Geocentric Universe?

[EphelDuath]

Laughable - that is clearly not at all what I said or implied. It is a fact that the culture of the biological sciences is dominated by materialists. I can certain post references.

You just said that my response was laughable, and then re-affirmed it the very next sentence. Even if 99% of scientists are avowed atheists, that doesn’t damper their credibility regarding factual evidence regarding evolution.

Yes, there are, and there are plenty who do NOT think Behe is a dolt, either.

I dare you to name five respected scientists, who themselves are not YECs or think evolution didn’t happen, and think Behe has credibility.

I anticipate you’ll say something like, “well of course if they believe in evolution, they won’t like Behe.” This is exactly my point. All respectable scientists in the world believe in evolution. That’s how much evidence there is for it. Fundamentalists or ultra-traditionalists sometimes will attempt to write up a critique of evolution, which don’t stand up for a week in open scientific journals. That’s why they never, ever contribute to these journals; they always write popular books addressed at the public, who have only a nominal understanding of biology themselves and won’t understand why Behe’s arguments are bogus.

Though honestly, I don’t think there’s any way to convince you why this is the case. You already think that believers in evolution, even if they’re devout Christians, are “entrenched materialists” and can’t be trusted because they have a motive for opposing YEC. What could I possibly do to convince you otherwise? What evidence could I provide for you to show you just how clear it is that macroevolution is essentially fact?

Anyone who has problems with him has them on philosophical grounds and not his science.

Nonsense. That’s what his “scientific evidence” is. He rehashes arguments that have been repeatedly discredited under hopes that the people who read his works won’t realize this fact.

You are clearly exaggerating Behe’s reputation - what is your agenda, I really have to ask?

I must be an “entrenched materialist,” I suppose? You’re doing it again. Everybody who disagrees with you isn’t just wrong, they have an ulterior motive for doing so.

I must have a degree in biology to have any opinion of it at all? That is very interesting. Michael Behe has a PhD in biology, by the way.

You know, I believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think the WTCs were blown up by interior demolition.

The hundreds of thousands of physicists that say this is balogna? Obviously, they’re all paid off by the government. Those guys that have to post their videos on YouTube to be heard? They’re totally honest! No ulterior motive there.

And if you don’t believe me, I can prove it! All those courageous men that stand up for 9/11 Truth are brilliant and experts in science; and I can show you quotes that show how much all of the other physicists that laugh it off really just love the government!

… see what I’m doing here? I don’t mean to compare your beliefs to 9/11 Troofers, who are not just uninformed but straight-up morons. But the reason why they can hold their beliefs is because they’ve set up a world-view where everybody who disagrees with them are inherently untrustworthy. Their beliefs are unfalsifiable.

I noticed you ignored my challenge to post the apparently simple and obvious counter to the statistical problems of pre-biotic evolution you implied exists; unless you do so soon I will have to conclude you were posturing.

I edited my previous post before you made your response.

 

[rossum]

… see what I’m doing here? I don’t mean to compare your beliefs to 9/11 Troofers, who are not just uninformed but straight-up morons. But the reason why they can hold their beliefs is because they’ve set up a world-view where everybody who disagrees with them are inherently untrustworthy. Their beliefs are unfalsifiable.

A good point. See Morton’s Demon.

rossum

 

[EphelDuath]

Also, for a much more informed response regarding the argument that “the chance for the spontaneous creation of life is very low” can be found here. Please don’t brush this website off on the basis that it’s full of “materialists” or what have you. Some of these articles clearly have an anti-Christian slant, I’m aware, but this has no bearing on this particular argument.

Not that this has any relevance to evolution, or that it somehow removes God from the equation. The fact that abiogenesis exists at all could be attributed to God’s creation.

 

[cassini]

So​

the Church has been, & still is, in error on what (according to you) is a major issue ?

• Isn’t this a rather serious accusation ?
• And doesn’t it deserve to be established with solid theological arguments ?
• And how are you going to build those solid theological arguments, if the Church which has the theology & the doctrine & the theological method that makes them possible, has been in error since 1735 ?
• For if it has, what is the point of constructing them ? By your way of it, the Church has been wrong for over 270 years - so it is a bit late to try salvaging the Church’s competence to teach doctrine
• Is this not rather a lot of fuss over something of very little importance ? The Apostles were preachers of Christ, not experts on astronomy. To make so much of something so insignificant shows a sad lack of proportion
• Looking in Denzinger won’t explain the theology that results in the propositions on the page
• I would still like some evidence from magisterial texts - such as catechisms - that support your position by emphasising the importance of geocentrism. Why should anyone believe you, & not the Magisterium, if you don’t produce them? I don’t think it’s I who am playing at being Pope.

BTW, if you’re too tired to answer a post, & even if you’re not, there’s no need to answer it

It seems to me to be a waste of time debating this subject with Copernicans. Heresy does indeed blind one to the truth. Without grace they just do not understand. I have answered all the questions above. Obviously a blind man cannot see so has to ask again and again.

Here above you use the word CHURCH. Do you not remember I had to try to get you to distinguish between the CHURCH and those who run it. The CHURCH decreed in 1616 a fixed sun is heresy because it contradicts Scripture. Since then the CHURCH has been true, never abrogating the decree for the simple reason a Church decree like this cannot be abrogated. The CHURCH cannot define a matter of faith and then abandon it for the HERESY.

'the Church has been, & still is, in error on what (according to you) is a major issue ?

• Isn’t this a rather serious accusation ?’
  Your statement above about the CHURCH being in error is Copernican nonsense. You simply haven’t a clue how the CHURCH works. You are a Copernican, so mixed up with excuses to suit your heresy that you cannot tell the Devil from God.

‘And doesn’t it deserve to be established with solid theological arguments ?’

No it does not. It is as simple as 1,2,3. The CHURCH has rules. Not even a pope can break those rules. You have your decree so any who defy it and believe the heresy is a heretic. Now they do not think they are committing heresy because they believe the decree was in error and so there is no intent involved. The heresy is thus material with no consequences. But inculpable ignorance goes so far. If as I have done PROVE the 1616 decree has never been falsified, then any Catholic worth his or her salt has an obligation to revise their heresy. Such people, once informed, cannot claim inculpable ignorance and are thus suspect of formal heresy.
But see how the Copernicans twist the obligation from the HERETICS to those telling them the truth to produce theological argumentsd. This reminds me of that heretic Galileo trying to get the theologians to falsify Copernicanism rather than he showing geocentricism of the Scriptures is false scientifically.

‘And how are you going to build those solid theological arguments, if the Church which has the theology & the doctrine & the theological method that makes them possible, has been in error since 1735 ?’

Thew CHURCH has NEVER been in error. It is the heretics who are in error.

‘* Looking in Denzinger won’t explain the theology that results in the propositions on the page’ -???

‘I would still like some evidence from magisterial texts - such as catechisms - that support your position by emphasising the importance of geocentrism. Why should anyone believe you, & not the Magisterium, if you don’t produce them? I don’t think it’s I who am playing at being Pope’

For God’s sake I have quoted the Church’s position on the matter in 1633. If you want more here is what the CHURCH had Galileo say --see next post

‘For if it has, what is the point of constructing them ? By your way of it, the Church has been wrong for over 270 years - so it is a bit late to try salvaging the Church’s competence to teach doctrine’
Again you misuse the term CHURCH. The CHURCH has taught its doctrine, It is the heretics who have rejected it and if you guys are anything to go by it does seem like a lost cause. However that is no reason to abandon TRUTH. Some souls filled with grace will rejoice that the CHURCH was never wrong.

 

[cassini]

Galileo’s Abjuration

 “I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, appearing personally before this court, and kneeing before you, the most eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General of the universal Christian Republic against heretical pravity, having before my eyes the most holy Gospels, and touching them with my hands, swear that I always have believed, and now believe, and with God’s help will always believe, all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds, preaches, and teaches. But because, after this Holy Office had juridically enjoined me to abandon altogether the false opinion which holds that the sun is in the centre of the world, and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre, and moves; and had forbidden me to hold, defend, or teach in any manner, the said false doctrine; and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine is repugnant to Holy Scripture, I wrote and caused to be printed a book, wherein I treat of the same doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments with great efficacy in favour of it, without offering any solution of them; therefore I am judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre, and moves. Wherefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and all Catholic Christians, this vehement suspicion legitimately conceived against me, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, I abjure, curse, and detest, the above named errors, and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the above-mentioned Holy Church; and I swear for the future, I will neither say, nor assert by word of mouth, or in writing, anything to bring upon me similar suspicion. And if I shall know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor, or Ordinary of the place in which I may be. Moreover I swear, and promise, to fulfil, and observe entirely, all the penances that have been or shall be imposed on me by this Holy Office. And if -which God forbid- I act against any of these said promises, protestations, and oaths, I subject myself to all the penalties and punishments which the sacred canons, and other constitutions, general and particular, have enacted, and promulgated against such delinquents.  So help me God, and His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.
 “I, Galileo Galilei above-named, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; in token whereof I have signed with my own hand this formula of my abjuration, and have recited it word by word.”

Thus did Rome’s supreme Pontifical Congregation, established, to use the words of Sixtus V., “tanquam firmissimum Catholicae fidei propugnaculum . . . cui ob summam rei gravitatem Romanus Pontifex praesidere solet,” known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the Papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a fallible utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration with the following message:

“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same.” ’

This was accomplished, and in many cases the professors of mathematics, physics, and astronomy were assembled like their students at roll call and the trial documents read to them. Theologians and scholars were then urged to use their learning to show Copernicanism to be a serious heresy. Soon Europe was flooded with these critiques. Often, however, such publications ventured into the realm of science and foolish reasoning. It seems some missed the point and considered the objective was to defend the scientific integrity of geocentricity rather than its theological certainty. Throughout Europe however, there were theologians who were relieved with the ban. Andrew White records that the Rector of the University of Douay, referring to the opinion of Galileo, wrote to the papal nuncio at Brussels; ‘The professors of our university are so opposed to this fanatical opinion that they have always held that it must be banished from the schools. In our English college at Douay this paradox has never been approved and never will be.’

 

[buffalo]

Subterfuge in the Catholic Hierarchy Re Galileo - The Real Truth Behind
the Imprimatur given to Canon Settele for Heliocentrism

 

[buffalo]

Dark Energy or Geocentrism?

 	 The most significant scientific evidence that is challenging Copernican cosmology hails from that gathered by astronomers themselves. In short, they are increasingly confronted with evidence that places Earth in the center of the universe. In a paper written by three astrophysicists from Oxford in 2008 evidence for the centrality of the Earth was the simplest explanation for the practical and mathematical understanding of the universe, far superior to the forced invention of “Dark Energy” to support the Copernican model. *ScienceDaily* put it in simple terms for the layman:


 	  Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion, according to physicists at Oxford University. The problem facing astrophysicists is that they have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. The most popular explanation is that some sort of force is pushing the acceleration of the universe’s expansion. That force is generally attributed to a mysterious dark energy. Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe – specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics. Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we’re not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we’re special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model. Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it’s consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists.[1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#sdfootnote1sym)  
[1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#sdfootnote1anc) 	*ScienceDaily*, Sept. 29, 2008, citing the article by Timothy 	Clifton, Pedro G. Gerreira, and Kate Land, “Living in a Void: 	Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” 	*Physical Review Letters*, 101, 131302 (2008) DOI: 	10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.131302.

more…

 

[cassini]

So why were its volumes given the Imprimatur ? Maybe the clerics who provided these licences & permissions saw no heresy.​

If any of them were, or became, bishops, that would have serious consequences for the visibility of the Church & the perpetuity of the Faith. It would mean their authority in the Church was non-existent, illegitimate; & that their sacramental actions were illicit or fruitless (depending on the sacrament). If they had jurisdiction to judge after hearing confessions, they would lose it. ISTM we are heading to something close to a sedevacantist position.

This is a high price to pay for rejecting geo-centrism. A bit too high, in fact.

Obviously they - in their IGNORANCE - saw no heresy. Their faith lay in SCIENCE not the divine promise to protect the CHURCH from error. Thus they gave an imprimatur to heresy.
Of course it had serious consequences for the FAITH. It undermined the authority of papal decrees and went on to destroy the FAITH of MILLIONS of Catholics in many areas, from the Flood to Original Sin. See how you and others dismiss the 1616 papal decree as not worth the paper it was written on. Why do you think Catholicism is now an empty shell with a theology nobody can unserstand? The sacramental CHURCH continued as normal after 1741-1835.

The main reason you continue to reject the 1616 decree is because from 1741 popes conspired to hide the decree and unleashed heresy on the flock and onto the world. Not even so-called Catholics would put FAITH before such an admittance of error in their U-turn. So, yes, you all consider it too high a price,

Now just to show you how serious this heresy is I have a copy of a letter written to Pope John Paul II telling him that his Copernicanism was never proven nor geocentricismn never falsified. Thus the Scriptures cannot be madesubserviant to heliocentricism.

In his speech to the PAS in 1992 the same pope even quoted St Augustine to suit Copernicanism. Indeed he even ADMITTED A-CENTRISM. How a man so clever could not spot the contradiction in his speech shows how blind all have been rendered by the heresy. You see if a-centrism is the scientific limits to its ability, then this means geocentrism is a scientific possibility and thus the 1616 decree was never wrong.

But when you lose FAITH in God’s OMNIPOTENCE this ignorance is the result.

 

[grannymh]

The Church teaches that the Scriptures reveal a geocentric world. Thus the Church teaches that we live on an immobile earth at the centre of the universe and that the sun (moon and stars) revolve around us.

Hi Cassini,

You all can debate scientific matters all you want. However, when it comes to an outright declarative sentence of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches (see the above quote from Post 17 – I want to know the paragraph number in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Here’s a fast source for you to use to give me the paragraph number. Thank you.

www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[PaulF2]

You just said that my response was laughable, and then re-affirmed it the very next sentence. Even if 99% of scientists are avowed atheists, that doesn’t damper their credibility regarding factual evidence regarding evolution.

You’re off to a bad start. So, if a scientist holds a world-view that directly implies that neo-darwinism must account entirely for the origin of all species on the planet, this does not influence his science? That’s patently preposterous. You see, the atheist has no other choice. The theist, however, is free to think without bounds: he can accept theistic evolution if the evidence points there, or perhaps some combination of theistic evolution with divine guidance (which is what Behe proposes - you seem unaware of that very basic fact!)

Whether or not darwinistic evolution accounts for macro-evolution is really not directly germane to the God question at all, actually. It’s just a matter of where the Intelligence acts: either God created a Machine (evolution) capable of producing life as we know it or He did things somewhat more directly.

The major weakness to the ‘argument’ you’re presenting is that it has one facet only: you are presenting an ‘argument for authority’, implying that if the majority of Behe’s peers consider him wrong (which is putting it nicely compared to how you put it) then he is obviously wrong. That is a simplistic and naive argument on the basis of logic but even more so in the light of the history of science. Before Hubble’s telescope revealed the expanding universe and led to the “big bang” model, the overwhelming view among astronomers and cosmologists was that the universe had no beginning. The Catholic Church, for example, was ridiculed for declaring, at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, that the universe did indeed have a beginning. Even after Hubble, Hoyle’s patently ridiculous “Steady State” hypothesis (I do not think it actually qualified as theory) attempted to avoid the issue, and wasn’t finally led to rest until the background radiation discovered by AT&T gave pretty direct evidence of the Big Bang. This is but one example illustrating how the prevailing scientific opinion - heavily influenced by atheism - can be off-base completely.

I dare you to name five respected scientists, who themselves are not YECs or think evolution didn’t happen, and think Behe has credibility.

How about these?

“With this book, Michael Behe shows that he is truly an independent thinker of the first order. He carefully examines the data of evolution, along the way making an argument for universal common descent that will make him no friends among young-earth creationists, and draws in new facts, especially the data on malaria, that have not been part of the public debate at all up to now. This book will take the intelligent design debate into new territory and represents a unique contribution to the longstanding question of philosophy: Can observation of the physical world guide our thinking about religious questions?”

– Professor David Snoke, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh

“In The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe carefully assesses the evidence of what Darwin’s mechanism of random mutation and selection can achieve in well documented cases, and shows that even in those cases that maximize its power as a creative force it has only been able to generate very trivial examples of evolutionary change. Could such an apparently impotent and mindless force really have built the sophisticated molecular devices found throughout nature? The answer, he insists, is no. The only common-sense explanation is intelligent design.”

– Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., author of Nature’s Destiny

“In crystal-clear prose Behe systematically shreds the central dogma of atheistic science, the doctrine of the random universe. This book, like the natural phenomena it so elegantly describes, shows the unmistakable signs of a very deep intelligence at work.”

– JEffrey M. Schwartz, M.D., Research Psychiatrist, UCLA, and author of The Mind & The Brain

“Until the past decade and the genomics revolution, Darwin’s theory rested on indirect evidence and reasonable speculation. Now, however, we have begun to scratch the surface of direct evidence, of which this book offers the best possible treatment. Though many critics won’t want to admit it, The Edge of Evolution is very balanced, careful, ¬and devastating. A tremendously important book.”

– Dr. Philip Skell, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, at Pennsylvania State University, and member of the National Academy of Sciences

“With this book, Michael Behe shows that he is truly an independent thinker of the first order. In a day when the media present all issues in the football metaphor as two teams fighting, the intelligent design debate is presented simplistically as authors who are lapdogs for young-earth creationists versus evolutionists who are lapdogs for atheists. Michael Behe is no lapdog. He carefully examines the data of evolution, along the way making an argument for universal common descent that will make him no friends among young-earth creationists, and draws in new facts, especially the data on malaria, that have not been part of the public debate at all up to now. This book will take the intelligent design debate into new territory and represents a unique contribution on the longstanding question of philosophy: can observation of the physical world guide our thinking about religious questions?”

• Professor David Snoke, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh

“Until the past decade and the genomics revolution, Darwin’s theory rested on indirect evidence and reasonable speculation. Now, however, we have begun to scratch the surface of direct evidence, of which this book offers the best possible treatment. Though many critics won’t want to admit it, The Edge of Evolution is very balanced, careful, and devastating. A tremendously important book.”

 

[PaulF2]

[continued]

– Dr. Philip Skell, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, at Pennsylvania State University, and member of the National Academy of Sciences

And, by the way, what a bunch of idiots the directors of Lehigh University must be for continuing to keep Behe on staff! You should probably let them know ASAP just how maligned he is by all his peers so they can save some face by firing him immediately.

I anticipate you’ll say something like, “well of course if they believe in evolution, they won’t like Behe.” This is exactly my point. All respectable scientists in the world believe in evolution. That’s how much evidence there is for it. Fundamentalists or ultra-traditionalists sometimes will attempt to write up a critique of evolution, which don’t stand up for a week in open scientific journals. That’s why they never, ever contribute to these journals; they always write popular books addressed at the public, who have only a nominal understanding of biology themselves and won’t understand why Behe’s arguments are bogus.

Behe believes in evolution - to an extent. He is not a YEC, but accepts the age of the earth and the universe given by cosmology and other fields - is it really possible you don’t know these things? He is a tenured professor at a respectable, secular university. You are correct that there is an enormous bias against anyone in academia who will not fully toe the neo-darwinist line, and most of what you wrote above is accurate, but you honestly appear to have no understanding of Behe’s work whatsoever.

Though honestly, I don’t think there’s any way to convince you why this is the case. You already think that believers in evolution, even if they’re devout Christians, are “entrenched materialists” and can’t be trusted because they have a motive for opposing YEC. What could I possibly do to convince you otherwise? What evidence could I provide for you to show you just how clear it is that macroevolution is essentially fact?

Your thinly-veiled accusations of ignorance and stupidity are rather annoying. For the record, sir, since you are apparently unable to make any argument against Behe’s actual work and instead wallow in personal attacks and non-sequiturs, could you give us your qualifications? As for me, I have a degree in computer science with a minor in physics and have been interested in science since I was a child. My IQ has been professionally measured in the top 1% of the American population. Irrelevant? Based on your method of argument, it really isn’t.

So, that out of the way, you have offered NO evidence whatsoever that “macroevotion is fact”! Of course you are aware of that, yet to do nothing but repeat variations of “Behe is an idiot” with not one single shred of simple evidence or example is pretty weak - isn’t it?

Macro-evolution - species-change - has never been observed, not just in real-time (it is theoretically possible with fast-replicating organisms like bacteria) but in the fossil record either. (That latter problem is freely acknowledged by neo-darwinism apologists, though you seem unaware of it.) I think you will have Nobel material on your hands if you can demonstrate to us that it is FACT - so please do so.

I must be an “entrenched materialist,” I suppose? You’re doing it again. Everybody who disagrees with you isn’t just wrong, they have an ulterior motive for doing so.

You are the one making generalization and vague arguments from authority. I did not imply anything of the kind. First of all, as I said, you have exaggerated the case of Behe’s reputation. Secondly, it is a fact that his most vocal critics are those with a materialist worldview. I know he had his theist critics too, such as the late Fr. Jaki, whom I greatly admired, but they didn’t sound anything like you.

You know, I believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think the WTCs were blown up by interior demolition.

The hundreds of thousands of physicists that say this is balogna? Obviously, they’re all paid off by the government. Those guys that have to post their videos on YouTube to be heard? They’re totally honest! No ulterior motive there.

And if you don’t believe me, I can prove it! All those courageous men that stand up for 9/11 Truth are brilliant and experts in science; and I can show you quotes that show how much all of the other physicists that laugh it off really just love the government!

… see what I’m doing here? I don’t mean to compare your beliefs to 9/11 Troofers, who are not just uninformed but straight-up morons. But the reason why they can hold their beliefs is because they’ve set up a world-view where everybody who disagrees with them are inherently untrustworthy. Their beliefs are unfalsifiable.

Of course you meant to compare “my beliefs” to conspiracy theorists - why else would you post that waste of space? That is right in line with your style - personal attack, no substance.

You have a point that irreducible complexity can seem to be unfalsifiable. This is the closest you’ve come (indirectly) to speaking to any of Behe’s work. It’s a fact, though, that there is no model that is reasonable or statistically feasible to explain the flagellum, blood clotting, or a number of other enormously complex core biological functions. The attempts that have been made are not models - they do not show a feasible, realistic, mathematically possible path to the observed result.

I edited my previous post before you made your response.

I’ll go look now - I predict there’s nothing of substance. I’ll apologize if I’m wrong.

 

[Luke65]

I agree and respect most of your points.

However, lets assume that geocentricity was proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt.

It won’t be.

Will you accept the scientific evidence or reject it because “THE 1616 DECREE WAS PAPAL and IRREVERSABLE ( i.e. immutable, i.e., infallible)”?

As soon as the Church declares that belief in a geocentric universe is “erroneous in faith” I will reject it! I hope you’re not holding your breath.

I see your points. I mean:
Could God have created the world in 6 days? OF COURSE!
Could God have created it instantly? OF COURSE!
Could God have created it in 14 billion years? OF COURSE!

Of course. But the question is what did God tell us? Don’t you (all) realize that God could’ve simply said, “For the Lord spent eons and eons of time preparing the earth for man.” But He didn’t. Will you argue that the “primitive” Israelites were too dull to understand that? Are we “enlightened” Christians too dull to understand what “six days” means? Because that is what God told us. Don’t you realize that God knew His people would be mocked if they had the faith of a little child in His Word? And yet, that is what He told us is a prerequisite for salvation! And what about this:

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” - Jesus Christ

Yes, the world thinks that Catholics are “batty” for believing that. All the world sees is bread and wine, and foolish people who believe it is the Divine. Why would God do that to us? Would He make us the laughingstock of the world for a lie? No - but for the truth, yes. He brings us through the fire. And you guys will go through the fire, sooner or later, one way or another. But its best to love the truth now, let proud mockers mock, and know that your reward is yet to come.

You talk about something producing bad fruits but only when it’s convenient…

For example, there were corrupt popes in the past (not many thank God!) so does that mean the Church produced bad fruit?

Well, that was the worst possible analogy - the Catholic Church is divine.

Its the same logic…
Evolution in it of itself cannot produce anything. It is up to the people doing the interpreting.

Right, just like Adam and Eve.

What is “true science” in your book?

I thought I defined it there. Take away the naturalistic assumptions, go where the evidence leads, and you have “true science”.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” - Richard Lewontin

And there you have “mainstream science” - see the difference?

There are creationist who present “facts” against evolution, however they usually lack understanding in their biology and misrepresent evidence because they want the conclusions to be what they want them to be. It lacks the scrutiny found true science.

As we just saw.

The biggest advocate against geocentricism is gravity.

Now, could there be a supernatural force keeping the Earth at bay but also spinning as it naturally would around the Sun? sure, but it would have to be supernatural.

No, this is a natural creation. I believe that God sustained it supernaturally until the Fall, but its been in “bondage to decay” ever since (CCC #400). Let’s just say that you have your “dark matter”, and we have our ether.

of course, this would be physically impossible.

Of course that’s impossible. But do you know what’s missing from that picture? The rest of the universe! You do realize that everything outside the Solar System affects the Solar System, right? Don’t you see that all God had to do was give a slight excess of mass on the side of the earth opposite the sun, to counterbalance the sun’s gravity?

the “gravitational” center? of course He could have, but He didn’t. Why? because the planets still revolve around the Sun. That much is provable.

Tycho! That was known and explained more than 400 years ago - by Tycho Brahe, a devout Catholic, and the greatest astronomer ever! (see Tychonic system)

no disrespect but adding "creation and “evolution” and “geocentrism” and “heliocentrism” so broadly was rather shady of you.

Why not:
“6 day creation”, “instant creation”, “6 day creation with old Earth characteristics”, “instant creation with old Earth characteristics”, “theistic evolution”, and “atheistic evolution”

and

“geocentrism”, “heliocentrism”, “modern views”

Oh come on now, I wasn’t being “shady”, I was being pithy! I think everybody got the point, but thanks for providing the details.

As I keep stressing, heliocentrism says that the Sun is immobile and the center of the universe. That is NOT what the scientific community believes anymore due to advances in science.

I reject heliocentrism

the Sun is mobile and it is NOT the center of the universe.

You are correct, sir!

 

[PaulF2]

EDIT: In case that was a little vague. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Completely different subjects. Whether or not species alter over a long course of time is 100% irrelevant to what the first cause of life was.

Hmm. While it’s true that the origin of life and subsequent evolution are not the same thing, they are quite obviously very closely related, and it is a fact that all of the major neo-darwin apologists also take it on faith that the origin of life ALSO occurred completely “naturally” with no action by God. I’m happy to see, though, that apparently you are allowing for direct divine action in the origin. Why you find it so completely unpalatable in any other case is something you might want to examine.

I really have no dog in this fight - I accepted theistic [macro] evolution for decades because I thought it was the most sensible position, and it is reconcilable with all Catholic dogma. It’s the science that led me elsewhere. Poke your head outside the box once or twice and maybe someday you’ll understand. My position is not set in stone, but until somebody disproves math from the likes of Behe, I accept what he has demonstrated.

 

[cassini]

Hi Cassini,

You all can debate scientific matters all you want. However, when it comes to an outright declarative sentence of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches (see the above quote from Post 17 – I want to know the paragraph number in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Here’s a fast source for you to use to give me the paragraph number. Thank you.

www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

Hi Grannymh (are you really a granny or is this so other posters will be gentle with your comments?).

The CCC was not in print in 1633. But here is what Pope Urban VIII did with the Church’s decision (I will give you this again if you need a reminder)

:Thus did Rome’s supreme Pontifical Congregation, established, to use the words of Sixtus V., “*tanquam firmissimum Catholicae fidei propugnaculum . . . cui ob summam rei gravitatem Romanus Pontifex praesidere solet,” *known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the Papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a fallible utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration with the following message:

“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same.” ’— quote from Gebler’s Galileo Galilei, London, 1879.

This was accomplished, and in many cases the professors of mathematics, physics, and astronomy were assembled like their students at roll call and the trial documents read to them. Theologians and scholars were then urged to use their learning to show Copernicanism to be a serious heresy. Soon Europe was flooded with these critiques. Often, however, such publications ventured into the realm of science and foolish reasoning. It seems some missed the point and considered the objective was to defend the scientific integrity of geocentricity rather than its theological certainty. Throughout Europe however, there were theologians who were relieved with the ban. Andrew White records that the Rector of the University of Douay, referring to the opinion of Galileo, wrote to the papal nuncio at Brussels; ‘The professors of our university are so opposed to this fanatical opinion that they have always held that it must be banished from the schools. In our English college at Douay this paradox has never been approved and never will be.’ —A. White op. cit., p.144.

Then there was this: see next post.

 

[cassini]

And finally, one more rarely addressed papal declaration of the Copernican heresy that Providence provided, found and recorded by Fr Roberts in his book:

BULLARIUM ROMANUM 1664.
CDLXV.
Super observatione Indicis librorum pro¬hibitorum noviter impressi1.
Alexander Papa VII, ad perpetuam rei memoriam.

‘Towards the end of his Pontificate, it occurred to Alexander VII that it was his duty, as guardian of the household of Israel, to compose and place before the faithful a new Index of prohibited books that should be complete up to his time, and be more conveniently arranged than former indices. Whereupon he set to work with a specially chosen number of Cardinals and in the March of 1664 there issued from the Vatican press a book entitled Index Librorum prohibitorum Alexandri VII. Pontificis Maximi jussu editus. It was prefaced by a Bull wherein the Pope describes this composition of his Index and gives reasons for putting it forth… “For this purpose,” pursues the Pontiff, “we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted…. we, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
Turning to this Index, we find among the decrees the Pope caused to be added thereto, the following: the “Quia ad notitiam” of 1616; the “monitum” of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and catholic interpretation;” the edict signed by Bellarmine prohibiting and condemning Kepler’s Epi¬tome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ the edict of August 10th, 1634, prohibiting and condemning the Dialogo di Galileo Galilei; and under the head “Libri,” we find: “Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem terræ, et immobilitatem solis, in decree 5 Martii, 1616.” These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and approved with Apostolic authority by the tenor of his Bull. It is clear, there¬fore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but publicly in the face of the whole Church, by the authority of a Bull addressed to all the faithful. Nay, more - and I call particular attention to this point - the Index to which the decrees in question were attached, was confirmed and approved by the Pope, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though actually in it, “quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus;” and therefore it, and all it contained, came to the Church directly from the Pope himself, speaking to her as her Head, “as guardian of the household of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of truth.” ‘

Now try as you may, you Copernicans, you cannot eliminate the Church’s teaching on this matter. As to why it was never put into a catechism in its definitive form is because it is there under the dogmas on the Scriptures as promulgated at the Council of Trent and Vatican I.

 

[grannymh]

Now try as you may, you Copernicans, you cannot eliminate the Church’s teaching on this matter. As to why it was never put into a catechism in its definitive form is because it is there under the dogmas on the Scriptures as promulgated at the Council of Trent and Vatican I.

Good morning, Cassini,

Re:“this matter” (see above) is the declarative sentences written in the present tense from Post 17:

Post 17. The Church teaches that the Scriptures reveal a geocentric world. Thus the Church teaches that we live on an immobile earth at the centre of the universe and that the sun (moon and stars) revolve around us.

Followed by this rather questionable conclusion:

Post 17. ‘Are we as Catholics allowed to believe the heliocentric nature of the solar system and the modern scientific view of the universe?’

No your not. Up to now however, you have, like most Catholics, been inculpably ignorant of this, so no formal heresy prevails, only material heresy with no due punishment as no heresy was intended. But now that you know perhaps you might change your mind.

Cassini, I’m just now learning about a group that does not consider the present Pope or any modern popes valid. The group begins with the letter A or S but I can’t remember it off hand. – need help with my senior moment, someone –

Pardon me. But it seems like the statements quoted above would be something that this separated group would promote since the basis for these statements excludes the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Am I wrong?

If anyone is interested in knowing what Trent and Vatican I dogmatic teachings are, they can check either the footnotes in the CCC or the “Index of Citations” at the end of the Catechism.

I would also suggest that those interested in current Catholic teachings read “Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere” at the beginning of the Catechism. This sentence refers to the CCC Second Edition. “Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time.”

Since I have been on CAF, I have read quite a few documents, letters, opinions, reports from scientists, etc. regarding the earth and the sun.

The mere suggestion that dogma from the Councils of Trent and Vatican 1 were left out of the Catechism is refuted by both CCC footnotes and its Index of Citations. One could also check The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ISBN 0-89870-450-2 (HB); ISBN 0-89870-451-0 (PB)

In any case, it is not fair to readers to take opinions and decisions relating to matters of science (originating in the Renaissance) and present them as flat out declarative sentences of official defined teaching of today’s Roman Catholic Church. And since I follow the teaching of today’s Roman Catholic Church, I believe that its current Catechism is essential. This is why I object to the above quotes from posts 17 & 114.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[cassini]

Good morning, Cassini,

Re:“this matter” (see above) is the declarative sentences written in the present tense from Post 17:

Followed by this rather questionable conclusion:

Cassini, I’m just now learning about a group that does not consider the present Pope or any modern popes valid. The group begins with the letter A or S but I can’t remember it off hand. – need help with my senior moment, someone –

Pardon me. But it seems like the statements quoted above would be something that this separated group would promote since the basis for these statements excludes the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Am I wrong?

If anyone is interested in knowing what Trent and Vatican I dogmatic teachings are, they can check either the footnotes in the CCC or the “Index of Citations” at the end of the Catechism.

I would also suggest that those interested in current Catholic teachings read “Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere” at the beginning of the Catechism. This sentence refers to the CCC Second Edition. “Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time.”

Since I have been on CAF, I have read quite a few documents, letters, opinions, reports from scientists, etc. regarding the earth and the sun.

The mere suggestion that dogma from the Councils of Trent and Vatican 1 were left out of the Catechism is refuted by both CCC footnotes and its Index of Citations. One could also check The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ISBN 0-89870-450-2 (HB); ISBN 0-89870-451-0 (PB)

In any case, it is not fair to readers to take opinions and decisions relating to matters of science (originating in the Renaissance) and present them as flat out declarative sentences of official defined teaching of today’s Roman Catholic Church. And since I follow the teaching of today’s Roman Catholic Church, I believe that its current Catechism is essential. This is why I object to the above quotes from posts 17 & 114.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

Cardinal Bellarmine said that if a pope is a heretic, he is not a valid pope. Now there are those who believe that all popes since Vatican II were/are heretics so the papacy is vacant. Sedevacantism it is called. The problem here is that others say only another pope can make such a judgement. It is not an area I feel comfortable in so I leave it to their own conscience. It is so sad any Catholic should have to make such a choice. As regards the Copernican heresy, I doubt one Copernican deliberately means to defy the Church’s teaching of 1616, 1633 and 1664 and certainly not popes. But the heresy has not been abrogated so technically they are material heretics, which means there is no negative consequences for their belief. This means sedevacantists do not have to shift their position on popes bact to Benedict XIV in 1741.

But again I say, when informed, material heretics must re-examine their position in the light of the situation regarding the limits of science and the authority of papal decrees. Now that the matter is being aired and books are being written, IT IS THEIR DUTY TO FACE UP TO THE FACTS. But they do not. Quite the opposite for in spite of being told Pope John Paul II continued with the LIE with the PAS in 1992. This is simple CATHOLIC reasoning.

 

[cassini]

I agree and respect most of your points.

However, lets assume that geocentricity was proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt. Will you accept the scientific evidence or reject it because “THE 1616 DECREE WAS PAPAL and IRREVERSABLE ( i.e. immutable, i.e., infallible)”?

What is “true science” in your book? There are creationist who present “facts” against evolution, however they usually lack understanding in their biology and misrepresent evidence because they want the conclusions to be what they want them to be. It lacks the scrutiny found true science.

Relatively, we are stationary and the Sun rotates around the Earth, but that’s only due to our perspective.

'.The biggest advocate against geocentricism is gravity

Now, could there be a supernatural force keeping the Earth at bay but also spinning as it naturally would around the Sun? sure, but it would have to be supernatural.

According to some modern geocentricists:
http://www.crownofchrist.net/images/GEOSYSTEM.jpg

of course, this would be physically impossible.

the “gravitational” center? of course He could have, but He didn’t. Why? because the planets still revolve around the Sun. That much is provable.

Now, could He be supernaturally keeping it the center of the universe? OF COURSE!

As I keep stressing, heliocentrism says that the Sun is immobile and the center of the universe. That is NOT what the scientific community believes anymore due to advances in science.

.

Hi Omyo, if I could add a little to what Luke said.

‘However, lets assume that geocentricity was proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt. Will you accept the scientific evidence or reject it because “THE 1616 DECREE WAS PAPAL and IRREVERSABLE ( i.e. immutable, i.e., infallible)”?’

This is akin to asking if it was proven Our Lady did not have a virgin birth would you accept it.
But let Cardinal Bellarmine answer this question:

I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.
I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness. From my house, April 12, 1615,
Your very Reverend Paternity’s brother,
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.

‘Relatively, we are stationary and the Sun rotates around the Earth, but that’s only due to our perspective.’

Yes, that is what relativity is - a human perspective. Given we live on the earth, why in God’s name would humanity prefer a sun-based perspective? Answer: to undermine the Catholic faith as it has done.

‘What is “true science” in your book?’

Science is the field of study dealing entirely with facts. — Dr Crane.

This means we can see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, smell it in nature. We can measure it, we can do it in a test-tube, and we can prove it by showing it. A fact can be repeated any number of times without change and above all, cannot be falsified. The establishment of facts is called the scientific method. For a proper definition of a fact, let us hear R.G. Elmendorf.

Something that is direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive – in other words not hearsay, popular opinion, “expert” testimony, majority view, personal conviction, organisational ruling, conventional usage, superficial analogy, appeal to “simplicity”, or other indirect means of persuasion.Or 'what the scientific community believes.’

‘The biggest advocate against geocentricism is gravity’

What you mean is Newton’s theory of universal gravity and Einstein’s theory of gravity which count for NOTHING in true science as FACT… Don’t you know only GOD knows what causes gravity on earth and probably on every other cosmic body. Only GOD knows if this same gravity is universal, men certainly do not for the simple reason men do not know what causes gravity. If you want to debate this subject further, I’m your man.

‘Now, could there be a supernatural force keeping the Earth at bay but also spinning as it naturally would around the Sun? sure, but it would have to be supernatural.’
‘of course, this would be physically impossible.’

My, another Galileo, as Pope Urban VIII said, restricting God’s ability to create secondry causes that result in a geocentric world based on human reasoning. Ask God’s forgiveness here, I know you didn’t mean to limit God to first causes but your Copernicanism has you limiting Him here.

‘the “gravitational” center? of course He could have, but He didn’t. Why? because the planets still revolve around the Sun. That much is provable.’

As Luke said, Tycho de Brahe had decuced this fact years before Galileo found evidence for planetary orbits around the sun. I would disagree with Like when he says Tycho was the greatest astronomer in history, he was the second greatest astronomer in history. The greatest was Domenico Cassini. What he discovered is hidden from view by the Copernican heretics because he blew their Universal gravitation theory of a solar system sky high if you pardon the pun. This information has been resurrected by an expert in the subject and will soon be released in book form.

;As I keep stressing, heliocentrism says that the Sun is immobile and the center of the universe. That is NOT what the scientific community believes anymore due to advances in science.;

The heresy is a fixed sun relative to the earth. That is EXACTLY what everyone believes. They now say the fixed sun relative to the earth is expanding in space.

 

[hecd2]

I realise that this is part of a discussion that you are having with someone else, but I’d like to comment on a couple of things.

…if a scientist holds a world-view that directly implies that neo-darwinism must account entirely for the origin of all species on the planet, this does not influence his science? That’s patently preposterous. You see, the atheist has no other choice. The theist, however, is free to think without bounds: he can accept theistic evolution if the evidence points there, or perhaps some combination of theistic evolution with divine guidance (which is what Behe proposes - you seem unaware of that very basic fact!)

The problem here is that you base your argument on a strawman: the strawy scientist who “holds a world-view that directly implies that neo-darwinism must account entirely for the origin of all species on the planet”. No scientist of my acquaintance has a world view that implies that neo-darwinism must account entirely for the origin of all species on the planet. Scientists, whether they are theists or atheists or agnostics or spiritualists or animists or whatever, when they doing science, confine their hypotheses to natural causes - that’s what science is - it’s the source of its explanatory power. Scientists, when they are doing science, therefore look for natural explanations for the origin of species. Neo-darwinism then, gets its pre-eminent position as the foundational theory of biology not because it is a default atheistic view, but because it is a scientific theory overwhelmingly supported by evidence and therefore accepted by biologists on that basis.

The major weakness to the ‘argument’ you’re presenting is that it has one facet only: you are presenting an ‘argument for authority’, implying that if the majority of Behe’s peers consider him wrong (which is putting it nicely compared to how you put it) then he is obviously wrong.

Well, the point is that it’s not just the bare majority of biologists who consider him wrong but the vast, overwhelming majority.

That is a simplistic and naive argument on the basis of logic but even more so in the light of the history of science. Before Hubble’s telescope revealed the expanding universe and led to the “big bang” model, the overwhelming view among astronomers and cosmologists was that the universe had no beginning. The Catholic Church, for example, was ridiculed for declaring, at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

The example you give of Hubble and the expanding universe is not germane to the argument for several reasons:

1. Edwin Hubble was never considered by his peers to be a crank
2. He published his findings in mainstream scientific journals (something that Behe has not done with his ‘calculations’).
3. He was not alone - Georges LeMaitre’s Big Bang theory pre-dated Hubble’s redshift analysis by two years and James Keeler, Vesto Slipher and William Campbell had already independently discovered galactic redshift.

This is an example where a prevailing view was revised in the light of new evidence and there are many examples of this in science. But examples where a single individual puts forward an idea that is openly and vigorously critiqued by his peers for a decade and more as Behe’s has been, and which subsequently turns out to be correct are few and far between in the 20th and 21st centuries. The fact that the overwhelming majority of professional biologists think he is wrong is not, in itself, proof that he is wrong, but it weighs very heavily against him. The fact is that there are thousands of individuals who think that they have single handedly revolutionised this or that aspect of science, and they generally make the same sort of argument in defence of their hobby-horse as you have made for Behe - the fact is that if the vast majority of scientists in a field think that an individual is wrong, then he usually is.

Even after Hubble, Hoyle’s patently ridiculous “Steady State” hypothesis (I do not think it actually qualified as theory) attempted to avoid the issue,

Perhaps you would care to explain why you think it was “patently ridiculous”? It turns out that the Steady State theory was wrong, but what in the 20’s 30’s and 40’s made it “patently ridiculous”? You do know that Fred Hoyle was a first class astronomer who did some major work, particularly on nucleosynthesis, don’t you?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

[continued]

And, by the way, what a bunch of idiots the directors of Lehigh University must be for continuing to keep Behe on staff! You should probably let them know ASAP just how maligned he is by all his peers so they can save some face by firing him immediately.

No-one needs to tell them - they know already. But Prof Behe has tenure. In any case, his department at Lehigh has a public disclaimer that must be unique in the academic world. Go here to read it:
lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
*“The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. * *The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific” *

Behe believes in evolution - to an extent. He is not a YEC, but accepts the age of the earth and the universe given by cosmology and other fields - is it really possible you don’t know these things? He is a tenured professor at a respectable, secular university. You are correct that there is an enormous bias against anyone in academia who will not fully toe the neo-darwinist line, and most of what you wrote above is accurate, but you honestly appear to have no understanding of Behe’s work whatsoever.

But I do. The fact is that Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” (from Darwin’s Black Box) has been shown by a number of critics to be fundamentally flawed. IC is a stronger claim than that the unlikeliness of a complex system to evolve - it is a claim that certain complex systems are irreducible and cannot have evolved. Not only has that claim been falsified on theoretical grounds, but every single example that Behe put forward of a hypothetically irreducibly complex system has been shown not to be so. Flagellum: Nature Rev. Microbiol. 4, 784–790; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 7116. Blood clotting: Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 100, 7527–7532; Immune system: Nat. Immunol. 7, 433; etc.

Defeated on that front Behe has moved on to the claim that neo-Darwinism (variation and natural selection) is incapable of explaining the diversity of species, based primarily on his assertion that there are insufficient fixed random mutations that occur to explain the diversity of extant and fossil phenotypes (the Edge of Evolution). But in making this claim, Behe is setting himself against 70 years of work in mathematical genetics based on work by pioneers like Fisher, Haldane, Wright and others. His “calculations” are at variance with accepted theoretical biology because they are blatantly wrong. Furthermore the fundamental flaws in Behe’s mathematical reasoning (that sequential adaptive mutations cannot occur, and his obfuscation between the probability of sequential adaptive mutations occurring and fixing in a population and multiple specific mutations occurring simultaneously in an individual) have been explained in, amongst other places, Nature (Miller, *Nature *447, 1055 - 1056) and Science (Carroll, *Science *316, 1427 - 1428).

If Behe really had a scientifically defensible argument then his proper course would be to submit a paper to a journal dedicated to theoretical biology, rather than to publish in a popular book aimed at a public who is not qualified to judge the merits of his arguments. He is, after all, a tenured professor of biochemistry, so why shun the only scientific arena that matters?

Alec
evolutionpages.com