Image via WikipediaThis is a good debate. Lively, and rancor-free.
The two gentlemen, both Roman Catholics, debate whether there's room for Intelligent Design in science. Behe is a leading advocate for Intelligent Design (ID); Stephen M. Barr is a professor of physics.
Barr argues that we should keep philosophy and theology out of science and limit science to the pursuit of natural explanations for natural phenomena described in naturalistic terms. Behe (pictured) counters that Darwinism often contains philosophical or theological arguments; if such arguments are permitted in Darwinism, why not in ID? He also argues that detecting evidence of a mind is within the proper domain of human experience and science. We infer intelligent design wherever we see parts (material) purposively (mind) assembled to perform a function.
Behe sets up his argument as follows:
1. Life reeks of design.
2. Darwin purports to explain the appearance of design in nature.
3. Since Darwinism, which is one explanation of the appearance of design in nature is taught as science, ID should be as well.
4. Failure to teach both can lead to irrationality.
Is ID a legitimate scientific position?
Listen to the debate, and decide for yourself.
A great way to inform yourself on the issue. Recommended.