Monday, November 12, 2012

Michael Behe in Toronto!

Michael Behe is giving a talk on Thursday evening at 7:00pm in rm 3154, Medical Sciences Building on the campus of the University of Toronto. (The lecture room is just two floors below my office.)

There's also a reception for him at Hart House on Thursday afternoon. Let me know if you plan to attend either event. Maybe we can meet for dinner.

The talk on Thursday evening is on "What Are the Limits of Darwinism?" I assume he's going to talk abut irreducible complexity and the edge of evolution. Neither topic is suitable for discussion during question period. I think I'll ask him to explain how common descent is compatible with the actions of an intelligent designer.


The lectures are sponsored by The Copernicus Group.
The Copernicus Group is based in Toronto, Canada. The group provides lectures in the Greater Toronto Area on Science and Faith issues particularly in Origins Science – that is: the origin of the universe, life, species and related subjects.

The Copernicus Group derives its name from Nicholas Copernicus the Polish astronomer who in 1543 published his finding that the earth revolved around the sun. His discovery was not readily accepted because the view held by most educated people of the day was that the sun revolved around the earth. The conventional view was wrong because the foundational assumption regarding the universe – that the earth and human life must be at its center – was wrong. Today science has a very similar foundational assumption – all processes must be understandable to humans by naturalistic processes.

Foundational assumptions affect conclusions. As a result The Copernicus Lectures on Science & Faith will attempt to present scientific observations in a neutral manner – meaning that neither the Naturalistic assumption nor any religious assumption will be made as a starting point – and conclusions will be left to the audience members.


12 comments :

  1. Feh, that Copernicus Group is a pretty thin disguise for creationism (though likely old-earth rather than YEC, given that one of the principals is affiliated with Reasons To Believe). As soon as someone starts babbling about "foundational assumptions", my bullshit detector starts beeping.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How are observations "scientific". Never mind that the previous paragraph dismissed the premise of science altogether.

    I get what they were trying to say, but forget science education, they need to start with writing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Go easy on him, Larry. He may not have recovered from the shellacking he received in Dover.

    Actually, he probably bounced back like one of those unsinkable rubber duckies, so have at him!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Doesn't anyone else have a problem with the fact that Behe's lecture is first being held in a University of Toronto medical sciences lecture room... and then in two blatantly Xtian ministries???

    No one's personal freedom is being threatened if Behe is made to speak somewhere else on campus, especially when his arguments have been shown to be erroneous over and over and over again. Enough of the false equivalence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, but he has authored over 40scientificpapersandtwobooks!

      LOL! Behe is basically Mr. Holland Without an Opus...

      Delete
    2. CJ, Behe blinded me with his science. ;-)

      An Ode to Behe

      Be he a fake, a fraud, a twit,
      Be he a nut, a crank, an IDiot,
      The facts he does twist, he's so full of s*it,
      he be no scientist.

      Delete
    3. Doesn't anyone else have a problem with the fact that Behe's lecture is first being held in a University of Toronto medical sciences lecture room...

      I certainly don't have a problem. One of the main functions of a university is to present diverse points of view. I realize that politically correct people would like to muzzle everyone they disagree with but that's the exact opposite of what a university education is all about.

      Delete
  5. Aww, missed that one. I'd like to hear what he thinks about the fishhook that evolved into the irreducible mousetrap. Turns out the mouse trap is an astonishingly bad example of irreducible complexity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello again Professor Moran, you wrote:

    "I think I'll ask him to explain how common descent is compatible with the actions of an intelligent designer."

    I hope this isn't seen as "self-promotion" but I tried to lay out some of Behe's views on this topic on this thread:

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/five-myths-about-inteligent-design.html#comment-form

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah, the vitriol meter is on the move once again as Behe's analysis is once again found to be correct. You guys really need to have those skin rashes looked at before they become infected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...as Behe's analysis is once again found to be correct."

      Maybe you should get back to your textile works, Steve. After all, *spinning* is all that you and your fellow IDiots know how to do.

      Delete
  8. Larry,

    Are you writing anything about this event?

    ReplyDelete