Behe on why do some scientists still not accept intelligent design?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Behe

amazed that more scientists don’t accept ID when the evidence for it is overwhelming.

This is of course an out and out lie. The evidence for ID is non-existent. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The rhetoric for ID may be extensive, but the only thing overwhelming is the outright stubborn willful ignorance insisting on ID and creationism.

@pevaquark

I’m not really sure what to do with this.

On the third part, me neither. But on the other three, here is what I say.

@Behe

Scientists, just like everybody else are not logic machines. They’re smart but just don’t use logic without caring about other things too.

Yeah and sometimes they care about things like the Bible, theology, and Christianity – this ID creationists nonsense is killing them!

@Behe

But none-the-less Biologists jumped on it because they felt inferior to Physicists and Chemists.

In other words… the theory of evolution provided the first basis for any theoretical biology whatsoever, much to the consternation of religious dogmatists (and others who make a living on religion) who would really prefer no scientific inquiry into questions about the nature and origins of life and thus for biologists to stick to observation and classification only.

@Behe

There were some calculations in the 1920s and 30s that were wrong since they didn’t know about molecular machines or genetic codes or other complex things - and these things are much more easily broken than improved.

Huh?

@Behe

A lot of scientists, not the majority, but many prominent ones don’t like religion and don’t want the world to have been designed even if it was very helpful.

All scientists, even the Christian ones, do not like theologians sticking their noses into science and thus trying to replace the methodology of science with the emptiness of mere rhetoric.

@Behe

“it’s the job of science to describe the world as it is, not the way you want it to be.”

It is the job of science to describe the world as shown by the objective evidence from written procedures giving the same results no matter what you believe and not the way you insist that the world “really is.”