Behe on Christian Radio

Posted 18 January 2008 by Richard B. Hoppe

At 4:00 Eastern time today (Jan 18), Michael Behe will be on Christian radio KKMS in Minneapolis. It'll be streamed live -- I haven't yet figured out whether it will be archived. It's advertised as

Dr. Michael Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University will explain why Darwinism just isn't factual and why Creationism is a very plausible reality.

I'll be interested to see just how (or whether) they integrate Behe's self-professed acceptance of an old earth and common descent into their young earth worldview, and how they treat his view that malaria was intentionally designed. RBH (There ought to be a hat tip here, but I can't remember where I read about it the other day -- Pharyngula, maybe?)

84 Comments

Eamon Knight · 18 January 2008

But remember, kiddies: ID is science; it's not creationism, it's not religion.
(I feel sorry for the DI -- they must be sooo tired of the local rubes blowing the cover story)(Actually, I have no sympathy for the lying bastards).

RBH · 18 January 2008

Yup, the hat tip goes to Pharyngula. They link to Pharyngula's post from the program's blog, warning that it's "... laced with profanity."

Stacy S. · 18 January 2008

He talks about "breaking genes" rather than "Making genes" when asked "What are the limits of "Darwinism".

Stacy S. · 18 January 2008

Behe was asked how old he thought the Universe is, and he just didn't answer - he said it is all speculation. CHICKEN!!

Mercurious · 18 January 2008

RBH we only cuss at the fundies... well most of the time. But then who doesn't? One thing I will point out. If you get a chance watch the PBS documentary called Judgment Day. It goes over the Dover case pretty well. Hehe also makes Behe look like a fool, granted it isn't that hard.

Henry J · 18 January 2008

“What are the limits of “Darwinism”.

Well, it hasn't produced cars, airplanes, bionics, metal tools, Pegasus, invisible pink unicorns, Scylla, Charybdis, Medusa (the snake-haired, not the jellyfish), chariots, or even wheels, afaik. :p Henry

Joe Mc Faul · 18 January 2008

I want to hear *Michael Behe* explain "why Creationism is a very plausible reality."

That would be news.

I already know what he thinks about Intelligent Design.

Donald M · 18 January 2008

Stacy S:

Behe was asked how old he thought the Universe is, and he just didn’t answer - he said it is all speculation. CHICKEN!!

You weren't listening very carefully. He said that theories that the universe is eternal are "iffy" and seem to be based more on speculation than data. And he wasn't asked how old he thought the universe was, but we he thought about the various theories about the age of the universe. So he did answer the question.

RBH · 18 January 2008

Everything you need to know about Behe is embodied in this quotation where he is summarizing his argument:

In the past 10 years or so data has become available which really answers the question 'How much can Darwinian processes do?' If you talk to Darwinists it's easy for them to dream up scenarios where, you know, a bacterium turns into a cat in, you know, a couple hundred years or so. (Emphasis in his voice)

I hope some of his colleagues at Lehigh listen to that. The man is a total loss. RBH

Ichthyic · 18 January 2008

The man is a total loss.

what about it, DM, is Behe a total loss?

base your answer on the quote above, and do NOT stray, you dishonest little shit.

Stacy S. · 18 January 2008

Donald M: You weren't listening very carefully. He said that theories that the universe is eternal are "iffy" and seem to be based more on speculation than data. And he wasn't asked how old he thought the universe was, but we he thought about the various theories about the age of the universe. So he did answer the question.

I was listening carefully - I was VERY excited about the question and thus listening intently. All I heard was him "DUCKING" the question. They did say that if you missed it - you could listen later via their website. http://www.kkms.com

Gary Hurd · 18 January 2008

Behe dissing ERV, "She misread the book."

Behe on Darwinists, "Darwinists find it easy to dream up scenarios where bacteria turn into cats in a few hundred years."

Behe did a good side-step on the age of the universe, "It all sounds speculative to me."

What a shit-for-brains he has become since being trashed in K v D.

My favorite Behe testimony started, "Q. Let's discuss archaeology a little bit more. Matt, if you could pull up Exhibit 722? May I approach, Your Honor?"

Ichthyic · 18 January 2008

My favorite Behe testimony

the central argument is one I have often used myself, but it's pretty clear why you like that specific part of the testimony, Gary.

you should get more credit for that, actually.

D P Robin · 18 January 2008

I admit I'm not volunteering for the job (I'm a lousy typist), but somebody needs to get a transcript of the interview up before the station's higher-up actually listen to the interview and yank it from their web site.

DPR

gabriel · 18 January 2008

RBH: "... laced with profanity."

Well, at least it's not "laced with Darwinism." Wait a minute -- oh, never mind.

Gary Hurd · 18 January 2008

Ichthyic: My favorite Behe testimony the central argument is one I have often used myself, but it's pretty clear why you like that specific part of the testimony, Gary. :) you should get more credit for that, actually.

Thanks, but Eric Rothchild, and Nick Matzke deserve the credit for using my chapter so well. This actually was antisipated when Behe was deposed. It would have gone over hard on Dembski as well. I did get a huge charge out of it.

Stanton · 18 January 2008

Henry J:
“What are the limits of “Darwinism”.
Well, it hasn't produced cars, airplanes, bionics, metal tools, Pegasus, invisible pink unicorns, Scylla, Charybdis, Medusa (the snake-haired, not the jellyfish), chariots, or even wheels, afaik. :p Henry

Actually, Pegasus is the genus name of the sea moth, a relative of the sea horse and pipefish, Charbydis is a genus of swimming crab, Scylla is a genus of sea slug that rides in sargassum weed, and some sand dollars have been observed moving onto their side, and roll like a coin. As for unicorns... Will you settle for a white one? http://www.pbase.com/ronsc/image/55221355

Science Avenger · 18 January 2008

D P Robin, they may have already yanked it, or else I'm just a worse surfer than you are a typist. However, if it is still there and someone more skillful than me can link me to it, I'll take a whack at it.

Frank J · 18 January 2008

Behe was asked how old he thought the Universe is, and he just didn’t answer - he said it is all speculation. CHICKEN!!
— Stacy S

Not chicken, weasel. And pathetic, since he is on record for 12+ years as agreeing with mainstream science. A bit late to join the "don't ask, don't tell" chorus. In any case, the more relevant question is not the age of the Universe or the Earth, but of life on Earth. There too, Behe is on record agreeing with mainstream science (3.5 - 4 BY). At the 2005 Kansas Kangaroo Court he had no problem answering the question about the age of the Earth, and affirming common descent. One other respondent answered the age of the Earth question with the age of the Universe. Yet another person pulled the same switch on me recently, here or on Talk Origins. You have probably noticed that it's very common for anti-evolution activists to answer the wrong question.

Frank J · 18 January 2008

And [Behe] wasn’t asked how old he thought the universe was, but we he thought about the various theories about the age of the universe. So he did answer the question.
— Donald M

But I did ask you these questions on the "Dissent from Darwinism" thread: 1. Do you think that humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs? Dogwoods? Both (like some IDers)? Neither? Please clearly pick 1 of the 4 choices - a best guess will do. 2. Also, do you agree (as many creationists do) that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do. I have been unable to find an answer. Would you be so kind to point me to where you answered?

Jorde · 18 January 2008

You sciency types are whats wrong with America. Yall flip-flop all the time. First you thought we were born from monkeys, then you say we came from giant clams, then back to monkeys. Make up your mind, what is it? Clams or Monkeys? No doubt you will respond that we came from dinosaurs.

akg41470 · 18 January 2008

Jorde, let me remind you of a few things:

1. Those "sciency" types are what brought you the ability to type your drivel on a keyboard and have it seen by anyone in the world. You want to place THAT on what's wrong with America?

2. Giant clams? Monkeys? Dinosaurs? Your ignorance really shines bright in this forum, and I propose, for the sake of the discussion, that I (a non-scientist) be the only one to respond to your tripe. Let's let the scientists discuss more important things - stuff _I_ can learn from - rather than waste their time trying to educate you.

If I didn't have a better sense, I'd post your quote on FSTDT. Idiot.

Science Avenger · 18 January 2008

Well Jorde, if you are trying to convince us you didn't come from monkeys, aping creationist arguments is hardly the way to go.

Science Avenger · 18 January 2008

Isn't it fascinating how the wingnuts portray all changes of mind as a flip-flop, and therefore a bad thing? It's as if they think one can live one's life with the knowledge one acquired as a 5-year-old.

Oops.

Jorde · 18 January 2008

Russell's Law is proved once more.

Anyway, does "Teach the Controversy" apply to the Scientology theory that I mentioned? According to L. Ron Hubbard's "The History of Man," Hubbard has "scientific proof" all life(?) evolved from a giant clam.

Chris Andrews · 18 January 2008

Jorde, DUH. Everyone knows that people came from monkeys, and monkeys came from the rib bone of a giant clam.

The giant clam was then BBQ'd over the burning bush. Mmmmm... boneless clams is good eats!

Ravilyn Sanders · 18 January 2008

They are running a poll
on the presidential election. According to Pharyngula Mike Huckabee was leading, and Clinton was dead last when he saw it. Well, when I looked at it, (after voting for Clinton, just to spite them) Clinton 34%, Obama 23% and Edwards 20% were beating their blue eyed boy, Huckabee 18%. Good.

Ichthyic · 18 January 2008

then you say we came from giant clams

???

I gotta find out where that one came from.

Gary Hurd · 18 January 2008

Yo, Jorde. It was a giant clam job on the monkey, you know... Do the dino!

Get it right!

Ichthyic · 18 January 2008

wait, I know where that came from!

did you ever see the Adventures of Baron Munchausen, where Venus rises from the giant clam (as enacted in sensual fashion by the lovely Uma Thurman)?

there ya go, even the greeks and romans knew that man (or woman) came from giant clams:

http://waltm.net/bvenus.htm

Aagcobb · 18 January 2008

Jorde, what makes you think scientists take science fiction writer and cult leader L. Ron Hubbard seriously? I hope you didn't confuse "scientologists" with "scientists", did you?

Alan C. · 18 January 2008

Ravilyn Sanders: They are running a poll on the presidential election. According to Pharyngula Mike Huckabee was leading, and Clinton was dead last when he saw it. Well, when I looked at it, (after voting for Clinton, just to spite them) Clinton 34%, Obama 23% and Edwards 20% were beating their blue eyed boy, Huckabee 18%. Good.

Actually, Ravilyn, that was from a concerted effort by the Pharyngula blog lurkers to bias the vote to their liking. They deliberately voted in their candidates, even including postings on how to delete the appropriate cookies to allow them to vote multiple times, to skew the results. Of course, the whole exercize is silly; imagine a fundie Xian station inviting a "real" vote from their listeners and not expecting Rev. Huckleberry to be the hands-down choice. Duh!

Dave Thomas · 18 January 2008

When Jorde's link to "Russell's Law" took me only to a new copy of this very post, which had no mention of anything re Russell beforehand, I thought "Boy, that is one stupid creationist!"

It may be, however, that Jorde is trying to pull a Sokal on us.

I'm just sayin'.

Dave

mplavcan · 19 January 2008

Jorde, seriously. Look, you're saying some really silly things here. Before even beginning to try to challenge evolutionary biology (hint, you aren't the first, and the stuff you are saying is silly even by the most generous standards), try doing just a little reading on the topic from something other than a creationist web site (or a South Park episode on Scientology, which was hilarious, by the way). If your goal is to just blow raspberries to see if you can get a response, then do us all a favor and go away. If you have something substantial to contribute, we'll be happy to entertain the thought, or direct you to a resource that might answer your question.

RBH · 19 January 2008

DNFTT, folks, or I'll have to figure out how to send stuff to the Bathroom Wall.

Stacy S. · 19 January 2008

Ichthyic: wait, I know where that came from! did you ever see the Adventures of Baron Munchausen, where Venus rises from the giant clam (as enacted in sensual fashion by the lovely Uma Thurman)? there ya go, even the greeks and romans knew that man (or woman) came from giant clams: http://waltm.net/bvenus.htm :p

Brilliant!! BTW - I wouldn't be surprised if Jorde were Jesse Hoots.

Nigel D · 19 January 2008

You sciency types are whats wrong with America.
— Jorde

Excellent. Do you consider me to be an example of what's wrong with "America"? BTW, I have never visited any country in North America. Do you mean North America or South America? Or were you referring to the USA?

Yall flip-flop all the time.

And this is worse than clinging to dogma that is demonstrably contrary to reality in what way, exactly?

First you thought we were born from monkeys,

I have never seen this claim before. What is your source?

then you say we came from giant clams,

I have never seen this claim before. What is your source?

then back to monkeys.

Quite.

Make up your mind, what is it? Clams or Monkeys?

Erm, neither, actually. Maybe you should, y'know, actually find something out about evolution before you try to diss it? Oh, I get it. You are using satire to ilustrate how pathetically sad and ignorant the creationists are. You know, it is often difficult to tell the difference between satire and genuine creationist blather, so you might need to make it more obvious next time.

No doubt you will respond that we came from dinosaurs.

Er, no. What makes you think this?

Nigel D · 19 January 2008

Anyway, does “Teach the Controversy” apply to the Scientology theory that I mentioned? According to L. Ron Hubbard’s “The History of Man,” Hubbard has “scientific proof” all life(?) evolved from a giant clam.
— Jorde

L. Ron Hubbard wrote science fiction. Perhaps you need to look up the word "fiction" in a dictionary. Scientology is a load of nonsense thought up to control the gullible. Hubbard did not have scientific proof of anything.

Nigel D · 19 January 2008

there ya go, even the greeks and romans knew that man (or woman) came from giant clams: http://waltm.net/bvenus.htm
— Ichthyic

No, Ichthyic, Venus was a goddess, not a woman. Inceidentally, that link has a pretty poor reproduction of Botticelli's painting. I've seen the original, and it is far more detailed, colourful and emotive than the image on that page you link to.

Nigel D · 19 January 2008

DNFTT
— RBH

Que?

Frank J · 19 January 2008

BTW - I wouldn’t be surprised if Jorde were Jesse Hoots.
— Stacy S.

Hmm. Something about "J" perhaps? There was a poster simply named "J" on another thread recently that had me wondering if it was another prank by the Jesse gang. If this keeps up I might have to change my name. :-)

Que?
— Nigel D

I hate abbreviations at least as much as I hate anti-evolution activism, but that one is easy: "Do not feed the troll."

hoary puccoon · 19 January 2008

DNFTT-- Do Not Feed The Troll.

*sigh* I have this girlish fantasy that someday a creationist will come along who actually wants to understand evolution, not just to see how dumb he can make himself look. But so far, it's been nothing but mean spirits and stupidity coming from the creo crowd. The only reason to give polite, informative responses is the hope of reaching lurkers. *sigh*

MrG (Greg Goebel) · 19 January 2008

Henry J:
“What are the limits of “Darwinism”.
... or even wheels, afaik. :p Henry

Tumbleweeds.

Frank J · 19 January 2008

*sigh* I have this girlish fantasy that someday a creationist will come along who actually wants to understand evolution, not just to see how dumb he can make himself look.
— hoary puccoon

It's next to impossible to catch someone like that here (or on Talk Origins) because creationists who actually want to understand evolution either: 1. covert to "evolutionists" rather quickly (as I did ~40 years ago), or, 2. are already so possessed by Morton's Demon that they will, without even realizing it, cherry pick the evidence to support their pre-held conclusions, or, 3. are sufficiently in on the scam to knowingly and willingly cherry pick the evidence to mislead others.

Aureola Nominee, FCD · 19 January 2008

Re Jorde: Russell's Law is usually stated as follows:

“It Is Impossible To Distinguish A Creationist From A Parody Of A Creationist”

I suppose the responses to Jorde's comments are yet another demonstration of the above.

Science Avenger · 19 January 2008

HP said: I have this girlish fantasy that someday a creationist will come along who actually wants to understand evolution, not just to see how dumb he can make himself look.

It seems to me that whenever you get a binary or step function of opinion (inasmuch as one can objectively measure such things), it is an indication that the difference is not one of an evidenciary analysis. A model of a group of people's factual knowledge would be a scatter plot, and as such wouldn't produce a discrete jump of opinion based on that knowledge, especially on independent subjects. One doesn't go from believing A, B, C and D to believing ~A, ~B, ~C, and ~D scientifically. But put a religious or even political ideology into the mix, and such jumps are the norm. Go from being a Baptist to a Jew, or a Democrat to a Republican, and suddenly many of your opinions change at once (think Dennis Miller). So would not this be another piece of evidence that the IDers are not being scientific? I'm looking at this from an actuary's perspective, so I'm really curious to know if there are any relevant psychological studies of this sort of thing.

Stacy S. · 19 January 2008

Science Avenger: D P Robin, they may have already yanked it, or else I'm just a worse surfer than you are a typist. However, if it is still there and someone more skillful than me can link me to it, I'll take a whack at it.

Here is a better link : http://www.kkms.com/LocalHosts/15/

Stacy S. · 19 January 2008

Sorry - that looks as if it is just blog archives. I'll keep looking :(

Stanton · 19 January 2008

MrG (Greg Goebel):
Henry J:
“What are the limits of “Darwinism”.
... or even wheels, afaik. :p Henry
Tumbleweeds.

What about dung beetles like buffalo beetles or sacred scarabs that build and roll balls?

Henry J · 19 January 2008

hoary puccoon: DNFTT– Do Not Feed The Troll. *sigh* I have this girlish fantasy that someday a creationist will come along who actually wants to understand evolution, not just to see how dumb he can make himself look. But so far, it’s been nothing but mean spirits and stupidity coming from the creo crowd. The only reason to give polite, informative responses is the hope of reaching lurkers. *sigh*

Ah, but as others already indicated above, somebody who actually wants to acquire understanding of a subject will start by reading about it, rather than talking about it.

Stanton: Actually, Pegasus is the genus name of the sea moth, a relative of the sea horse and pipefish, Charbydis is a genus of swimming crab, Scylla is a genus of sea slug that rides in sargassum weed, and some sand dollars have been observed moving onto their side, and roll like a coin.

But those are usurpers of those names, not the original holders of said names. ;) (But the details thereof may be Greek to me.)

MrG (Greg Goebel): Tumbleweeds.

I'm not sure those qualify as wheels. Or maybe I should have specified wheels with axles on which something else sits. Or would that be a pathetic level of detail? Henry

MrG (Greg Goebel) · 19 January 2008

Henry J:
MrG (Greg Goebel): Tumbleweeds.
I'm not sure those qualify as wheels. Or maybe I should have specified wheels with axles on which something else sits. Or would that be a pathetic level of detail? Henry

If you live in tumbleweed country (as I do) you find they roll very nicely in a windstorm. It is annoying to get one caught under the front bumper and listen to it scratch on the pavement as the car rolls down the road. Incidentally, to get down to the proverbial pathetic level of detail, they're an invasive species, Ukrainian originally -- if you see a Western supposedly taking place before the Civil War and tumbleweeds are rolling down the street as the lone stranger rides into town, it's a gaffe -- they weren't known here until the 1870s, the seeds hitchhiked in on batches of Ukrainian wheat seed. (One of the little things to watch out for in Westerns, like contrails and tire tracks on dirt roads.) I recall hearing about a sci-fi novel that involved a beast that could link up with symbiotic partners that provided wheels. I would think that figuring out an "evolutionary game strategy" to get to such a state of grace might be difficult, however.

Ichthyic · 19 January 2008

No, Ichthyic, Venus was a goddess, not a woman.

was that supposed to be a bit of dry humor on your part?

uh, talk about missing the point.

Jorde · 19 January 2008

Wow... I make a joking parody, then after its taken as my stance, I make a statement of Russell's Law, about parodies being indistinguishable, (granted, link failed since you apparently dont like html tags) and you still go on.

Anyway, what I was trying to get at, would the ID position of "teach the controversy" include the crackpot ideas of Scientology? There is as much of a controversy about those ideas, so I assume it would...

Frank J · 19 January 2008

Anyway, what I was trying to get at, would the ID position of “teach the controversy” include the crackpot ideas of Scientology?
— Jorde

The DI would not advocate teaching it directly, just as they do not advocate teaching "evidence" of independent origin of "kinds," or "evidence" of a young Earth. In fact, since ~2002 ID's leading advocates don't even advocate teaching "evidence" of design. By carefully crafting the phony "critical analysis" to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution, however, the strategy leads most students to infer design, and their favorite of the mutually contradictory creationist accounts. A small minority might infer Scientology too, for the simple reason that the ID strategy rules out nothing "alternative."

Nigel D · 19 January 2008

I hate abbreviations at least as much as I hate anti-evolution activism, but that one is easy: “Do not feed the troll.”
— Frank J

Thanks, Frank (you just beat Hoary Puccoon to it, there!). Does that admonition extend to not giving the iggerant troll a well-deserved kicking?

hoary puccoon · 19 January 2008

But, hey, Jorde, if you can get the scientologists, along with the Pastafarians, to bombard Florida school board members with e-mails demanding their sacred religion be taught as fact in science classes, I'd say go for it. The more ridiculous you can make the creos look, the better.

(Read the "Jesse Hoots" entries on the 'Noodled' thread to see why no one caught on to you. When you're trying to parody "Somebody found a pig's tooth in Nebraska in 1922 and that disproves evolution," there's just nowhere to go.)

Nigel D · 19 January 2008

was that supposed to be a bit of dry humor on your part? uh, talk about missing the point.
— Ichthyic

Or deliberately missing the point for comedic effect. To be fair, it was funnier in my head before I typed it.

Nigel D · 19 January 2008

Wow… I make a joking parody, then after its taken as my stance, I make a statement of Russell’s Law, about parodies being indistinguishable, (granted, link failed since you apparently dont like html tags) and you still go on.
— Jorde

Since the link failed, it was too hard to distinguish the parody from an actual creationist. Your parody was too close in content to the actual claims of an actual commenter on PT. As I said, you have to make it more obvious (e.g. by use of mock HTML tags or emoticons or something). When I said you were being satirical, O was not all that confident that I was right.

Stanton · 19 January 2008

Jorde: Wow... I make a joking parody, then after its taken as my stance, I make a statement of Russell's Law, about parodies being indistinguishable, (granted, link failed since you apparently dont like html tags) and you still go on.

Well, it's like I told this one dimwit, in that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to distinguish frothing fundamentalist trolls from moronic trolls who imitate frothing fundamentalist trolls, or to distinguish either species from those who would imitate either for parody, devil's advocacy, or educational purposes (like you, for instance). As such, unless the latter mimics explicitly state that they are not creationists, or not trolls, and are only repeating creationist claims for purposes of parody or devil's advocacy, the self-appointed defenders of science, reason and sanity will viciously maul any cyber-creationist or imitator with the same unrelenting vigor a guard dog trained to attack any suspicious person will attack his/her/its own master who's dressed up as a catburglar while slinking about the property.

Anyway, what I was trying to get at, would the ID position of "teach the controversy" include the crackpot ideas of Scientology? There is as much of a controversy about those ideas, so I assume it would...

Ideally, yes, as Christians recognize Scientology as a rival religion. In fact, this other dimwit I knew once told me, "Science is a religion, you know, "Scientology."" I wanted to clock him over the head with my backpack for saying something so stump-stupid. Realistically, no, as IDiots refuse to tolerate the presence of competitors.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 19 January 2008

Ichthyic: there ya go, even the greeks and romans knew that man (or woman) came from giant clams: http://waltm.net/bvenus.htm :p

Come on, biologists, does it take a Pagan to point out that Venus is being born from a scallop shell in these paintings, not from a clam?

Stacy S. · 19 January 2008

Looks like a cockle shell to me. :)

Stanton · 19 January 2008

It's a scallop, not a cockle shell, you'll see the scallop's "wings" near the center, underneath Aphrodite's feet. That, and cockles are deeper and less wide than scallops.

And technically speaking, Venus/Aphrodite was born from "sea foam" born from the mingling of salt water and the blood dripping from Uranus' mutilated genitals, NOT a (clam) shell. The shell was a prop/theme used by artists when they were emphasizing the goddess' maritime roots.

Ichthyic · 20 January 2008

it's the pedant parade!

Wheee!

Nigel D · 20 January 2008

Ichthyic, why else do you think we're all here...?

Stacy S. · 20 January 2008

Cockles are a symbol of love and ... Venus is the Goddess of what? I don't remember! :)

Stacy S. · 20 January 2008

OT - This made me giggle today.

http://manwiththemuckrake.blogspot.com/2008/01/interstate-35-highway-to-heaven.html

I think this I-35 guy is brilliant! LOL! (we have nothing to worry about)

Stanton · 20 January 2008

Stacy S. : Cockles are a symbol of love and ... Venus is the Goddess of what? I don't remember! :)

No doubt cockles are a symbol of love because of the suggestive shape of the cockle's foot, which is used to pull the creature through sand and mud. During the late Miocene, there was an inland sea, called the Pontian sea, where Crimea and the Ukraine are today. In the Pontian, cockles had underwent a huge diversification event, with countless modified shells for all sorts of niches, though, exactly what sort of countless niches can be had for mud-grubbing is still under investigation. And Venus is the patron goddess of love, match-making, romance, and most importantly, sex, especially on the beach.

Henry J · 20 January 2008

Stacy S.: Cockles are a symbol of love and … Venus is the Goddess of what? I don’t remember! :)

Well, they say memory is the second thing to go. :p Henry

Stacy S. · 20 January 2008

I almost hate to ask ... but what's the 1st thing to go?

David B. Benson · 20 January 2008

Stacy S. --- Err, I forget.

:-)

Stanton · 20 January 2008

Stacy S. : I almost hate to ask ... but what's the 1st thing to go?

That would be the ability to look like an active cockle. http://www.seattleweekly.com/food/blogs/voracious/Cockle.JPG

Ichthyic · 20 January 2008

Ichthyic, why else do you think we’re all here…?

the colorful balloons?

Stanton · 20 January 2008

Ichthyic: Ichthyic, why else do you think we’re all here…? the colorful balloons?

Do you really, really want to leave such a tempting straight line like that lying about in the open?

Stanton · 20 January 2008

RBH: Everything you need to know about Behe is embodied in this quotation where he is summarizing his argument:
In the past 10 years or so data has become available which really answers the question 'How much can Darwinian processes do?' If you talk to Darwinists it's easy for them to dream up scenarios where, you know, a bacterium turns into a cat in, you know, a couple hundred years or so. (Emphasis in his voice)
I hope some of his colleagues at Lehigh listen to that. The man is a total loss. RBH

ANYHOW To get back on topic... I get the distinct impression that Behe is either a sniveling, two-faced hypocrite who jumps at even the remotest opportunity to pander to the Discovery Institute's target audience, or, he has gotten genuine brain damage from associating himself with Intelligent Design. Is it wrong of me to come to this conclusion?

Henry J · 20 January 2008

Stacy S.: I almost hate to ask … but what’s the 1^st thing to go?

Rats, David beat me to the punch line. :) Henry

Ichthyic · 20 January 2008

Do you really, really want to leave such a tempting straight line like that lying about in the open?

it seemed appropriate.

Stacy S. · 20 January 2008

Is it safe to come back in yet? LOL!

Stanton · 20 January 2008

Stacy S. : Is it safe to come back in yet? LOL!

Now that we're moving on from cockle-calling Ichthyic, is it wrong of me to try to decide whether or not Behe is a sniveling panderer or has become brain-damaged from his long association with the Discovery Institute?

Nigel D · 21 January 2008

Well, Satanton, I think there is definitely something wrong with Behe's ability to reason. He seems to accept the overwhelming evidence for common descent, and accepts that many aspects of the natural world are unpleasant (to say the least), while being unable to exclude the concept of a deity who intervenes on a regular basis.

I cannot understand why any person of faith would feel the need to limit the ability of their deity by claiming that he/she/it cannot foresee the consequence of a chain of events and must therefroe tinker with his/her/its creation.

Nigel D · 21 January 2008

Stanton, you have my sincerest apologies for mistyping your name in my previous post. What can I say? Mea culpa.

Still, it was quite a funny typo...

Christophe Thill · 21 January 2008

"A very plausible reality" ? What the hell does that mean ? A reality isn't plausible. It just is. Plausibility is for hypotheses.

Stanton · 21 January 2008

Nigel D: Stanton, you have my sincerest apologies for mistyping your name in my previous post. What can I say? Mea culpa. Still, it was quite a funny typo...

You are so lucky that my trident is still in the shop, otherwise, such a jabbing I'd give you.

Christophe Thill: "A very plausible reality" ? What the hell does that mean ? A reality isn't plausible. It just is. Plausibility is for hypotheses.

I'm thinking it's Discovery Institute codespeak for "yes, I think it's science."

Stacy S. · 12 March 2008

HAT TIP to gabriel who found this :-)
I know this is WAY old but if you are still interested in listening to Behe "Dance" here is the link -

(It disappeared shortly after it's original airing)

http://www.kkms.com/11565100/

Just above where it says 4:00 hour you'll see "Click Here to Listen"

Neville J Ansley · 27 May 2010

Question: Why did God deliberately create evil when He gave life to Lucifer?

Answer: https://sites.google.com/site/christianunificationmovement/1---the-creation-of-lucifer-1