Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Creationist calls Behe an atheist

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Frank J

unread,
May 29, 2009, 8:28:37 AM5/29/09
to
Creationist calls Behe an atheist:

http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2009/05/27/opinion/editorials/doc4a1d54b65aa40831580294.txt

...and raves about him to boot!:

"Though Dr. Behe says he is still an Atheist, he maintains that
Darwin's theory about the simple cell is impossible, that the
intricacy of the human cell speaks of an Intelligent Design."

That even tops Ray, who admitted that he does not consider Behe an
atheist. But only after me asking several times over several months.
Which meant that he had to "think about it." You know, like Charlie
Brown did when Lucy asked him if he thought she was pretty.

wf3h

unread,
May 29, 2009, 8:34:30 AM5/29/09
to
On May 29, 8:28 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Creationist calls Behe an atheist:
>
> http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2009/05/27/opinion/editorials/doc4a1...

>
> ...and raves about him to boot!:
>
> "Though Dr. Behe says he is still an Atheist, he maintains that
> Darwin's theory about the simple cell is impossible, that the
> intricacy of the human cell speaks of an Intelligent Design."
>
> That even tops Ray, who admitted that he does not consider Behe an
> atheist. But only after me asking several times over several months.
> Which meant that he had to "think about it." You know, like Charlie
> Brown did when Lucy asked him if he thought she was pretty.

this reminds me of some of the histories of 'alcove 1' at CCNY in the
40's and 50's when the trotskyites would argue with the stalinists who
would argue with the leninists about who were the 'true' communists...

ironic and funny! thanks much

Frank J

unread,
May 29, 2009, 8:44:55 AM5/29/09
to

Yeah, but were they True Scotsmen? ;-)

Louann Miller

unread,
May 29, 2009, 10:06:26 AM5/29/09
to
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in news:ea5d6188-e708-4a2f-b246-
b54de0...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

>
> this reminds me of some of the histories of 'alcove 1' at CCNY in the
> 40's and 50's when the trotskyites would argue with the stalinists who
> would argue with the leninists about who were the 'true' communists...

People's Popular Front of Judea: SPLITTERS!!!

Ernest Major

unread,
May 29, 2009, 10:56:36 AM5/29/09
to
In message
<06896ea8-4fb8-4535...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Frank J <fc...@verizon.net> writes

>Creationist calls Behe an atheist:
>
>http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2009/05/27/opinion/editorials/doc4a1d54
>b65aa40831580294.txt
>
>...and raves about him to boot!:
>
>"Though Dr. Behe says he is still an Atheist, he maintains that
>Darwin's theory about the simple cell is impossible, that the
>intricacy of the human cell speaks of an Intelligent Design."

To be precise, the quoted material doesn't say that the creationist
called Behe an atheist (blasphemy), it says that Behe called himself an
atheist (false witness)


>
>That even tops Ray, who admitted that he does not consider Behe an
>atheist. But only after me asking several times over several months.
>Which meant that he had to "think about it." You know, like Charlie
>Brown did when Lucy asked him if he thought she was pretty.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

Frank J

unread,
May 29, 2009, 12:33:08 PM5/29/09
to
On May 29, 10:56 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <06896ea8-4fb8-4535-9764-cb229735b...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank J <f...@verizon.net> writes

>
> >Creationist calls Behe an atheist:
>
> >http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2009/05/27/opinion/editorials/doc4a1d54
> >b65aa40831580294.txt
>
> >...and raves about him to boot!:
>
> >"Though Dr. Behe says he is still an Atheist, he maintains that
> >Darwin's theory about the simple cell is impossible, that the
> >intricacy of the human cell speaks of an Intelligent Design."
>
> To be precise, the quoted material doesn't say that the creationist
> called Behe an atheist (blasphemy), it says that Behe called himself an
> atheist (false witness)

In a way, that's even better - in terms of showing how a creationist
hears what he wants, no more and no less. Behe has said some whoppers,
but I'll bet the ranch and the dog that he never came close to calling
himself an atheist.

My own speculation is that the letter writer read about Behe's
acceptance of common descent and filed it in his memory under "he's
not one of us, but still a useful resource." Later, forgetting the
specifics, the first thought that came to mind was "atheist."

Desertphile

unread,
May 30, 2009, 9:52:25 PM5/30/09
to
On Fri, 29 May 2009 05:28:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J
<fc...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Creationist calls Behe an atheist:
>
> http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2009/05/27/opinion/editorials/doc4a1d54b65aa40831580294.txt
>
> ...and raves about him to boot!:
>

> "Though Dr. Behe says he is still an Atheist (sic), he maintains that


> Darwin's theory about the simple cell is impossible, that the
> intricacy of the human cell speaks of an Intelligent Design."

Why can't these cult retards ever spell "atheist" correctly?"



> That even tops Ray, who admitted that he does not consider Behe an
> atheist. But only after me asking several times over several months.
> Which meant that he had to "think about it." You know, like Charlie
> Brown did when Lucy asked him if he thought she was pretty.

If Dr. Behe is an atheist, who does he believe his "designers"
are?


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

roki...@cox.net

unread,
May 31, 2009, 8:24:50 AM5/31/09
to
On May 30, 8:52 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
wrote:

> On Fri, 29 May 2009 05:28:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J
>
> <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Creationist calls Behe an atheist:
>
> >http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2009/05/27/opinion/editorials/doc4a1...

>
> > ...and raves about him to boot!:
>
> > "Though Dr. Behe says he is still an Atheist (sic), he maintains that
> > Darwin's theory about the simple cell is impossible, that the
> > intricacy of the human cell speaks of an Intelligent Design."
>
> Why can't these cult retards ever spell "atheist" correctly?"
>
> > That even tops Ray, who admitted that he does not consider Behe an
> > atheist. But only after me asking several times over several months.
> > Which meant that he had to "think about it." You know, like Charlie
> > Brown did when Lucy asked him if he thought she was pretty.
>
> If Dr. Behe is an atheist, who does he believe his "designers"
> are?
>
> --http://desertphile.org

> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Guys like Dembski keep claiming that space aliens could be the
designers. I wonder if this tactic is going to become more wide
spread as the creationists rubes that bought into the intelligent
design scam want to still use some of the bogus claims, but want to
distance themselves from the dishonest ID perps that some of them like
Harun Yo Yo are claiming were tools of satan sent to destroy the faith
of the true believers.

You can't run a dishonest bait and switch scam on your own creationist
supporters and expect all of them to bend over and take it. The sad
thing is how many do bend over.

Ron Okimoto

Frank J

unread,
May 31, 2009, 8:47:56 AM5/31/09
to

"Thank you sir, may I have another?" :-)

>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Frank J

unread,
May 31, 2009, 8:46:42 AM5/31/09
to
On May 30, 9:52 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
wrote:

> On Fri, 29 May 2009 05:28:37 -0700 (PDT), Frank J
>
> <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Creationist calls Behe an atheist:
>
> >http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2009/05/27/opinion/editorials/doc4a1...

>
> > ...and raves about him to boot!:
>
> > "Though Dr. Behe says he is still an Atheist (sic), he maintains that
> > Darwin's theory about the simple cell is impossible, that the
> > intricacy of the human cell speaks of an Intelligent Design."
>
> Why can't these cult retards ever spell "atheist" correctly?"
>
> > That even tops Ray, who admitted that he does not consider Behe an
> > atheist. But only after me asking several times over several months.
> > Which meant that he had to "think about it." You know, like Charlie
> > Brown did when Lucy asked him if he thought she was pretty.
>
> If Dr. Behe is an atheist, who does he believe his "designers"
> are?

Not sure his exact words, but he admitted *wanting* to believe that
the designer that he claims to have caught in his "irreducibly complex
moursetrap" is the Judeo-Christan God. But when asked under oath at
Kitzmiller v. Dover if the designers could possibly be deceased, he
said yes. I could just hear the gasps from his creationist fans. At
least the ones whose Morton's Demon didn't filter it out.

Anyway, as I said in the other post, the "atheist" comment was
undoubtedly something that the letter writer's confused mind made up
from a misinterpretation of Behe's writings. Or possibly, as another
poster said, he confused Behe with Berlinski.

Behe is in fact a Catholic, just like his chief critic Kenneth Miller.
They even agree on the basic "what happened when" of life's history
(common descent and all). Behe only claims to doubt the Darwinian
mechanism, but given (1) his prior commitment to "saving the sinners"
and (2) decades-long refusal to develop an alternate mechanism (while
repeatedly misrepresenting evolution), I have to wonder if he truly
does doubt the Darwinian mechanism.

>
> --http://desertphile.org

Steven L.

unread,
May 31, 2009, 2:08:58 PM5/31/09
to

AFAIK, unlike our very own Seanpit, Behe never claimed that the
Intelligent Designer was *pervasive*: that the Intelligent Designer was
here on Earth, manipulating the genes of every species of every life
form that ever existed in order to produce the evolutionary tree of life
that we recognize today.

For Behe, it could be that natural selection was driving *some*
evolution (even the creationists accept so-called "micro-evolution"),
while the Intelligent Designer just intervened at a few critical
junctures in the evolution of life, like the Cambrian Explosion perhaps.
Or perhaps the evolution of the cerebral cortex in humans to the point
that humans could think and imagine abstractly. Or perhaps the
Intelligent Designer recognized that dinosaurs were an evolutionary
cul-de-sac, and deflected an asteroid so it would hit the Earth and get
rid of those pesky dinosaurs and give the mammals a fair shot.


"And God saw that the dinosaurs of the earth could never know His glory.
"And it repented the LORD that he had made dinosaurs on the earth, and
it grieved him at his heart.
"And the LORD said, I will destroy dinosaurs whom I have created from
the face of the earth; both carnivorous, and herbivorous; and the winged
reptiles of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
-- The Holy Bible, Revised Scientific Version, 2109 C.E.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Frank J

unread,
May 31, 2009, 4:28:01 PM5/31/09
to

In fact I know of no major IDer who admitted that the designer(s) and
creator(s) must be the same. While the swich from "Creator" to
"designer" may have been necessitated by the court losses (McLean and
Edwards) I always thought that it was neatly "preadapted" to a late
20th century culture that values the hands-off designer more than the
hands-on builder.

>
> For Behe, it could be that natural selection was driving *some*
> evolution (even the creationists accept so-called "micro-evolution"),
> while the Intelligent Designer just intervened at a few critical
> junctures in the evolution of life, like the Cambrian Explosion perhaps.

AIUI, Behe has shrewdly steered clear of even speculating when the
desiger(s) and/or creator(s) intervened. The closest he came was a few
lines about the first designed cell in "Darwin's Black Box" (1996).
Even the supposedly designed malaria parasite in "Edge of
Evolution" (2007) could conceivably have been "waiting in the
wings" (for some "microevolutionary information loss" for ~4 billion
years. I'm not saying that Behe necessarily believes that (& I
certainly don't), but it is the most likely inference given what
little he has offered earlier.

AIUI, even Meyer whose "peer-reviewed" paper was about the Cambrian (&
the usual nonsense of how "Darwinism" couldn't do it) stopped short of
claiming that any design actuation occurred during the Cambrian.


>   Or perhaps the evolution of the cerebral cortex in humans to the point
> that humans could think and imagine abstractly.  Or perhaps the
> Intelligent Designer recognized that dinosaurs were an evolutionary
> cul-de-sac, and deflected an asteroid so it would hit the Earth and get
> rid of those pesky dinosaurs and give the mammals a fair shot.

I don't think any major IDer would go near that possibility. Not yet
at least. But ID surprises us every day, so it could be that by 2109
they'll completely give up the pretense at science (as if "Expelled"
did anything less) and rewrite the Bible as you say below:

>
> "And God saw that the dinosaurs of the earth could never know His glory.
> "And it repented the LORD that he had made dinosaurs on the earth, and
> it grieved him at his heart.
> "And the LORD said, I will destroy dinosaurs whom I have created from
> the face of the earth; both carnivorous, and herbivorous; and the winged
> reptiles of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
>      -- The Holy Bible, Revised Scientific Version, 2109 C.E.
>
> --
> Steven L.

> Email:  sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -

0 new messages