To the editor:
Walter Dimmick objects (Journal-World, Dec. 1) to Michael Behe's invited lecture at Kansas University in the Difficult Dialogue series, Knowledge: Faith and Reason. The intent of that series is to present a spectrum of views, no matter how uncomfortable or incorrect some of those views might be to audiences of different persuasions. Indeed, it is precisely the spectrum of conflicting views that makes the dialogue about faith, reason and knowledge difficult and worth having.
Behe's views are at one end of that spectrum. He is arguably the most scholarly and articulate proponent of irreducible complexity and intelligent design, the science of which has been roundly criticized by other speakers in this series - Kenneth Miller, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott - who have applauded and would defend Behe's inclusion in this series. Why? Because the "respectability and credibility" of Behe's ideas are determined by science testing those ideas with experiments and observation, not by whether KU is "providing Behe a platform."
Finally, we know of a number of professors in the department of ecology and evolutionary biology who have welcomed the opportunity to have a scientific dialogue with Behe about his evidence for irreducibly complex structures, the identity of the intelligent agent behind intelligent design, his research program for testing intelligent design and other difficult matters.
Leonard Krishtalka, director,
Victor Bailey, director,
Hall Center for the Humanities