theyeti

I gets worse. Philip Johnson was also a leading voice in the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" movement. And just like with evolution, it was his ideology that led him to this conclusion rather than facts and logic. According to Johnson, it was "bad behavior" (aka homosexuality and drug use) is responsible for AIDS, and not just some virus that dogmatic materialists had dreamed up. And yes, he was just as arrogant and insulting towards AIDS researchers as he is now towards evolutionary biologists.

The anti-HIV movement, which contained at least as many legitimate scientists as ID does, pretty much had the wind taken out of its sails in the mid 90s when new anti-HIV drugs began working wonders. But Johnson hasn't retracted a thing, or even taken the slightest hint as to why his line of reasoning is such a failure. He still moderates an email list for HIV deniers, who now consist of a handful of kooks and cranks.

theyeti

theyeti

It's always puzzled me too. One thing can be said for certain: These jokers lock arms and dont' dare criticize each other. They maintain a united front at all costs. The differences between IDists run even further than just common descent. They disagree on absolutely everything, and yet they still try to maintain the façade of a coherent scientific theory. This should tell you something important. They're not really interested in science. Science is something that can be worked out later once they've won the culture war. IMO this is why Behe walks lock-step with the other IDists, because in his eyes the scientific details are of little importance. So while he may not be insincere in his contribution to the propaganda campaign, the mere fact that he's a part of it is pretty bad. The guy wrote a glowing review for Walter Remine for crissake.

theyeti

pz

I've had lunch with Behe. He seems like a nice guy. I've read his peer-reviewed scientific papers. They're interesting, but not earthshaking (and I'd say the same of my papers).

But then he gets on his IC hobby-horse, and he's unrecognizable. It's total nonsense, and yet he compares himself to Newton. It's like there's this deep dark irrational part of our brains, and something in this topic has tapped directly into it in his case -- and the rational scientific part just gets eaten alive when he starts talking or writing about his loony little idea.

Principia

Well, I have not met Behe, and I so won't presume to know his mind. However, being affiliated with a cultural movement that has such incredibly strong popular appeal ... it gives most people the kind of incentives that historians typically look back upon as irrational. Also, when one feels that there is this much at stake with promoting a group ideology, usually the intensity of the irrational defense rises. Perhaps we have heard of a few other cases in history reflecting such sociological phenomenon?

KC

The ID movement will only appear to be in concert as long as they have a common enemy. That is why the Evangelical Christian majority tolerate and embrace such outsiders as Behe (Catholic) and Wells (Moonie). Surely Behe and Wells realize that if the ID movement ever achieves its political aims, they will be the first to be purged?

Cheers,

KC

KC

I've heard others compare him to Newton ( I think evangelist D James Kennedy did once), but I didnt know he considered himself that great.

Cheers,

KC

Albion

Well, if the ID movement ever does achieve its political aims, I'm not sure Behe is going to like their scientific aims much.

Bubba

My point exactly. I refuse to lump everyone at ARN together in one bad lump. Denton earns my respect for essentially admitting his first book was intellectually wrong. On the other hand, I REALLY dislike Wells. Even back in the dark days when I was still an old earth creationist I felt his book was a cheap shot against evolution.

My good friend John the anti-evolution public high school science teacher just eats Wells up though. He gave me a video tape about Wells and that fundie teacher that got into hot water for teaching ID and not sticking to his school's curriculum. When he ave it to me he kind of angrily shoved it into my hands and said "I'd like to know the mainstream scientific rebutal to this...if there could even be one. I don't see how there could even be one."

Of course John hasn't seemed interested in the least in the internet response that pz contributed to. I find this really odd because John is one of the most intellectually honest people I know. Perhaps one of the most personally honest as well.

What pisses me off is that I travel a bunch with my work and every Borders or Barnes and Noble that I go into has Icons of Evolution in the science section. I'd like to refile it for them but I'd rather not see the plumber have to make an emergency service call to the store.

BTW, what someone said about Behe and Wells eventually being the odd man out already seems to have happened to Denton. Anyone notice how the ARN and the IDist's have kind of quietly dropped association with him?

Bubba

GeoTheo

Thanks for the links everyone I will check them out.

KC

You might want to point something out about that Wells video to John: the classroom scene showing Roger DeHart teaching was staged. The 'students' weren't his, but were recruited specifically for the video. Funny that Wells would do this, considering the huge stink he raised over pictures of peppered moths, don't ya think?

Cheers,

KC