Dr. Michael J. Behe
Michael Behe is a Professor of Biological Science at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He argued in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box that the cell structures of living organisms are “irreducibly complex” and cannot be explained by Darwin’s Theory of natural selection. This concept launched the intelligent design movement.
Can you summarize the thesis of your new book?- The book is called The Edge of Evolution and the gist is to find reasonable estimates for the limits of what Darwin’s theory — natural selection acting on random mutations — can actually accomplish. Clearly Darwin’s process can account for some small changes in biological systems, such as antibiotic resistance. But can it account for more complex systems, such as the intricate molecular machinery that science has discovered in the cell? Up until recently that question was impossible to answer because the molecular mutations underlying biological changes were unknown, and also because we couldn’t examine really vast numbers of organisms.
- But in the past ten years all that has changed. As I detail in the book, the molecular changes underlying resistance to malaria by humans, resistance to antibiotics by the malarial parasite, and other well-studied systems show that random mutation is incoherent — that is, a series of mutations usually has little to do with each other, and doesn’t add up to a new molecular machine. What’s more, most evolutionary changes are ones which either break or degrade genes — and these are the helpful mutations! But you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes. I conclude that Darwinian processes account for little of the machinery of life, and that most positive evolution must be nonrandom — guided somehow — and I argue that result fits well with the fine-tuning of the universe discovered by physics.
- In Richard Dawkins’ review of your book in the New York Times, he points to the hundreds of very different dog breeds that have evolved in a relatively short period of time. And although this was done through controlled breeding, he claims that your theory would not allow for such variation in so few generations - it would be mathematically impossible. How do you respond to that?
- I would suggest that Richard Dawkins re-read my book. In it I clearly state that random evolution works well up to the species level, perhaps to the genus and family level too. But at the level of vertebrate classes (birds, fish, etc), the molecular developmental programs needed would be beyond the edge of evolution. Darwinian evolution works well when a single small change in an organism’s DNA produces a notable effect. That’s what happens to give the various breeds of dogs. But when multiple, coordinated changes are needed for an effect, chance mutation loses its power.
- Have you published this theory in a peer-reviewed journal? Have other scientists put forth a challenge to this quantitative argument?
- No, no journal these days would touch a paper which investigates intelligent design with a ten foot pole (unless the paper aims to debunk ID). However, all the science I rely upon for my argument in the book is indeed peer-reviewed, from the best, most relevant journals. My conclusions are rather straightforward deductions from data in the literature. As you might expect for such a controversial topic, some scientists have stumbled over each other to challenge my argument. I’ve examined their writings closely and think none of them touch the heart of my argument.
- Is there any way to test the concept of a designer? Is there any evidence of his or her actions interceding in the development of life on earth?
- Well, it depends on what you mean by “test” and “evidence”. If you and a friend walked by Mount Rushmore, even if you had never heard of it before, you would immediately realize that the faces on the mountain were designed. Not for a moment would you think they were the result of random forces such as wind and erosion. Your conclusion of design would be certain, because you would see how well the pieces of the mountain fit the purpose of portraying an image.
- Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.
- Do you believe a designer only set the universe in motion, or do you think a designer intercedes occasionally?
- Well, as a Christian I think God has intervened in human history. But in order to set up the general universe — including the design apparent in cells — I think God could have done that in a single instant, which unfolded over time.
- Why is intelligent design science? Isn’t it just giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t yet fully understand?
- Intelligent design is science because it is based completely on physical data — the molecular machinery of cells — plus ordinary logic. Whenever we see systems in our everyday world of a certain degree and kind of complexity (like clocks), we always have found them to be designed. Now, much to our surprise, science has discovered similar systems in the cell. I see no reason to withhold the conclusion of design for cellular components. So the design of cellular machinery is an inductive argument based on physical evidence — a scientific conclusion.
- When the motions of the galaxies away from the earth was first observed in the 1930s, that led to the Big Bang hypothesis. Many scientists of that time hated the idea of a beginning to nature, because it seemed to have theistic overtones. What if they had said that the Big Bang hypothesis was simply giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t fully understand yet? If they had, physics would have missed out on a lot of progress. Science has to follow the evidence wherever it leads, or it ceases to be science. Right now the biological evidence is leading to the conclusion of design.
- But that’s how they might have phrased it - “a beginning to nature” not “a designer got things started.” Do you appreciate the concern that many people have about introducing a “designer” into science textbooks?
- Yes, I do appreciate people’s concerns about explicitly talking of a “designer” in textbooks. Nonetheless, science is supposed to be a no-holds-barred search for the truth. Throughout the history of science we’ve had to get used to a lot of ideas that people thought were odd. There’s no reason to shy away from the concept of a designer just because it makes some people uneasy.
- Where do your Christian beliefs diverge from a literal interpretation of the Bible? I’m thinking of those areas that might conflict with our current understanding of the universe.
- I’m a Roman Catholic; I never was taught a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, I was taught Darwin’s theory of evolution in parochial school. As far as I’m concerned, the universe and earth are as old as most physicists say they are, and life developed over immense ages. My main point of disagreement with the standard scientific story is that I think most of the development of the universe and life was set up; little was left to chance.
- I’m curious if you’ve ever read mystics such as Sri Aurobindo or Ken Wilber, who take a spiritual, purposeful, but non-Christian view of evolution.
- Gee, no, I haven’t. I’ll have to look them up.
- Do you have any second thoughts about irreducible complexity, the theme of your first book? Do you consider this quantitative approach a better challenge to Darwinism?
- I think irreducible complexity is a swell concept, which easily gets across the problem for Darwinian evolution to a general audience. It shows us quickly that Darwin’s theory is the wrong answer for much of life. However, the more quantitative approach in The Edge of Evolution actually builds on the concept of irreducible complexity, and allows us to put numbers on the likelihood of random processes building a coherent structure. It can show us that design reaches much deeper into life than we otherwise would have thought.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Bunch of softball questions. Behe was on the stand in the Dover trial and his theories were ripped to shreds. A Republican appointee judge threw called it “breathtaking inanity”. And ID promoter Dembski responded by making a Youtube video of the judges speech by adding the only substance they have in plenty in the ID camp, toilet noises.
Dawkins wrote a whole book explaining how the “irreducibly complex” eye could evolve, people have found the flagellum in various stages of evolution still living.
It is one thing to vaguely suppose a designer and generally about the inference of design. But it is high time ID starts answering specific questions. Like for example, why human being lack the ability to synthesize Vitamin C. Most of the other mammals can synthesize it. Humans (and primates) have the DNA code to do it too. But the code is turned off. Why would a designer install the entire vitamin C factory in our cells and turn it off? Remember the number of pious Christian sailors who died of scurvy in long sea voyages without fresh fruit/vegetables. And they were on the mission to bring the name of the Lord and Savior to the uncivilized pagan heathens, and God perversely turned the Vitamin C factory in their own bodies off.
An IDer prodded me into explaining lactation. I looked and found that there were atleast 10 theories to explain the origin of lactation. Even Darwin proposed one and it was subsequently shot down. Think about it. The IDers will have you believe that scientists blindly follow Darwin. But they rejected his theory of origin of lactation.
ID has to answer a few questions better than evolution to earn the right to even ask a question.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Does Behe still hold, as he did during the Dover trial, that astrology meets the definition of “scientific theory”? (That would be Behe’s own definition, which is looser than that of the National Academies of Science or the American Association for the Advancement of Science; loose enough to allow Intelligent Design to pass.)
September 24th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“Why is intelligent design science? Isn’t it just giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t yet fully understand?”
That’s pretty dern close to what ID is. A more exact description might be, “Isn’t it just giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t want to fully understand? - because it conflicts with what we want to believe?”
September 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
It’s just not possible to put up an interview with an IDist without a bunch of embittered Darwinists chiming in. With the same old tired and worn out debating points. Do you guys have to be so freakin’ boring and predictable?
Next I’ll be asked to make a lock-tight, compelling argument for ID in a comment box.
Or someone will post a dozen links to some blather from talk.origins.
Or someone will use the term “IDiot”.
Yawn.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Matteo,
Congratulations! You have made more predictions in that post than the entire field of Intelligent Design in the last 10 years. Pity you did not predict this post ;-)
September 24th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Matteo makes the “argument from jadedness” - he’s seen it all before. Nonetheless, he cannot make a compelling argument for ID, let alone a lock-tight one. ID has no evidence, and no hypotheses that might generate evidence*. All it consists of is low quality, unoriginal criticisms of modern biology. He dismisses the content at http://www.talkorigins.org as “blather”, although it is accurate, coherent, and filled with references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They even have complete trial transcripts from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Check it out for yourself.
I have seen plenty of negative reviews of “The Edge of Evolution” from competent biologists, but I have not seen a positive review by anyone who is not on the payroll of the Discovery Institute.
It’s also not possible to put up an interview with a geocentrist without drawing criticism from those who are knowledgeable enough to understand that some ideas deserve their place i nthe dustbin of history.
* Paul Nelson of the Disovery Institute admits that ID has no theories. George Gilder of the Discovery Institute acknowledges that “Intelligent Design itself has no content.”
September 24th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
[...] 24th, 2007 · No Comments The California Literary Review has a good interview with Dr. Michael Behe posted on their site. The interviewer is pretty even-handed and Behe comes across very well - [...]
September 24th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Although your review correctly states that Dr. Behe is a Professor of Biological Science at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, you conveniently left out the fact that the entire remainder of the biology faculty at Lehigh is mortally embarrassed at his presence there. Here is part of their statement: “The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. 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.” (http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm)
If this was the “California Science Review,” I would be disappointed and surprised with this review of Dr. Behe’s latest book. But as _literature_ I’m not surprised at its vaguely favorable review. After all, it is an exercise in a form of literature called propaganda - not science. As has been noted in other comments, reviews of Dr. Behe’s book in every scientific journal have uniformly panned it, as its subject is not science, but intelligent design creationism.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has recently issued a report titled “The dangers of creationism in education” which starts “Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes…. The Assembly calls on education authorities in member states to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.” (http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11375.htm)
As a counterpoint to Dr. Behe’s book’s favorable treatment of intelligent design creationism, those who want to get a much better understanding of the movement’s true nature and goals should read http://www.centerforinquiry.net/advocacy/id_creationist_movement/ .
September 24th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I don’t see a problem. What difference does it make if some of us believe stupid impossible things? What difference does it make if unbelievably deep ignorance is expressed by some of us? What difference does it make if some of us are able to overlook facts, dismiss logic, and ignore accumulation of evidence validated over many years, in order to maintain an extremely infantile, not to mention laughable view of the way things are? It’s uproariously funny! This simply tells us about ourselves. Behe is happy I suppose and will continue declare the validity of his view no matter what. He no doubt loves to say what he is saying. It should make us aware of our blindness when we desperately want what we declare to be true, to be true. We are all victims of our willfulness and Behe is a very good reminder. Eventually we as a group will have fewer people believing ID theology,but some other equally ignorant stanve will take its place. That’s the way we are!
September 25th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Why does anything associated with ID always seem to elicit a vitriolic response, mainly bitter name-calling, rather than much in the way of respectful reasoning? The vitriol seems to me to be motivated by more than a desire to protect science from pseudoscience. When is the last time you went after anything else you considered pseudoscience with anywhere near this kind of passion? You are reacting exactly as if your religion were being attacked, and it reflects poorly on your intelligence and self control.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Matteo Says:
“September 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
It’s just not possible to put up an interview with an IDist without a bunch of embittered Darwinists chiming in. With the same old tired and worn out debating points.”
Yes, they’re called facts, Matteo. Sorry you’re tired of them.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Behe-”When the motions of the galaxies away from the earth was first observed in the 1930s, that led to the Big Bang hypothesis. Many scientists of that time hated the idea of a beginning to nature, because it seemed to have theistic overtones. What if they had said that the Big Bang hypothesis was simply giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t fully understand yet? If they had, physics would have missed out on a lot of progress. Science has to follow the evidence wherever it leads, or it ceases to be science. Right now the biological evidence is leading to the conclusion of design”.
Great quote!
As a college student, I ha to listen to professors tell me with a straight face that life on earth was “possibly” started by aliens from outerspace(Panspermia)…while at the same time trying to convince me that Intelligent Design is not scientific. The TOE is DOA!
September 25th, 2007 at 6:12 am
Much ventilation and fury; yet no engagement with the arguments. Huff and puff . . .
Ensure that ‘it is not science’ and then you don’t have to engage with the arguments. Even though the arguments are all based on peer-reviewed science as Behe points out.
The paucity of response suggests that very few have actually taken the time to read ID theory.
Sound off as much as you like but there are serious problems for Darwinism and ID theory is compelling if you studyhow cells work and the DNA database is built.
Talk from knowledge. Engage with the facts on both sides and try and avoid the hysteria….
If it so easily refuted just simply answer Behe’s arguemnts.
Your comments will have much more authority then.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Bill; your use of expressions such as “we are all victims of our wilfulness…” and “that’s the way we are” etc conveys the impression that you refer to the entire human race and that it is in all our natures to be biased and foolish. I totally agree! But this is obviously not what you mean. You regard these observations as true only of Michael Behe and those who concur with his views. The ability to “believe stupid impossible things” is confined to those with whom you personally disagree. Yes?
Nevertheless, you have thoroughly and effectively exposed the fact that ID is a “belief” and not science. But here’s the thing: So is evolution. But “evolution is a fact” isn’t it? Yes. Of course it is - if we understand the word in the sense of the variations which are observed to occur in what are essentially stable organisms and species. But the gratuitous and totally unwarranted extrapolation of those processes to the huge metaphysical claim that the universe and mankind ‘evolved’ entirely by purposeless mechanical forces is religion. And almost without exception this is what those evolutionists involved in these controversies believe. Now here is where we need to be absolutely clear.
There is much dishonesty around on both sides of this argument. If these people, both the Evolutionists and ID supporters, looked at their ideologies full in the face they would have to admit that their arguments resolve themselves down into the one big question: “Did God create, or did everything just get here by itself?” This is what these controversies are really all about. Both are religious points of view because they are both held by faith and faith alone - for science cannot, as a matter of principle, have anything whatever to say about this question of “Why does something, as opposed to nothing, exist?” Only by recognising this common sense fact will those involved in the Creation/Evolution debate begin to produce some light instead of mere heat and pseudoscientific waffle.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:49 am
What I have seen hear from Behe’s/ ID’s detractors
is not what one would expect to see from those
who have arguments of substance and meaning on
their side.
In fact, it is difficult if not impossible to see
something in their choice of words that does not
ooze out political/ Darwinist/ philosophical
ideology. Are you capable of offering a
straightforward and substantive response to a
straightforward positive claim such as Behe’s
“Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.”?
I didn’t see it as of “Bill’s” 10:27 blog or prior.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Bill,
I don’t have any problem with Behe or other ID pushers believing in whatever they want to believe in. The problem is they don’t stop at that. They run stealth candidates to local school boards and try to force down their theology on all the rest. And these heavy handed breathtakingly inane idiots in the school board mess with science teaching, and sometimes incur very heavy legal costs for the whole school district.
I realize the pious Christians are being played, repeatedly roused up to fight causes of marginal benefit to them and to fight injustices real and mostly imagined slights etc.
But I don’t have any problems with that. It is their problem, and if a group consistently elects to follow bad leadership, natural selection will take care of that group in the long run. Or they will wake up and throw these bums out.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Excellent interview. Very informative. Thank you.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Couldn’t agree more, Bill. I personally get much entertainment from reading the rants of the “flooders” and IDists - “oops, can’t explain it, so it must be designed!”
The problem comes when these folks attempt to insert this stuff in public schools. Google “Wedge Document”. Then it’s no longer funny, and becomes costly.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Does science rule out God prior to investigation? Certainly not!!! How can anyone dare say they know God can’t be involved in this universe prior to investigation! To do so reveals an atheistic philosophy parading under the guise of scientific authority and has no more merit than a lunatic declaring himself emperor of the world I find the Theistic philosophy very persuasive scientifically!
There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man’s perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical or methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. It will be my goal in this paper to briefly show where Materialism has led scientists down blind alleys in the past and then it will be my goal to show where Materialism may currently be tying science up in an unnecessary problem. First, lets take a look at a few of the predictions where Materialism has missed the mark and Theism has been accurate.
1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created.
2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.
3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
5 Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life.
6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.
8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.
9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion.
11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms.
12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
The Darwiist really haven’t come up with anything more explicit that biological adaptations “just happen” for no particular reason. And the “natural selection” somehow organizes these genetic accidents into complex biological systems.
http://myauthorsite.com/
September 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am
A lot of people are upset that Behe has articulated an argument for Intelligent Design starting from the facts. But no one has been able to provide a counter argument starting from the same facts.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:17 am
To all the Darwinists and believers who claim that biology says that creationists are bogus :
What I really cannot understand is the big fuss over how one thinks/believes we got here. If God created all things, as Genesis teaches, or if we evolved by random chance mutations working over millions of years…who cares? Both can study cells, DNA, virus actions, etc. and get the same results. This is operational science.
Origins science is where the debate lies, but has zero impact on studying how things work now. The whole issue would go away if science would stick to this is what it is and this is what it does. It has no business tackling a religious/philosophical concern of where we came from.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Dave wonders why there are no “arguments of substance” against ID, but rather only what he characterizes as “oozing political/ Darwinist/ philosophical ideology”. Then he posts this quote from Behe “Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.”
and wonders why nobody addresses it logically (without the oozing).
So here goes.
Science works like this. Observation leads to hypothesis leads to experiment leads another observation to a conclusion. Enough consistent conclusions, accompanied by successful predictions from the observations, can get us to a theory, but that is not necessary for this discussion.
So lets look at what Behe has done.
Observation = perception of a “purposeful arrangement of parts”
Hypothesis = this arrangement of parts was designed
Experiment = ??????????????
Another observation = these other things look designed too
Conclusion = “involvement of a designer in life on earth”
Note how two important steps in the scientific method are omitted. Note how the conclusion is reached without doing any experiments, but is actually based only on the original observation (gee, this looks designed). Note that this is NOT science.
A caveat for those who think that Behe does, or cites, actual experiments. Pointing to actual experiments cited in the Edge of Evolution is irrelevant. Those experiments are cited in support of the notion that a caricature of modern evolutionary theory (aka “darwinism”) is incorrect. Even if Behe could prove that evolutionary theory is incorrect, it does NOT prove that his theory (design) is correct. He cites no positive observations in support of design, other than the original inference.
If Behe wants scientists to consider this as science, he will need to make predictions and do experiments. Conflating observation (”looks designed” with conclusion (”is designed” without predictive hypotheses and experiments is unscientific. As such, it rightly was rejected as science schoolroom material by the judge in the Dover case.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:20 am
It’s interesting that in all of the dust stirred up in these comments I have not seen a single one that actually deals with the contents of Behe’s book. There’s lots of name calling, accusations, and attempted character assasination… but not a single reference to whether or not the book contains valid information. The assumption seems to be “Behe is (insert choice of negative here) therefore the argument is over”. Sorry folks, that’s bad science akin to the mystics of the dark ages. Shame on you.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Chemfarmer Says:
“Why does anything associated with ID always seem to elicit a vitriolic response, mainly bitter name-calling, rather than much in the way of respectful reasoning?” and continues to theorize explanations for the (non existent) vitriol. Look at the postings here, and see for yourself how many evolutionists resorted to name calling.
Well, Chemfarmer, did you know that Dembski, yes that very same Dembski the leading luminary lawyer of Intelligent Design posted a youtube video of the Judge in Dover trial reading the judgment and added fart noises in the background? And you declare, as usual without any evidence, that it is the “evoltionists” and the “Darwninists” who resort to name calling and react with vitriol.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Is archaeology also a science of “giving up”? It must be- that is according to the illogic of the anti-IDists.
Is SETI the same? Would they give up once they determined a signal was from an alien civilization?
Also one must consider the alternative to ID- which would be sheer dumb luck- is completely void of scientific merit.
How to get around sheer dumb luck? Invoke the metaphysical explanation of a multiverse system.
Dawkins did not show, via scientific rigor, how a visual system could arise. And also all of Behe’s irreducibly complex structures still stand. IOW no one has shown how culled genetic accidents could have given rise to them.
In the end ID is NOT anti-evolution. The debate is about the mechanism- designed to evolve vs evoplved via culled genetic accidents.
IOW one can falsify ID just by substantiating their anti-ID position.
For those who focus on the “Wedge Doc” you probably should read the DI’s response- “The Wedge Doc, so what?”.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Here is one of the many links to the level intellect of
Dembski:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-Dembski
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dave.cfm
He made a you tube video of a talking doll with a pull-rope that reads out the Dover judgment. The doll represents the
judge and the various evolutionists are shown to be pulling the string. The audio is high pitched and has fart noises added at many places. Dembski made an offer to reduce the the “special effects” if the judge himself would agree to read the judgment for him.
Tell me Chemfarmer and other ID apologists, are you guys really proud of rallying behind Dembski?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:57 am
scott:
This is the main point of Behe’s book as iterated by DaveScot of UD at Dembski’s blog:
ID predicted that even billions of trillions of generations of RM+NS working in the real world are not enough to produce complex structures such as those we see in all living cells. This prediction was based on statistical probability. As we continue to explore the extents of the complexity in living things we are continually finding that it’s even more complex than we previously imagined. When we actually had an opportunity to examine what happened at the nucleotide level in billions of trillions of generations where random mutation and natural selection was working, thanks to the prolific and ly parasite p.falciparum, we found that the prediction made by ID held true - no significant novel complexity was generated. ID offers an explanation - no intelligent agency was involved so there were no complex structures generated. What explanation for this does neo-darwinian theory offer?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Ravilyn Sanders Said:
“Dawkins wrote a whole book explaining how the “irreducibly complex” eye could evolve, people have found the flagellum in various stages of evolution still living.”
I do not know which book you are referring to. The only explanation of the evolution of the eye that I have seen begins with the light sensitive spot (with no explanation of how it evolved) and continues with a series of more complex eyes that end with the vertebrate eye.
Now if Dawkins wrote a book explaining how the evolution of the visual system could evolve, then I would be more impressed. (I notice, too, that the operatvie verb is “could”, and not “did”.)
I would rephrase the classic question, “What good is 5% of an eye?” as follows. “What good is 100% of an eye?”
An eye is not a “stand-alone” part, just as a television camera is not a stand-alone intstrument. It needs lots of other “stuff’ to be useful.
So many detailed questions need to be answered before the evolution of the visual system can be said to have been explained.
I am not a biologist (I’m an engineer), and even I can see in general outline what is needed to build a visual system.
The eye must have a physical support structure adapted to its shape: eye socket and muscles.
The eye must have a signaling system to transmit the image to the brain: nerves.
The eye must have a brain to interpret the image so that the organism can respond according to the image presented.
The eye must have nourishment so it needs to have blood vessels routed to it.
The eye and all its associated parts must have construction instructions that specify how the visual system is built.
The construction of the visual system must have some kind of process control so that all the parts come together at the right time, and in the right relationship to each other.
Within each of these categories, there are many questions that must be answered as well.
I submit that the evolution of the eye has not been explained until we get a handle on how all of the various components of the visual system have evolved. I don’t see how each part could have evolved independently since there will be no functioning visual system until all the parts are in place, but I am willing to be shown.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Can’t understand why ID generates so much heat. Brings to mind a quote by William Murray, 1st earl of Mansfield: The greater the truth, the greater the libel.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Can any of the anti-IDists tell me what methodology was used to detremine that living organisms arose from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes?
And then what methodolgy was used to determine the subsequent evolution of all organisms rests solely with those same types of processes?
IOW how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum, for example, evolved via culled genetic accidents?
What predictions can be made from that mechanism?
Wm. Dembski and I do NOT see “eye-to-eye” on everything related to ID. I see that as a good thing as it invokes debate- constructive debate.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
ID proponents - will you be doing another hilarious flash animation, or are you too busy doing experiments?
Thanks!
September 25th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Neil Johnson wrote: “I submit that the evolution of the eye has not been explained until we get a handle on how all of the various components of the visual system have evolved. I don’t see how each part could have evolved independently since there will be no functioning visual system until all the parts are in place, but I am willing to be shown.”
No disagreement here. I might have missed it, but did anyone claim to have the entire explanation, or is that a straw man that you can conveniently set aflame? As I recall, the assertion was that Dawkins explained how the eye “could have evolved”, using data from paleontology, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, and phylogenetic analysis. This approach generates testable predictions, some of which will turn out to be true, and some which will be false. And all of them are getting us closer to the explanation, even though it may never be enough detail for many.
On the other hand, what is your explanation for the evolution of the eye? Does it generate testable hypotheses/ Have you (or anyone else) tested them? Until you get past the “think-poof” notion described in Genesis, it looks to me like science is ahead in the race to describe the evolution of the eye.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Science is supposed to increase our knowlege by providing evidence to substantiate a claim, so where is the evidence to back the prediction that random chance can form the complex interactive mechanical systems needed for life?
ID says that such complex interactive mechanical systems similar in function to those found in life are caused/formed by intelligence. The evidence for this is found almost everywhere one may look. One could start observing some of the best evidence by looking at the current intelligently designed space shuttle.
Would anyone like to question this positive empirical evidence for the positively proveable ability of intelligence to create complex interactive mechanical systems.
Can anyone provide evidence that anything other than intelligence is capable of forming such system arrangements?
September 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Gene, That’s the whole point of Behe’s book. You believe in the magical ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce stunning complexity. We Disagree! Behe uses real world demonstrations to prove that evolution is severely limited in its ability to produce complexity. You state that “similarities” between point A and point B prove that point B came from point A “naturally”. We Disagree! Behe provides concrete evidence that natural processes are insufficient to produce such complexity. What do you do? Instead of providing evidence of natural methods producing complexity you just restate your first statement “point A is similar to point B thus point B came from point A “naturally”.
To believe with no concrete proof is called faith the last time I checked. Therefore your belief in evolution to produce stunning complexity is no better than a fanatics blind adherence to a religion!
September 25th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Can any of the IDists tell me what methodology was used to detremine that living organisms arose from non-living matter via purely non-stochastic processes?
And then what methodolgy was used to determine the subsequent evolution of all organisms does not rest solely with those same types of processes?
IOW how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum, for example, was created by the “intelligent Designer”?
September 25th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Niel Jhonson,
The book is Climbing the Mount Improbable. Dawkins does not deny that the visual system is and the subsystems are as complex as you describe, or even more so. He does not deny that it looks impossible. It looks as though you are standing at the foot of a sheer cliff. It looks impossible anyone could climb this tall a cliff in one bound.
But the fallacy is you DONT HAVE TO CLIMB it one bound. Extending the analogy he shows that there is a gentle slope on the other side of the cliff. All that you need to climb this high is just small incremental improvements. If a small light sensitive patch helps one amoeba escape predators better than others, that is enough. Very small improvements, over millions of years could accumulate to such impossible to imagine complex structures. A 5% eye is better than a 1% and one percent eye is better than 0.0001% eye and even that is better than zero eyes.
You say, you are willing to be convinced. Fine, just hold the IDers to the same high skeptical standards. I mentioned the inability of humans to synthesize vitamin C. The code exists in our cells but we lack the enzyme needed to trigger the synthesis. Ask ID to give a clear explanation. The same level of unambiguity you demand from evolution for the eye. Evolution has stood the test of time and skeptics. It is not worried about skeptics. It is the people who are credulous about ID and skeptical about evolution who create trouble.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
John Edward wrote:
“Ensure that ‘it is not science’ and then you don’t have to engage with the arguments. Even though the arguments are all based on peer-reviewed science as Behe points out.”
Sorry, but that’s not how real science works. Real scientists test their hypotheses, producing new data even when the hypotheses are wrong. Controversies are resolved by new evidence (something Behe hasn’t done once since he took up the pseudoscience of ID ten years ago), not engaging with the arguments in a book designed to fool laypeople.
“The paucity of response suggests that very few have actually taken the time to read ID theory.”
The term “theory” is reserved for hypotheses that have a long track record of successful predictions, with those confirmations producing new knowledge. The notion of ID isn’t remotely close to being a theory, as none of its proponents have sufficient faith in it to put it to the test.
“Sound off as much as you like but there are serious problems for Darwinism…”
We moved beyond Darwin long ago, John. Didn’t you realize this? We have stuff like drift and horizontal transfer.
“… and ID theory is compelling if you studyhow cells work and the DNA database is built.”
I’ve done both cell biology and genetics, and ID is neither compelling nor a theory. Have you studied either of these subjects to the extent that you have produced new data?
“Talk from knowledge.”
Indeed!
“Engage with the facts on both sides and try and avoid the hysteria….”
If we’re doing science, we need to engage with the predictions and the data that come from testing them. There’s a mountain of data from evolutionary theory, and absolutely zero from the “other side.”
“If it so easily refuted just simply answer Behe’s arguemnts.”
Behe hasn’t produced a new datum in 10 years, choosing to deceive laypeople instead. That says it all.
——
gene wrote:
“I would rephrase the classic question, “What good is 5% of an eye?” as follows. “What good is 100% of an eye?””
Or better yet, contrast an eagle’s eye with ours, and ask, “What good is ~175% of a human eye?” (the eyes of eagles have two foveas to our one)
“An eye is not a “stand-alone” part, just as a television camera is not a stand-alone intstrument. It needs lots of other “stuff’ to be useful.”
Yes, but you haven’t thought in any depth about what stuff is required.
“I am not a biologist (I’m an engineer), and even I can see in general outline what is needed to build a visual system.”
Obviously, you don’t.
“The eye must have a physical support structure adapted to its shape: eye socket and muscles.”
Nope. There are plenty of eyes in nature that have no muscles, such as insect eyes and the pineal glands of early vertebrates (ours have evolved to process signals from the visual system).
“The eye must have a signaling system to transmit the image to the brain: nerves.”
Yes and no. The pineal gland (even ours) signals the entire body using endocrine mechansims, so you are completely, utterly, hopelessly wrong. This illustrates why real science is done by testing predictions of hypotheses, and why ID is pseudoscience that consists of quote-mining the works of real scientists.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Sorry, that was Neil Johnson I was responding to, not Gene.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Excellent article. Thanks.
Comments from ID proponents for the most part are reasoned and thoughtful. Most of the comments from Darwin proponents seem vitriolic. Such comments speak volumes.
Behe has done an excellent service for Darwin proponents; he has postulated a limit to the ability of random mutation to affect change in an organism.
Why wouldn’t anyone convinced of evolutionary processes NOT want to know about this finding of limits? Behe has replaced speculation with factual findings.
That’s good, isn’t it?
September 25th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Dear Gene (gene?)
Ummmm, a major problem with the data from paleontology, et.al. is that the data is simply data, not a real experiment by any stretch of the definition. How can past events generate predictions? I submit to you all the real experiments doen with bacteria and Drosophila have produced only mutant members of the same basic type of life form. No real EVOLUTION at all. And while you are at it, please read Neil Johnson’s appropriate analogy from the real world. Also please answer my previous question.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
John Edwards
puff . . .
Ensure that ‘it is not science’ and then you don’t have to engage with the arguments. Even though the arguments are all based on peer-reviewed science as Behe points out.
The paucity of response suggests that very few have actually taken the time to read ID theory.
Sure care to point me to the actual theory?
September 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Christopher,
How can past events generate predictions?
Things like: You will never find a hominid fossil in the Cambrian layer of sediments. You will never find fossils of Australopithecine in Antarctica.
Remember the great mammal-reptile jaw debate? Creationists were arguing mammalian jaw and reptilian jaw were attached to the skull (articulation is the technical term) in such a different way, mammals could not have evolved from the reptiles. Evolution predicted a common ancestor that would have evolved in two ways, one becoming reptiles and one becoming mammals. see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2
The fossils confirming the common ancestors were found eventually.
Now before you start more questions do some answering. The standard play book for ID is “ask questions, don’t listen for answers, ask more questions, trash the answers, ask more questions.” Why don’t you provide clear and concise examples of things explained better in ID than in evolution. Start from my current favorite, Vitamin C synthesis among humans.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ’simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
PS: Please don’t lie about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????
September 25th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
bornagain77,
You missed one. Materialism didn’t predict the internets.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Christopher Gieschen Says:
Ummmm, a major problem with the data from paleontology, et.al. is that the data is simply data, not a real experiment by any stretch of the definition.
By ruling out the use of historical data, you are denying the predictive power of astronomy, cosmology, several major branches of physics, archaeology, paleontology, most branches of geology, not to mention any kind of academic practice of history.
In that manner, you can’t prove that Napoleon ever existed. Certainly not Julius Caesar, either. By those suggestions, you can’t prove that the universe didn’t pop into existence on the day I was born. In fact, you can’t prove that you exist other than as a figment in my imagination…
So. To recap, we’ve ruled out the use of historical data to prove any time of evolution. We can only do controlled laboratory experiments. However, the types of changes observable in the typical human lifetime are too small to convince you. Do you see that you’ve painted yourself into a corner? The only way to look at data over long stretches of time is to look at historical “experiments” left in nature for us. But if you rule that out, and you rule out experiments in the lab as being too short, you’ve rather made it impossible to prove anything to you.
Would you call that wilful ignorance?
September 25th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
James Collins Says:
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
Do you promise that this is all it will take to convince you? Promise?
Google the J. Craig Venter Institute. Keep an eye on the news section of their webpage. From discussions with folks who work there, they are less than a year away from doing exactly that. I actually get the impression that they have already succeeded, but they’re not quite ready to publish.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
John Edward said: “The paucity of response suggests that very few have actually taken the time to read ID theory.”
I’ll read ID theory just as soon as ID proponents get around to working one up. Paul Nelson of hte Discovery Institute acknowledges, “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” - but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
September 25th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
James Collins said,
“Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over.”
Nope. The argument will not be over. You will start questioning the experiment and claim that the scientist cheated and continue to believe whatever you want to believe. Buddy, go ahead and believe in anything you want.
Just don’t come dunning for my tax dollars to preach that ideology to my children. Fair enough?
September 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Where is the ID science? So far, ID appears to be a public relations scheme. There are no papers, ID isn’t taught in Universities, and no recent discoveries are reported. In contrast, it seems odd that ID is pushed towards inclusion in grade school. Why is that? Read the Wedge Document to find out.
I recommend all IDists to demand that Behe, et al, send all their “research” to the Nobel Prize Committee. Surely, if what they claim about ID, not to mention what they claim about evolutionary science, is legit, numerous Nobel Prizes await.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
A compendium of reviews of “The Edge of Evolution”:
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#links
Here’s one example from a prominent biologist:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Coyne.cfm
“Professor Jerry Coyne addresses Michael Behe’s Reply to Coyne’s Review of Behe’s New Book”
Here’s more commentary by a grad student who points out that Behe’s claim, made in EoE, that HIV has no new genes is just plain wrong:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv_hiv_versus.html
“ERV and HIV versus Behe. Behe loses.”
September 25th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Glenn:
“Why wouldn’t anyone convinced of evolutionary processes NOT want to know about this finding of limits?”
Because Behe hasn’t found anything. In fact, his book is filled with falsehoods about real findings by real scientists who do real science–the best example is his false claim that HIV hasn’t evolved any new protein-protein interactions.
“Behe has replaced speculation with factual findings. That’s good, isn’t it?”
If he had produced some new findings, you’d have a point. However, all he’s done is cherry-pick and misrepresent the findings of others. If Behe has so much confidence in his hypothesis, why is he writing books aimed at laypeople instead of publishing some new findings?
Christopher Gieschen Says:
“How can past events generate predictions?”
Pretty easily. I’ll add another one: MET predicts precisely where new sequences will be placed in nested hierarchies derived from sequence identities and differences.
“I submit to you all the real experiments doen with bacteria and Drosophila have produced only mutant members of the same basic type of life form.”
I submit to you that you are moving the goalposts from speciation.
James Collins Says:
“If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.”
We certainly have far more knowledge than you, but cells aren’t simple. Nice straw man, though!
“…chance encounters…”
Natural selection is decidedly nonrandom.
“Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so.”
No, I believe that it is true because of the evidence. I’ve even tested predictions of evolutionary theory as a mere mouse geneticist.
“It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org.”
Lies and false analogies aren’t evidence. Why don’t you do an examination of the evidence published in the primary scientific literature?
“The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.”
We do! We even generate such evidence. What do you do?
“…Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????”
Natural selection is neither random nor accidental. It sounds like you have some reading to do.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
James Collins wrote: “Please don’t lie about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????”
First of all, abiogenesis is a separate question from evolution.
Second, you jump from “it’s a tough problem which hasn’t been solved yet” to “God did it.” That’s quite a leap. And how do you know that anyone “rightly” concluded God must have done it, if the problem isn’t solved yet?
Third, you seem to think it’s important to replicate in a lab what happened billions of years ago under conditions that are not well understood and which no longer exist. Very well, give me funding for a laboratory the size of a planet and equipment and personnel to run a few hundred millions years of experiments, and I’ll give it a shot.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Bornagain77 writes: “Gene, That’s the whole point of Behe’s book. You believe in the magical ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce stunning complexity. We Disagree!”
Well, that is certainly putting words in my mouth. They don’t fit. How about this? I understand (not believe) that science has provided us with testable (not magical) predictions for the production of complexity in the living organisms around us. I understand that others prefer magical explanations (the think-poof of genesis) or thinly disguised mathematical fallacies that allow them to try to get their magical beliefs into public schools. I disagree with that latter perspective, because it is not science under any reasonable definition of the term.
Bornagain again: “Behe uses real world demonstrations to prove that evolution is severely limited in its ability to produce complexity. You state that “similarities” between point A and point B prove that point B came from point A “naturally”. We Disagree! ”
More words that I never uttered. Y’know, there could be a lot of “invective” directed against the IDists on this board solely on the basis of behaviors like this. It’s a lie to say that someone else stated something that they did not state. Liars deserve to be called out, don’t you think? at any rate, Behe did not prove the limitations of evolution. He mismanaged the math, proceeded from bad assumptions, and never proved anything about his pet notion, intelligent design. This is all documented in the book reviews cited by others in this thread. Here’s a challenge for you, BA77. Read ERV’s critique of Behe’s blatherings about HIV and point out, specifically and with citations from the primary literature, where she is wrong and he is right. Just saying that Behe proved X does not make it so. And do recall that you are not on your home site, where Dave and Bill can ban naysayers so that you can proclaim victory. Prove it, with citations and logic, rather than quotes and assertions. Please.
Bornagain yet again: “Behe provides concrete evidence that natural processes are insufficient to produce such complexity. What do you do? Instead of providing evidence of natural methods producing complexity you just restate your first statement “point A is similar to point B thus point B came from point A “naturally”.”
More words in my mouth that did not originate there. Where, exactly, did this point A and point B thing get said by me?
Bornginally: “To believe with no concrete proof is called faith the last time I checked. Therefore your belief in evolution to produce stunning complexity is no better than a fanatics blind adherence to a religion!”
And your statement also has a name - projection.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Don’t you love it when someone refers you to the talkorigins site? I find the site wonderful to obtain material for science fiction books.
If Darwinism evolution is all that and then some, why do they have a problem? If they have such an airtight argument, why are there debates at all? If Darwinism was packed with facts, they could probably sit home and just relax instead of replying to other ideas outside of their belief, trying to convince ppl that Darwinism evolution is true, has many facts, and blah blah blah.
Darwinism ought to have the nads to say, “go ahead ID’ers, present your case and let the world hear, and let the world decide who presents a better case for the origins of life.”
If Darwinians think ID is unscientific, then step aside, and allow people to come to their own conclusions. Does it have to continually be suppression of minds, thought, and speech? No freedom of inquiry allowed?
The way I see it, if Darwinian evolutionists don’t have a problem with their origins of life facts, then they shouldn’t have a problem with anyone else’s origins of life facts either. You can say ID is not scientific, but neither is Darwinism.
Everyone has a choice of what to wear, what to eat, etc. Everyone should have a choice to what they want to believe on the origins of life as well.
~M
September 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
There isn’t much to say on the lack of science and errors that riddles Behe’s latest book that hasn’t been said better by evolutionary biologists in countless other reviews. One can but note the gems like when Behe claims that the RNA virus HIV contains DNA. Or when he claims flagellar systems must contain the very gene that his flag ship the malaria parasite lacks.
But that is pitiful fuel for the laughs that follows Behe wherever he goes. Here he has managed to compound his mistakes by claiming that most evolutionary variation “either break or degrade genes”. I’m sure that comes as a surprise to biologists who has found by observation that most genomic changes are neutral.
Also witness his inability of defining observational “evidence” and “test”. This is the mark of a man who is straying from earlier work into the empty wasteland of socio-religious movements.
Well, okay, just for kicks some more specific Behe errors:
When the motions of the galaxies away from the earth was first observed in the 1930s, that led to the Big Bang hypothesis.
Notice how easily Behe repeat the standard creationist lie. Friedmann’s expanding universe solution of GR and Lemaître’s big bang theory was made before Hubble discovered the cosmological expansion 1929.
If I had 10 c for every lie of a creationist…
I see that a commenter thinks this is a ‘great quote’. The odd thing that it is so easy to check. I mean, it is evident since the Dover trial transcript that Behe by his own words doesn’t get his material from science papers, but probably from random readings of scientists popular books. But what excuse can literate individuals make?
Intelligent design is science because it is based completely on physical data - the molecular machinery of cells - plus ordinary logic.
Right. With that definition atheism is science too.
But I’m sure Behe didn’t want to imply that. He is satisfied with lumping ID creationism with astrology. (See the Dover trial transcript.)
Who knows, as he tries to correct his new definition for science, he might accidentally stumble on the real deal. But we won’t hold our breath. After all, Behe is the one who believes evolutionary processes works without the power of selection…
September 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
An explanation of how an eye could evolve has been given and is well within the parameters of reason. An explanation of how bacteria flagellum could have evolved and most likely did, and is well within the parameters of reason. Both through natural means.
At what point does IC become just another “sciency” sounding bogus term/concept that was concocted by the agenda driven people behind ID?
How about a new one?….mmmmmmm..wait…wait..I got it, “Gazornaplatts”!…Let the Darwinist invalidate the concept of Gazornaplatts!
September 25th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
A excellent review is here for EOE
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/entertainment/books/20070819_Pa__scientist_again_attacks_evolution.html
Here Behe defends himself against one of the more, shall I say, “respectable” attempts at refutation:
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206
Here is an excerpt from the Philadelphia Inquirer
Behe’s new book, The Edge of Evolution, provides some hard numbers, coupled with an ingenious argument. The key to determining the exact powers of Darwinian evolution, says Behe, lies with fast-reproducing microbes. Some, such as malaria, HIV, and E. coli, reproduce so quickly that within a few decades, or at most a few millennia, they generate as many mutations as a larger, slower-breeding animal would in millions of years. By observing how far these creatures have evolved in recent times, we can estimate the creative limits of random mutation.
In the case of malaria, the creative limits appear quite low. Over the last few thousand years, several thousand billion billion malarial cells have been unable to develop an evolutionary response to the sickle-cell mutation, which protects its human bearers from malaria. On the other hand, malaria has proved able to develop Darwinian resistance to the antibiotic chloroquine. This resistance is based upon two simultaneous mutations affecting a malarial protein. Yet this rare double mutation has occurred fewer than 10 times since chloroquine was introduced 50 years ago, during which time a hundred billion billion malarial cells have been born. If this indicates the typical rate of occurrence of double mutations, then the Darwinian transformation of our pre-chimp ancestor into homo sapiens, which would have required at least some double mutations, would have taken at least a thousand trillion years, a time span greater than the age of the universe.
Drawing upon parallel mutation studies of HIV and E. coli for confirmation, Behe concludes that random mutations cannot explain the origin of most of the complex structures in living things. He concedes that Darwinian processes can make new species, but argues that they are incompetent to generate new kingdoms, phyla, or classes. The creative limit, the “edge of evolution,” lies somewhere between the level of species and the level of class. Darwinian processes can account for the difference between a dog and a wolf, maybe even a dog and a bear, but not the difference between a lizard and a bird. Something other than random mutation must have produced such differences; for Behe, the “something” is intelligent design.
The response to Behe has been predictable. The editors of the major print media have assigned known enemies of ID to trash the book - Richard Dawkins for the New York Times; Coyne for the New Republic; Miller for Nature; Ruse for Toronto’s Globe & Mail. A large part of each review is ad hominem, concerned with Behe’s alleged religious agenda, his minority status among biologists, and other irrelevant matters. In Dawkins’ review, the science is barely touched, and it’s not clear from Ruse’s review that he has even opened the cover of the book. Behe deserves better. The Edge of Evolution makes a serious, quantitative argument about the limits of Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary biology cannot honestly ignore it.
Whereas the student’s (ERV’s) attempt at refutation included “literature bluffing”…i.e. When put on the spot for evidence, by scordova at UD, she admitted that the VPU gene originated prior to infecting humans and in fact could not specify the exact time when it originated since it was beyond the hard observed data of empirical science…
September 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Another review that deals explicitly with Behe’s book, and shows how evolution in a multicellular eukaryote refutes Behe in no uncertain terms. It’s a subject that the ID vanguard has been confusing and ducking for more than 5 years. And it’s one that Behe is astute to avoid, because it lays waste his claims.
Enjoy.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/reality-1-behe.html
September 25th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Most everyone against ID seems to assume that the “Intelligent Agent” is God. And, since “God” is “all powerful, wise and good” he/she/it would not “botch the job”. Seems to me that using theology against ID “is not science”. Who says that the Intelligent Agent(s) is “God”?
Can’t there exist any intelligent agent smarter than man or less than the “omnipotent God”?
September 25th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Mar says “Everyone has a choice of what to wear, what to eat, etc. Everyone should have a choice to what they want to believe on the origins of life as well.”
Mar, You believe in whatever you want to believe in. From Flat Earth Society, to invisible pink rubber bands theory to explain gravity, to Flying Spaghetti Monster to whatever.
Just promise you will not claim your belief is science.
Don’t demand your private beliefs to be taught as science in my child’s school. Don’t run stealth candidates to school boards.
OK peace on earth.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Art;
In the case of T-urf-13, aren’t we dealing with: (a) mitochondrial plant DNA which, in the case of cms, is known to produce chimeric proteins (thus novelty is questionable), and (b) whose genetic mechanisms aren’t fully understood, and (c), in the case of ‘maize’, had to at some time been subjected to artificial selection, and therefore not a relevant comparison to what RM/NS will do “in the wild”?
It seems an act of desperation when you have to hide behind some very questionable evidence to make your case against what Behe so clearly illustrates to be the limits of evolution.
I mean really and truly Art, can you not come up with countless examples that are not so vague as this one example you quote, Evolution is such a overriding principle of life is it not?…In reality we should not be having this discussion, because the evidence you would have should be so overwhelming that it would be clear that you could point to countless examples of proteins originating…What do we get after years of PT pundits vainly searching for conclusive proof in which to slay ID with…A SINGLE very questionable example in T-urf-13!!! Excuse me for being underwhelmed by your example Art!!!
September 25th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
That review is written by Cameron Wybrow, which dissertation is on theology.
That IDC needs a religious scholar to find a positive review isn’t surprising. The expert biologists are negative.
Jerry Coyne ends his review of Behe’s creationism:
He finds the book so bad and repetitive from Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box that he can’t be bothered to repeat his standing criticism. (Which Behe still hasn’t answered.)
Nick Matzke pulls down Behe’s creationist pants on a technical detail that again shows Behe’s inability to study literature:
And of course even a biological graduate student, a working expert on HIV, can reveal some of Behe’s mistakes.
Bornagain77:
It is an outright lie that there was any bluffing. ERV noted from the beginning that the HIV gene Vpu that Behe bluffed hadn’t acquired new functions originated in the SIV.
The point that scordova hammered was predicted by ERV from the beginning when she noted that ID creationists would hammer on that the gene wasn’t new, while the acquired function she discussed was. Read
the article to get to the truth. When it concerns creationists you can’t rely on what they claim.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Behe says there seem to be limits to what evolution can accomplish, based on the currently accepted mechanisms. Critics say there are not. But it seems that the main objection is because of the implications of the science, not the science itself.
Now, any dog breeder will tell you there are limits to what selection can do. It’s the mechanism for making the big leaps that has problems. As for myself, I never judged the explanations for the large jumps to be very compelling (much less the evidence for them). And the theory that large jumps were made gradually makes no sense to me at all.
But, if your religion requires a belief that there is no God, then I suppose you have to accept it on faith.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Bornagain77’s memory apparently needs some work. He writes:
Yet in ERV’s original post she writes:
see: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv_hiv_versus.html
So it was not “when pressured” that ERV admitted some sinister mistake that was covered up with “literature bluffing”. And it wasn’t a mistake. And evidently bornagain77 can’t be bothered to read the articles people write before critiquing them.
Perhaps bornagain77 would like to apologize to ERV, but I doubt it.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Whereas the student’s (ERV’s) attempt at refutation included “literature bluffing”…i.e. When put on the spot for evidence, by scordova at UD, she admitted that the VPU gene originated prior to infecting humans and in fact could not specify the exact time when it originated since it was beyond the hard observed data of empirical science…”
So Sally owns a time machine? Sweet!
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html
September 25th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Someone above wrote:
Why does anything associated with ID always seem to elicit a vitriolic response, mainly bitter name-calling, rather than much in the way of respectful reasoning? The vitriol seems to me to be motivated by more than a desire to protect science from pseudoscience. When is the last time you went after anything else you considered pseudoscience with anywhere near this kind of passion? You are reacting exactly as if your religion were being attacked, and it reflects poorly on your intelligence and self control.
Because snake oil can kill.
I think all you folks who think there is something to this ID thing should all go and post at Richarddawkins.net/forum/ or iidb.org or pandasthumb.org etc and actually try to use your understanding of gods whatever to sustain a rational conversation or investigation using that knowledge.
My guess? you will end up failing miserably. But, that’s just a guess.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“Joe G Says:
Also one must consider the alternative to ID- which would be sheer dumb luck- is completely void of scientific merit.”
Joe G,
Well, let’s just see. Sheer Dumb Luck (SDL) as a theory:
Observation: Evolution of species over time has occurred and follows the phylogenetic classification system. (speciation).
Hypothesis 1: SDL accounts for the diversity of species.
Hypothesis 2: Various genetic mutations plus natural selection account for the diversity of species.
Hypothesis 3: Intelligent Design accounts for the diversity of species.
Not sure why we should be considering H1 as the alternative to H3. I mean all (100%) of the observed evidence supports H2.
Just sayin. You go ahead and keep up the good fight though, don’t let me stop you.
Oh yeah, “support your argument” you might say. Well, I did say all. Refuting me should be easy…
September 25th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I do apologize for misquoting you ERV…by the way how is that whole atheist thing working for you? Can get pretty hopeless at times I bet! Hope that all changes for you…I really do!!!
Now to the evidence…The point being in your refutation of Behe is that you claimed novelty…Yet you went beyond the bounds of observable data and made an inference…Whereas Behe stays within observable data and makes his inference…Thus your conclusion although very suggestive does not carry as much weight scientifically as Behe does..You must refute hard observable science with hard observable science!!!
September 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
bornagain77 sez:
“When put on the spot for evidence, by scordova at UD, she admitted that the VPU gene originated prior to infecting humans and in fact could not specify the exact time when it originated since it was beyond the hard observed data of empirical science.”
Bzzt! Try again.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I am currently writing a book on the neglected companion of Intelligent Design, Malevolent Design. The main thesis is that if there be a creator deity then he/she/it would be evil and delight in our torture. The biological aspect can be summarized with two questions. Why did the creator design the mosquito, the world’s number one deadliest insect? Why did the creator design pathogens to be carried along inside it? Mosquitoes are a highly sucessful vector of diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, west nile virus, etc. The environmental aspect can be summarized by asking, Why did the creator design deadly weather systems and various other producers of natural disasters? Why invent tornadoes? Why invent hurricanes? Why invent volcanoes, avalanches, hail, lightning, tsunamis and earthquakes? The cosmological aspect: Why did the creator make our sun so deadly? It causes millions of new cases of skin cancer every year! And no wonder, it’s a nuclear reactor blasting our planet with potentially deadly radiation! Why invent comets and asteroids that slam into our planet? Why make the universe so incredibly hostile to our existence? The mythological: Within the fictional tome known as the Bible, said deity shows his evil in various ways: the design, creation and implementation of Hell, the creation of Satan, the massive death and destruction of The Flood, etc. Chronological: All of time would’ve been designed by the creator deity. In Christianity it’s known as the Divine Plan. Every thought and every action would be preordained and free will would be nothing but an illusion. We would have been born, unknowingly, into a play where all the props and lines were created by a god. All good and all evil would be his doing. This is actually admitted in Isaiah 45: 6-7. Every rape, every molestation, every murder would all just be part of the script! Through a detailed examination of these five points we can clearly see that if there be a god, he/she/it is evil. This, of course, leaves the believer with a dilemma. Should I continue to worship such a being?
September 25th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Bornagain77
Let’s try again. You accuse ERV of “literature bluffing”, so you should be able to handle my precious request for some literature citations to back up your assertions. We might need to refresh you memory about the facts, since you seem caught up in some mythological mist about the realities.
Behe said “Like malaria, HIV is a microbe that occurs in astronomical numbers. What’s more, its mutation rate is 10,000 times greater than that of most other organisms. So in just the past few decades HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have endured since the beginning of the world. Yet all those mutations, while medically important, have changed the functioning virus very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. There is no new molecular machinery. If we see that Darwin’s mechanism can only do so little even when given its best opportunities, we can decisively conclude that random mutation did not build the machinery of life.”
ERV noted that the Vpu gene in HIV has two different functions, involving new protein-protein interaction, that do not seem to be present in ancestral Vpu genes in ancestral viruses. This has occurred within the last 80-90 years or so. This is a direct contradiction to Behe’s specific assertion above, but also to his generic assertion that evolution of novel protein-protein interactions is damn near impossible in time frames that matter.
You say that ERV is wrong, but provide nothing other than your opinion and an irrelevant posturing from Sal Cordova, another known liar.
I will ignore the fact that you have not addressed several other criticisms in my previous post, but I will continue to ask you the question posed there. Accusing others of literature bluffing is downright hypocritical if you can’t “point out, specifically and with citations from the primary literature, where she is wrong and he is right.” I do have access to that primary literature, so please don’t be tempted to bluff. You will end up where Sal ended up, and besides, I do recall that there is some commandment in your book that proscribes lying, even to heathens.
Thanks in advance.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was designed?
By using the tried and true design detection techniques scientists have been using for decades.
“The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.”- Dr Behe
“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed”
Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education
Also abiogenesis is NOT a separate question for the very logical reason that if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes there would be no reason those types of processes are solely responsible for any subsequent evolution.
And Art, your nonsense has been refuted. Artificial selection is not natural selection. Duh.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Ooops - Behe has been a bit too generous in granting even the slightest concession to Darwinian processes as accounting for minor changes in biological systems.
Biological systems consistantly coming up with what is “necessary” for surival (and this may encompass anything from curtailing its populations to increasing them)has no relation to the idea of beneficially fortuitous mutations.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I don’t think many borderline supporters of ID or creationism have any idea of how it is regarded by biologists. Go to any biology department in any university that does not require you to sign a statement of religious belief and ask if ID has anything to support it. You will quickly discover that most biologists find the idea so ludicrous that they feel there is no point in bothering with it, rather as if you asked them whether there really are fairies at the bottom of the garden.
The remainder also find the idea ludicrous, but are alarmed by the political and public relations drive by non-biologists to have their particular version of pseudoscience imposed in schools.
As others have pointed out, there is no theory of intelligent design. Moreover, the ‘evidence’ for it is in fact long-refuted criticisms of the theory of evolution. There is not one jot of positive evidence to support ID. It is merely an empty shell to push a fundamentalist version of religion.
A previous commentator asked how it is possible to make predictions about events in the past. A group of researchers wanted to study fossils transitional between fish and amphibians. Their knowledge of the theory of evolution enabled them to predict the type, age and place of deposition of rocks where such a fossil might be found. Their knowledge of the theory of plate tectonics allowed them to predict where these rocks would have moved to by now. So off they went and found Tiktaalik, just what they were looking for in the place where they expected to find it.
ID, on the other hand, only seems to make predictions after they are known to be true.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“Art;
In the case of T-urf-13, aren’t we dealing with: (a) mitochondrial plant DNA which, in the case of cms, is known to produce chimeric proteins”
Not in this case.
…” (b) whose genetic mechanisms aren’t fully understood,”
Not in this case.
…” and (c), in the case of ‘maize’, had to at some time been subjected to artificial selection, and therefore not a relevant comparison to what RM/NS will do “in the wild”?”
Just plain wrong. Random variation and natural selection is random variation and natural selection. It doesn’t matter, especially for Behe’s arguments, what the source of selective pressure is.
(Of course, bornagain77 and JoeG conveniently forget the fact that Behe’s whole book is built around a case of “artificial” selection, of resistant Plasmodium parasites exposed to a man-made pharmaceutical in entirely contrived conditions. Do you really wish to diss Behe in this way, bornagain77 and JoeG?)
“It seems an act of desperation when you have to hide behind some very questionable evidence to make your case against what Behe so clearly illustrates to be the limits of evolution.”
LOL. The evidence is clear and unequivocal - three “CCC”’s in a period of time Behe insists cannot accommodate such changes.
“I mean really and truly Art, can you not come up with countless examples that are not so vague as this one example you quote,”
LOL.
There’s nothing vague about Turf13. Its a plain-as-day example of something Behe insists cannot happen.
“…In reality we should not be having this discussion, because the evidence you would have should be so overwhelming that it would be clear that you could point to countless examples of proteins originating…”
Well, bornagain77, we are having this discussion because you cannot deal with facts. You’re not alone. Mike Behe is also ducking the facts, as he should. It won’t help sales for him to admit the obvious.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Gene:
The whole point of Behe’s book, whether or not the VPU generation of a few protein binding sites were truly a “unobserved” random event within the 80 or 90 years or not, is that the “mutational powerhouses” of HIV and Malaria are producing exceedingly trivial results in much longer generation times for total populations than all the other populations of higher complex lifeforms that have ever existed on the face of earth!!!!… So what!!!! A few controversial protein binding sites that out of observed range! …The Neo-Darwinism (fairy tale) tells us that in less amount of generation times, for all higher life forms on earth, the entire diversity of higher life-forms sprang up and spread throughout the earth into the stunning diversity we now see…from a single common ancestor no less!!!!… Can’t you see the problem?!? Is it that hard for you to see that there may be something more behind the complexity of life on earth than your simplistic materialistic view!!!
September 25th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
We discussed excerpts from Behe’s latest book in my religion and science class today. Rather than repeat them in detail here, I’ll just share a link to a blog entry I posted today, reflecting on one particular point in Behe’s argument and today’s class more generally.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/monkeys-and-typewriters-on-edge-of.html
September 25th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
It’s just hilarious. I think the current evolutionary paradigm as promulgated by our atheist betters is as dead as can be as a reasonable intellectual position. The corpse reeks more with each passing discovery in molecular biology. And I think their dead philosophy has a stranglehold on our civilization as it attempts to pull it down into the grave with it.
In summary, I see atheistic Darwinism as very bad science, unsupported by the evidence, unfalsifiable as currently practiced, and a mortal long term threat to society.
But do you k