Dr Michael Behe is the biologist whose theory of Irreducible Complexity forms the supposed scientific basis of ID. I asked him about the consensus in many quarters that it is not scientific. While genially admitting that I had "hit a nerve", he defended its credentials as a science. "Science is just using physical evidence and reasoning to come to a conclusion about nature," he says. "The definition of science is supposed to help us investigate nature and if it of itself becomes a barrier, it won't serve a useful purpose."Does Dr. Behe remember that, a scant five years ago, he defined science in a courtroom as including astrology? How does that help us investigate nature and serve a useful purpose? Williams continues:
It does? Why cannot it get the support of any mainstream scientists, then? When people like Bell say things like this, without a trace of admission that there are serious scientific problems with this viewpoint, all credibility goes out the window. Behe's viewpoint, where science can incorporate astrology is a post-modern deconstruction of science, while Bell's is a rejection of modern science outright. I am not sure which is worse.
Dr Behe, though, makes a more serious allegation about any future requirement to teach evolution in primary classes: "It shows that certain people have an agenda to get children to think like them, to indoctrinate them on their side. And to prejudice young minds to one side before they're capable of understanding is the opposite of education."
Philip Bell, the chief executive of Creation Ministries International (UK/Europe), makes the same point. He goes on to say that when we consider the facts on which science is based, we do so from a worldview point. If we approach, say, the fossil record or DNA from the viewpoint that God created the world in the way literally set out in the Bible with a global flood centuries later, the science stands up.
Now playing: David Lanz - Variations On A Theme From Pachelbel's Canon In D Major