The Problem with Stenger (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 08, 2009, 14:53 (5463 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Behe gets bad marks because he uses his position as professor as a political weapon, passing off opinion as science--hoping the public won't notice because they're more ignorant than him. In my book, THAT is why I'd take Stenger's opinions over Behe. One at least displays scruples.
> 
> Matt, I don't quote Behe, George quotes Stenger, blindly. Stenger is clearly using his former position as a professor for the same reason as Behe by 'your' reasoning.
> 
> I've known Stenger since my days following Metanexus science blog, which is no longer on line. I've been exposed for 8-9 years. Have you read Behe? He won't contaminate hour mind, because you are quite clear thinking.-
My problem with Behe is that he willingly involves himself in school battles at the behest of the DI. He uses his books and phd position for political gain for an organization that as far as I'm concerned--is morally and intellectually bankrupt. -Where is the comparison here with Stenger? Stenger might try to mislead by the Pen (though he's pretty direct in stating that his opinions aren't mainstream) but Stenger doesn't try to use organizations such as American Atheists to put disclaimers on religious books into religion class--the intellectual equivalent to what the DI is trying to do with biology. -I'm a strategist and tactician by nature; Behe's books my be written in a balanced fashion, but the one thing that separates my thinking about him from you is that I see exactly what it is that he's trying to do. I know what his end game is--the same end game of the DI--and his books are part of his toolkit. You don't join a political organization that has a cause if you don't share the cause. -Just like I won't trust information that comes from PETA without intense scrutiny, the same must be applied to Behe. I've read sections of his arguments, especially portions dealing with the bacterial flagellum... his arguments aren't convincing enough, simply put. It boils down to an argument from incredulity.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"