupported idea like ID being taught when so many other unsupported ideas are already being taught. But if science education is really so screwed up, the solution is not screwing it up further. The solution is to rout out what isn't science from the curriculum.The source of the complaint must also be considered. Scientists in general and even many lay people bemoan the sad state of science education in this country, while you're a member of the group that is the single largest force for poor science education, so this makes you an unlikely source of accurate information about the quality of science education.So please support your statement and let us know what is being taught in science class today that is as lacking in support as ID. I expect that this is just your "singularity and abiogenesis" point again, in which case you really have no point at all, since creationist objections to these ideas have no scientific basis whatsoever, plus we've already touched on this in this thread and didn't pursue it because it is off-topic. If this is what you're talking about and you really think these ideas lack scientific support then open threads to discuss them.--Percy

ICANT's digressive declarations that atheism is a religion are probably off-topic, unless they can somehow be used as rebuttal against the characterizations of Behe as misrepresenting among the lay public ID's degree of acceptance within the scientific community.--Percy