Behe on Colbert

Here is a link to the video, from Comedy Central "Motherload":

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=90952

Is Behe still on that ludicrous explanation that says the following? Does he not realize that if his ideas are based in such faulty logic, he is going to have a problem? How can he not see the problem with his claim?

Claim:
Because X doesn't perform the function that WE have identified,then X without sub-component z is "nonfunctional"? Further, who is to say that without 1/2 of the wood that goes into a conventional mousetrap, it wouldn't still trap a mouse? What if it were plastic or stone instead of wood? What if the metal were aluminum instead? Could it still trap a mouse? What if something other than a block of cheese were placed in the trap (does it function as a mousetrap if a mouse is not actually caught in the trap? If so, how do you know that a given implementation of a mousetrap is indeed a mousetrap!?... but I digress)? Further, from a psychological perspective, the mousetrap was likely designed to be as simple, efficient, and cost effective as the human mind could develop at the time it was developed.

The errors in logic abound, but this is the false dichotomy (either it is a mousetrap or it has no function) in sheep's clothing.

He must know the error the of his claim, but he used it on The Report because he figured it would be easy enough for the simpleton audience to understand. It appears he doesn't think too highly of them.

There are at least two important point about the mouse trap analogy: that you CAN make a mouse trap without all of its typical ingredients, and that the ingredients can be used for other useful things. I was suprised and delighted that Colbert mentioned the latter.

Why surprised? This is what Colbert does. He NEVER has a guest on whose argument he doesn't know how to discuss, and refute. When Johnny Carson had Uri Geller on his show, he sought out James Randi to teach him how to properly test Geller. Because of this Geller was a complete flop on The Tonight Show. I think Colbert does the same thing.

Thanks for the vid!

Best line: "... so you're saying that you are to Darwin what Einstein was to Newton?"

After watching that clip, I give Behe a C- in science history.

Tony: Aluminum might work for a while as a spring, but it would fail due to metal fatigue sooner than steel. Peanut butter works better as bait than cheese.

Wow--what happened, I thought Behe had a new book to sell, but all I heard was the same tired old crap about teeny-weenie factories with itsy-bitsy machines, and...mousetraps! Hasn't Einstein, er, Behe, heard about the problems with his mousetrap? Is Behe trying to drive down science enrollment at Lehigh?

Gods, Behe is a One-Note Johnny! Mousetraps, factories, trucks and busses; it's just a rehash of DBB. Colbert rulez: he knew the right talking points to prompt Behe to say stupid things -- like trying to deny he's playing Einstein to Darwin's Newton, when that's exactly what he's doing, and he's nowhere near being able to wear those shoes. I wonder if Behe understood the schtick.

Need I say more?

Unfortunately, I bet the average viewer will walk away with the idea that evolution has limits, if he walks away with any idea at all. Most people have the idea that a "sciency" subject in the popular media is genuine science.

I'm surprised.

Does no one here understand that the science really never was the issue for intelligent design? It's even explicitly stated:

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."

The science was just one possible gateway into schools, where they can preach and attempt to convert people. Failing that, they'll try something else. So lambasting Behe for his bad science is hardly worth it.

People have read about the Wedge Strategy... right?

"The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic,

The militant atheists here on scienceblogs are just playing into the hands of Intelligent Design.

He must know the error the of his claim, but he used it on The Report because he figured it would be easy enough for the simpleton audience to understand. It appears he doesn't think too highly of them.

He knows what works.

Of course the motivation is not science, but ideology. However, when these people come before school boards, they aren't saying "we need to bring Jesus back into our schools" (because they know they can't get away with that). So they are saying (with a wink and a nudge) "Here's science that provides an 'alternative' to that evolution stuff." It is most unfortunate if they can convince anyone that what they're talking about is really science.

So they are saying (with a wink and a nudge) "Here's science that provides an 'alternative' to that evolution stuff." It is most unfortunate if they can convince anyone that what they're talking about is really science.

Exactly. Showing that they are wrong about the science aspect is important, but harping about how stupid they are from a science aspect is pointless. The best track to take is the track taken by people like Ken Miller and others. Show that creationism/ID is wrong, then show that it's not even necessary.

David wrote:

Showing that they are wrong about the science aspect is important, but harping about how stupid they are from a science aspect is pointless. The best track to take is the track taken by people like Ken Miller and others.

I agree. For us to be screaming "you bloody idiots" all the time makes it look like an emotional issue for us, rather than a rational one. Many people will be looking at how we say what we say, more than the content, which most aren't really capable of evaluating anyway. If they buy into the process, they're more likely to accept the conclusions.

militant atheists

The people I think are doing the most harm are the ones who exude the most hatred towards the anti-science faction, to the point of looking irrational. Littering their posts with profanity certainly doesn't help; it demonstrates a lack of sophistication that I find embarrassing to be associated with.

For us to be screaming "you bloody idiots" all the time makes it look like an emotional issue for us, rather than a rational one.

It depends on who we are saying this to. It's one thing to say this to people who don't know that ID is wrong, and they shouldn't believe it. Telling them that Behe is an idiot (I actually don't think he is, I think he, Dembski and others are just willing to use bad science to push even worse theology), may very well be a good thing. Telling each other that they are idiots just makes us sound emotional, arrogant, and not really concerned about the issues we say we are concerned about. Remarkably like the very people we are supposed to be against.

The people I think are doing the most harm are the ones who exude the most hatred towards the anti-science faction, to the point of looking irrational.

I would disagree. The individuals doing the most harm are the one's who equate science with atheism and religion with delusion. ID wants to draw a line in the sand. "Either pick "atheistic" science and be godless, immoral people, or pick religion and be good individuals". It does not help the side of good science to make the line deeper.

Now, I will admit, most of those are also the individuals who exude the most hatred for the anti-science faction. Some aren't though.

Telling them that Behe is an idiot (I actually don't think he is, I think he, Dembski and others are just willing to use bad science to push even worse theology), may very well be a good thing.

Well, maybe. I think it depends on their current opinion of Behe. If you start a conversation telling someone that their hero is an idiot, you may jeopardize your ability to tell them anything.

I generally find it more helpful to begin any debate by saying something to the effect of "Yes, I understand how you might have that point of view, but consider this..."

I believe the trust relationship you develop with your readers, listeners, debate partners determines in the end the degree to which you can persuade them to your point of view.

Well, maybe. I think it depends on their current opinion of Behe. If you start a conversation telling someone that their hero is an idiot, you may jeopardize your ability to tell them anything.

It depends on the way you tell them and who they are. If you are already friends, then it might in fact be better to be brutally honest.

I believe the trust relationship you develop with your readers, listeners, debate partners determines in the end the degree to which you can persuade them to your point of view.

That's a good point, and one that I wish more people realized.

Just watched the Behe/Colbert clip, and I gotta say, I just found it depressing. I'm a little surprised anyone thinks it's anything other than pretty good p.r. for Behe and his book. If you know his b.s. already, he looks pathetic. But I'd guess that for most people who don't (and that's probably 99% of viewers), he came across as reasonable and good-humored - and what is most important for his purposes, easily comprehensible while just "sciencey" and scholarly enough. Colbert's jabs were far too mild and subtle to make any difference in this.

I'd have rather Colbert not given him the publicity, but of course the host doesn't have substantive concerns as his first agenda anymore than Behe does - ratings and lulz are the priority, which is the nature of the game he's in.

To David and Nathan:

So they're allowed to cover rational scientific arguments with their bird-droppings, and we're not allowed to whack them with rhetorical sticks?

I'm supposed to somehow address the screaming ID nuts, who provide no science, no support, and no functional argument for their point of view, as if they're serious?

Screw that. The apes at the zoo chatter loudly, but I am not obliged to say "I respect your argument" to them. Particularly when their response to logic and science is to fling their faeces at it.

Atheist militancy in this context is a null value. Keep your faith in churches and don't pretend it's a substitute for science, and we'll get along famously. That's all the rationalists have ever asked.