Okay, this isn't really a debate but a moderator on a PBS News program. I like Krauss a lot. It saddened me that he did not listen to Behe. Krauss claims that science should be agnostic and unbiased. He said that he thinks Intelligent Design is just a way to get God through the back door of science. This shows that he has a bias, believing that God does not exist. I call it a bias because if God does exist why throw out evidence and an interpretation of that evidence for God and only because there hasn't, in his opinion, been enough peer-reviewed research. Don't you think the ramifications could be profound? Why would you wanna miss out on it? Shutting down the dialogue is not the answer. YouTube - Lawrence Krauss and Michael Behe debate
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_scX26S6_QiQV6QRtCrnkDqZxWBUrmqgq0ppb5ps4SLbv9fn16a60zJ1srZf3ztVbDCLslQMA12sha-tKOhujfHUXL35J5qDLbpm5k2HPdnPWAH31hpqz44p8Oj3fPKLaLOtqZ-uwuKUNZ6ctfcatY=s0-d)
There are libraries of books by people who have tried and failed to find proof of god; the reasonable assumption is that there's nothing there. Laurence is working from that position.
ReplyDeleteAlso, because Michael Behe is a known liar and expounder of a failed assertion that isn't even a hypothesis let alone a theory.
So:
ReplyDelete1. Assumption that there is no God
2. Assumption the Michael Behe is wrong completely
You know what an assumption + no evidence = ?
Failure.
Even his own department does not support his views.
ReplyDelete"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."