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

You even left in the comma. Sloppy, ICANT. There was a lot more to that definition. Here's the whole thing, emphasis mine: And here's a better one, from Dictionary.com, again with my emphasis added: You're right - it doesn't say anything about God. Many religions are animalistic, or naturalistic (meaning aspects of nature are worshipped without personification in a deity), and have no recognizable "God." But a religion typically includes "prayer, ritual, and religious law." And let's not forget the part about "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." in the Dictionary.com definition.Lying by omission is still lying, ICANT. A set of "notions and beliefs" is not a religion. If it were, then I suppose that I have many religions, and one of them is that ICANT likes to pick out bits of a definition and conveniently leave out the parts in front of his face that prove him wrong. I didn't see anything about bashing religion in your quote from that website, ICANT. I saw genuine disagreement, and an honest examination of the actual words contained in "holy" books. Does disagreement now equate to bashing, ICANT? No one here has said there is no controversy - only that there is no SCIENTIFIC controversy, which has been pointed out to you several times. Among actual scientists and real peer-reviewed studies, there is zero controversy within science regarding ID. Its arguments are simply bunk, as has been shown over and over again, and NO ACTUAL RESEARCH is being done regarding ID - Behe and his ilk are running a PR campaign to sway the uneducated masses, and have nothing to do with science.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Of course it is. But not because it's a belief a bunch of other people share. If that were the case, being a Republican or Democrat, being pro- or anti-choice, being a Nazi, a hippy, or a fan of a specific musical group would all be religions. Religions ALSO share other things, as mentioned in the definitions: a definition of the "cause" or "purpose" of the universe, rituals, rules of behavior and morality, worship, and others are typical practices of religions. Another, much larger trait shared by every religion I've ever heard of is the unfounded belief (ie, faith) in the supernatural, though the specific supernatural belief of course varies wildly.Being an evolutionist is not a religion. Believing dinosaurs once roamed the Earth, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that the Theory of Gravity accurately models the attraction of bodies with mass are not religions, despite being "notions or beliefs held by a lot of people." Your half-definition falls short - which is why it was intentionally misleading of you to post only the part of the definition that matched what you were trying to say, and not the rest.To tie this all back onto the topic of Behe before we spiral hopelessly off-topic:Behe and his ID buddies share a common set of beliefs: that there was some intelligent designer who created or caused to be created all life on Earth (at the minimum). These beliefs have no actual validity - every argument their proponents put forth is defeated as unscientific at best and patently ridiculously uninformed and idiotic at worst. They are without scientific or evidenciary basis and are therefore taken "on faith." The "evidence" is then made to fit with the predetermined belief in a designer, as opposed to following the evidence to an unbiased conclusion. This is religious apologetics, not science. Furthermore, the IDists, while trying to propose non-specific language when describing their "designer," they invariably believe the designer to be the Judeo-Christian God (granted, not always, but in the vast, vast majority of cases).The arguments put forth by Behe and other IDists are motivated by religious beliefs. Not just a set of ideas and values they all share, but actual religious beliefs, and this is all that actually constitutes their arguments. There is no science in any of them - not one bit. There has never been a single peer-reviewed paper published on ID. There is no research being conducted - only PR and flim-flam intended solely to sway the uninformed, and to counter occasional deconversions due to the crisis of faith evolution CAN (but does not always) cause.The motivations and claims of ID are ALL religious in nature, and have literally jack and shit to do with science. Behe specifically avoids actual science - he only participates in public debates and his own books, which are venues where "sounding good" and appealing to the public's preconceived religious bias and/or ignorance can win over actual reason and science.It's fine to believe in ID, or God, or Thor, or any other manner of belief. But these are NOT science. Apologetics try to SOUND like science - they use "sciency" words, and argue with or even use real science to try to prove their point. But the IDists are still no different than any other apologetics - they're trying to force the square peg of the evidence into the round hole of their preconceived conclusion, and it is NOT SCIENCE. As such, it does not belong in a science classroom.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Calling Atheism a religion is exactly like calling darkness a wavelength of light. Atheism is the absence of belief, exactly as darkness is the absence of light.When Dawkins "uses science to support Atheism," all he's really doing is saying "some religions have made specific claims. These claims are provably false (the Flood, 6-day Creation, etc)." It's like using science to prove that Santa cannot possibly visit every child's home in a single night.It's not a religion, Mike. It's calling someone on their bullshit. That he approaches the pursuit of truth with a zeal that reminds you of people with religious beliefs is irrelevant - the degree of energy one puts into ones argument has nothing to do with defining a religion. If that were so, both sides of every serious argument would have to be defined as religions. Similarly, this would make the "casual Christian" who doesn't really talk about his beliefs but still holds them somehow not religious.This entire train of thought is a massive "tu quoque" fallacy. And trying to straddle the middle by saying that only this "branch" of Atheism is religious is horseshit as well - Atheism has no set dogma, has no set of commandments od rules, no traditions, no beliefs, no ceremonies - it's JUST the absence of belief in any deity. The degree of certainty an Atheist holds is irrelevant. Even Dawkins doesn't believe that no deity can POSSIBLY exist. He simply says that, in the absence of any solid evidence, its really, really not likely, and has said on multiple occasions that if solid evidence WERE produced he would change his view to match.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.