Michael Behe

Från Wikipedia
Hoppa till: navigering, sök
Michael Behe

Michael Behe, född 18 januari 1952 i Altoona, Pennsylvania, USA, är en amerikansk biokemist och förespråkare av intelligent design. Behe är professor i biokemi på Lehigh University i Pennsylvania, och senior fellow vid Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture i Seattle.

Behe är en av evolutionslärans mest kända kritiker och har i sin bok Darwin's Black Box myntat begreppet "irreducibel komplexitet": idén att en del biokemiska system är för komplexa för att ha kunnat uppstå genom evolutionära mekanismer.

Kritik[redigera | redigera wikitext]

Behe har kritiserats av ett stort antal forskare och vetenskapliga organisationer, som anser att intelligent design och teorin om irreducibel komplexitet är pseudovetenskap[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Även hans eget universitet har tagit avstånd från hans idéer, och betraktar dem som ovetenskapliga.[11][12]

Bibliografi[redigera | redigera wikitext]

Källor[redigera | redigera wikitext]

  1. ^ ”Intelligent Design as creationism”. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html. , The TalkOrigins Archive
  2. ^ ”Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”. http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-6/p48a.html. , Physics Today, Juni 2002
  3. ^ Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross: ’’Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design’’, Oxford University Press 2004
  4. ^ ”Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action”. http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134#B1.  Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  5. ^ ”Debating the Merits of Intelligent Design”. http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml. 
  6. ^ ”Why Evolution Must Not Be Ignored”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/zforum/99/nat082799.htm. 
  7. ^ ”The "Intelligent Design" Hoax”. http://www.textbookleague.org/id-hx-1.htm. 
  8. ^ "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
  9. ^ "True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design ... use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" —
    Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sid. 13. ISBN 0-520-24702-7  "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience."
    David Mu (Fall 2005). ”Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design”. Harvard Science Review "19" (1). http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf. 
    Perakh M (2005 Summer). ”Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design”. Cell Biol Educ. "4" (2): ss. 121–2. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071. 
    Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy "The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use."
    Se även Lista med vetenskapliga organisationer som uttryckligen förkastar intelligent design
  10. ^ Ker Than (September 23, 2005). ”Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - LiveScience”. msnbc.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9452500/ns/technology_and_science-science/. Läst 17 maj 2010. 
  11. ^ ”Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"”. http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm. , Lehigh Department of Biological Sciences, quote: "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."
  12. ^ ”Intelligent-design backer fires back at critics - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com”. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9741900/.