Open Forum

open forum image

Substantive, irenic discussion of issues raised in Dr. Craig's work.

A Message Board, Guestbook, or Poll hosted for your website.
Register  | Login  |   | New Posts  | Chat
 
ReasonableFaith.org > Forums > Choose Your Own Topic > Bloggingheads.tv Censors Michael Behe!
 
Username:  
Password:  
 
   
 


Thread Tools  | Search This Thread 
Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Fanofdrcraig
Registered: 02/27/09
Posts: 298

    08/31/09 at 02:06 AMReply with quote#1

This is the video Bloggingheads.tv does not want you to see (funny thing is they actually hosted this video event):

Bloggingheads: Interview with Michael Behe


After this video interview, bloggingheads.tv deleted it from its website! Why? Apparently, the video made Michael Behe and intelligent design look good. Furthermore, McWhorter (who is an atheist and an evolutionist) admitted that Behe's book made him rethink evolution and felt that some of the arguments against Behe's premise lacked in substance. Not long after that, McWhorter knew the great embarrassment this segment caused him and the proponents of the theory of evolution, so he (along with other evolutionists) had bloggingheads.tv pull it from its website!

Michael Behe gives us his reactions:

Quote:
Everything was arranged for the taping Tuesday afternoon. When the interview started, I was surprised and delighted to learn that McWhorter was actually a fan of mine. He said (Im paraphrasing here) he loved The Edge of Evolution and wanted the book to become better known. He said that this was one of the few times that he initiated an interview at Bloggingheads. He said he was familiar with criticisms of the book and found them unpersuasive. He said that Darwinism just didnt seem to him to be able to cut the mustard in explaining life, and he had yet to read a good, detailed explanation for a large evolutionary change. He also said that he had never believed in God, but that EOE got him thinking. In return I summarized my arguments from EOE, talked about protein structure, addressed his objections that intelligent design is boring and a scientific dead-end, and so on. At the end of the taping I thought, gee, those folks at Bloggingheads TV are a real nice bunch.

The next day I emailed the Bloggingheads editor to ask when the show would go on. He answered right back that at that very moment it had been activated, and thanks for participating. I clicked the link, and there was the show. I thought I looked older on screen than I am (my beard isnt really that white), but emailed some friends to let them know the interview was up anyway. That evening I got an email from one of them saying that he couldnt find the interview — it had been yanked.

Let me emphasize this, dear readers. Here we are living in the land of the free and the home of the brave. And yet a web site puts up an interview with an (ahem) somewhat controversial figure, pulls it back down within hours, erases it, sends it down the memory hole. Why might that be? There would seem to be two possibilities: 1) maybe we arent quite as free as we think, or 2) maybe not quite as brave.

I bet on possibility #2. Because of the magic of the internet, it turns out that shortly after the shows posting the comments section of the site was overrun by bitterly virulent (in the words of one principal in this saga) cyber bullies, some murmuring darkly about a grim future for Bloggingheads. After I found out the video was removed I emailed John McWhorter and the editor to ask for an explanation, and John emailed back that he himself requested the video to be pulled because people thought he was too easy on me, which was supposedly contrary to that old Bloggingheads spirit. I find that quite implausible (other shows on the site feature discussions between people who agree on many things). Rather, I suspect the folks at the website werent expecting the vitriolic reaction, began to worry about their good names and future employment prospects, pictured themselves banished to a virtual leper colony, panicked, and folded.

Well, mobs, including internet mobs, are scary things, and its understandable to panic when they unexpectedly show up at your door. But if youre going to set up a website to air discussions about contentious issues of the day, you should have a whole lot more guts than displayed by Bloggingheads TV.

SOURCE: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/bloggingheads_tv_and_me.html


More here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/robert_wrights_bloggingheadstv.html

I wonder if Darwinian Fundamentalists will ever come to their senses. What they did to Michael Behe here was censorship, pure and simple.
I hope bloggingheads.tv will man up and put the video back into their site.


UPDATE

Well, that didn't take long. It looks like bloggingheads.tv put the interview back up! http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075 Now, I bet bloggingheads.tv are going to get hate mail from Darwinian fundamentalists.
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,476

    09/01/09 at 09:36 PMReply with quote#2

Where in Darwin's writing does Behe get the term "random mutation"? Can anyone give me the title, date, and publisher, please? Also page number, obviously. Behe says it at 5:01.

Behe gives the right answer for why science does not publish books on how life originates. Humans don't know how life originates, but they do know "how life changed over time" (9:45). This is one more piece of evidence to support my long-time argument that Christians agree with real science so long as it supports their religion; they twist science only where it needs to be twisted to fit into the Bible/their religion. But when it comes to that, they are heedless of truth.

You don't go from a finch to an ant-eater (33:23), McWhorter, the division happened eons before you had a discernible bird or animal.

McWhorter says none of the science we have today can explain how the "ugly shrewlike thing became all of today's mammals." It seems the guy is not reading too much real science or evolution (33:51). He's spent his time reading Behe and Behe's arguments are not real science. McWhorter suggests "we can't know" how it happened. That is simply not the case. He simply does not understand the science he has been looking at re why legs don't grow out of heads, etc. (much earlier in video).

Behe claims that if in fifty years someone comes along and proves that he is wrong...(40:16). The problem with that statement is that he hardly expects to be around
in fifty years from now to have to deal with anyone proving him wrong. Just before that statement he gives his age; he is at the time of the taping in his mid-fifties. On top of that, he is at the moment (today in real life and science) being proven wrong and he refuses to admit it. So much for his boasting about how he would accept being proven wrong fifty years down the road when all of us know he won't be around...

McWhorter thinks Behe's "Edge of Evolution" was one of the most important books he has ever read in all of his life. That probably accounts for his ignorance on real science.
****************
I watched all of it now. The reason it was pulled off the site was hardly because McWhorter agreed with Behe but because it portrays bad science in a positive light. Bad science is costing human lives. Obviously, the way McWhorter handled things had a great deal to do with this, and the Christians then accused bloggerhead.tv with being biased so they put it back up. So it appears to me. But the real problem with that kind of video is the cost in human lives due to bad science.

Now tell me where in Darwin's writing does Behe get the term "random mutation"? I say Behe made it up that Darwin wrote that term but I could be wrong.

__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12
skunker
Registered: 12/07/07
Posts: 1,176

    09/01/09 at 09:50 PMReply with quote#3

Was posted in this forum yesterday or so:

http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3645403

wonderer
Avatar / Picture

Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835

    09/01/09 at 10:12 PMReply with quote#4

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmartin
Now tell me where in Darwin's writing does Behe get the term "random mutation"? I say Behe made it up that Darwin wrote that term but I could be wrong.


Darwin's phrase was "descent with modification" but Darwin didn't know about genetics, let alone DNA.

Genetic mutations which provide the descent with modification Darwin wrote about, are generally random. It is the other main part of Darwin's theory, "natural selection", which is not random.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman
wonderer
Avatar / Picture

Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835

    09/01/09 at 10:43 PMReply with quote#5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanofdrcraig
This is the video Bloggingheads.tv does not want you to see...


It appears more likely that Bloggingheads was attempting to prevent the loss of too many actual scientific contributors to the show, over presenting Behe's pseudo-science without criticism.

P.Z. Myers provides details quoting Sean Carroll:

Quote:
What I objected to about the creationists was that they were not worthy opponents with whom I disagree; they're just crackpots. Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural "designer" is interfering at whim with the course of evolution. It's not a serious idea. It may be out there in the public sphere as an idea that garners attention -- but, as we all know, that holds true for all sorts of non-serious ideas. If I'm going to spend an hour of my life listening to two people have a discussion with each other, I want some confidence that they're both serious people. Likewise, if I'm going to spend my own time and lend my own credibility to such an enterprise, I want to believe that serious discussions between respectable interlocutors are what the site is all about.



__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,476

    09/01/09 at 10:49 PMReply with quote#6

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmartin
Now tell me where in Darwin's writing does Behe get the term "random mutation"? I say Behe made it up that Darwin wrote that term but I could be wrong.


Darwin's phrase was "descent with modification" but Darwin didn't know about genetics, let alone DNA.

Genetic mutations which provide the descent with modification Darwin wrote about, are generally random. It is the other main part of Darwin's theory, "natural selection", which is not random.


Thank you so much for this clarification. "Random mutations" just seemed like too modern a term for Darwin's day. Thanks also for clarifying that modifications tend to be random, but not "natural selection." This agrees with what I see in everyday life, especially in family resemblance of the people I know. Which child in the family resembles which relative is unpredictable, but that biological children will resemble their kin is predictable. I realize that this is very elementary but I think it applies.

The theist charge that the atheist position on evolution is nothing but a random whatever seems so senseless. I have zero science education other than I pick up on videos and free lectures and internet discussions, but even I can pick out what logically makes sense and what does not make sense. Also, I can pick out what fits reality as it is observed in everyday life--for example, family resemblance in humans, animals, and plants.

Random anything makes no sense for this farm girl who has spent a lifetime observing the natural order orderly and systematically repeating itself annually in one ceaseless cycle decade after decade. Even things as unpredictable as the wind and weather here between the Great Lakes in Southern Ontario seem to have some sort of predictable cycle across time and season for those of us who have an abiding interest spanning decades--or who are stupid enough to try and see a pattern in the chaos of an unpredictable weather system. We do have four seasons without fail--on that all Ontarians seem to agree so I guess there is something predictable about it.

__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,476

    09/01/09 at 11:02 PMReply with quote#7

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanofdrcraig
This is the video Bloggingheads.tv does not want you to see...


It appears more likely that Bloggingheads was attempting to prevent the loss of too many actual scientific contributors to the show, over presenting Behe's pseudo-science without criticism.

P.Z. Myers provides details quoting Sean Carroll:

Quote:
What I objected to about the creationists was that they were not worthy opponents with whom I disagree; they're just crackpots. Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural "designer" is interfering at whim with the course of evolution. It's not a serious idea. It may be out there in the public sphere as an idea that garners attention -- but, as we all know, that holds true for all sorts of non-serious ideas. If I'm going to spend an hour of my life listening to two people have a discussion with each other, I want some confidence that they're both serious people. Likewise, if I'm going to spend my own time and lend my own credibility to such an enterprise, I want to believe that serious discussions between respectable interlocutors are what the site is all about.




This really makes a great deal of sense. McWhorter is a linguist of all things. Why, exactly, did anyone choose a linguist to discuss science??? I can think of one reason only: The Christians desperately needed an atheist who likes an ID proponent's books. Truth is not what these Christians are after--but support for their beliefs.

As I noted above, this atheist does not understand even the basics of evolution--or science, for that matter. He's atheist because that's what he was raised to be. That is what I conclude. He says he was never religious so that basically makes him an atheist by default in the same way that so many people are religious be default--it's what they were raised to be.

You Christians who think atheists never disagree, did you notice my criticism of this atheist???
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12
wonderer
Avatar / Picture

Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835

    09/01/09 at 11:03 PMReply with quote#8

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmartin
The theist charge that the atheist position on evolution is nothing but a random whatever seems so senseless.


Yeah, equating evoution to purely random occurrences just indicates that the person pushing that point of view really doesn't have any real understanding of how evolution works, or they are being dishonest.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman
Previous Thread | Next Thread
Reply

  Bookmarks  
Digg Diggdel.icio.us del.icio.usStumbleUpon StumbleUponGoogle GoogleTwitter Twitter
Facebook FacebookWindows Live Favorites Windows Live FavoritesTechnorati Tags Technorati Tagsreddit reddit

← return to ReasonableFaith.org