Having spent considerable time pointing out the inconsistencies and problems in Michael Behe's testimony in the Dover trial, I was curious to see how he felt about it. And here he is on an ID blog giving his perspective on it:
The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.
In point of fact, Behe's answer on this particular point was quite useful to the plaintiff's. Indeed, Eric Rothschild used it in his closing argument. He said:
Professor Behe's testimony and his book Darwin's Black Box is really one extended insult to hard working scientists, and to the scientific enterprise. For example, Professor Behe asserts in Darwin's Black Box that "the scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system" and "the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration." I showed Professor Behe more than 50 articles, as well as books on the evolution of the immune system. He had not read most of them, but he confidently, contemptuously, dismissed them as inadequate. He testified that it is a waste of time to look for answers about how the immune system developed.
Indeed he did. On the stand, Behe said that because he is "not confident" that there is an evolutionary explanation for the immune system, it would "not be fruitful" to even examine the issue. Thus, he doesn't have to actually read the research and theoretical work on the evolution of the immune system in order to know that it won't satisfy him. But then mere moments after giving that answer, when asked why he hadn't actually gone about testing his ideas about irreducible complexity, he said that it was up to someone who thought they were false to do that work, it wasn't his problem. It's not fruitful for him to try and test evolutionary explanations for such systems, or even to bother reading any of the work on the subject, and it's not fruitful for him to test his own explanations either. What exactly is left here, Professor Behe?
You would think that someone who thinks he has a revolutionary scientific theory - remember that in his book he declared that this was an idea on par with the greatest discoveries in all of science - would be quite anxious to go about testing that idea, to establish its validity empirically and put that research before the world. Alas, he doesn't think that would be "fruitful". And the only attempt he has made to even look at the theoretical possibility that IC systems could not evolve, his paper with David Snoke, showed exactly the opposite, that even with the most absurd and limiting parameters an IC biochemical system can evolve in a relatively short period of time.
In his closing statement, Rothschild pointed out that in the 10 years since Behe's book was published - a book that Behe claims contains testable hypotheses that can spur on research - not a single peer reviewed paper had been published advocating his ideas (and his own paper, as noted above, contradicts it). By comparison, just one of the plaintiff's experts, Kevin Padian, had published more than 100 articles in the scientific literature. And in his book, Behe admits that a scientific theory that does not publish must perish, yet the scientific theory he claims to have has resulted in no publishing at all, no positive research in its favor. Given that, it takes either a transcendant amount of chutzpah or impenetrable cognitive dissonance for him to declare that the side with quite literally all of the research on its side has nothing but "rhetoric and bluster."
- Log in to post comments
Gee whilikers, in what reality does Behe dwell? It appears that he hesitates to test because he fears failure, and in his case, failure does not suggest new avenues of inquiry. Or, perhaps, in his astrology-encompassing New Science, testing is not necessary?
Just to point out, even if Behe doesn't want to carry out the tests, others would be capable of carrying them out. It is interesting, though, that Behe is reluctant to carry them out himself, since it is probable that he would be competant to do so.
Behe has discovered that its much simpler and vastly more profitable to regally dismiss out of hand the hard work of others with nary a glance at it, than to do any hard scientific work himself.
Plus, he probably realizes that his supposed 'tests' of ID do nothing of the sort. At the very most, such tests can only falsify IC, and only for that particular system.
So what? He's already said not all biological systems are IC and some are perfectly amenable to formation through evolution, even if they don't meet his *molecule-by-molecule standard of evidence for evolutionary pathways (that's as opposed to the broad 'astrology is a science too' standard he applies to ID). This would no more falsify ID than finding a plausible evolutionary pathway for the bombardier beetle falsified old fashioned creationism. They can just mosey over to another example, just as the old timers had done before them.
*Actually Behe has 3 scientific standards.
1. His standard for biochemical systems that he doesn't claim are irreducibly complex (e.g. haemoglobin system): He pretty much simply agrees with the evolutionists.
2. His standard for biochemical systems that he does claim to be irreducibly complex (e.g. immune system): He insists upon a step-by-step list of mutations, a detailed account of all the selective pressures, a list of any difficulties that the organism would face under the listed selective pressures, the population sizes of all the relevant species at each step, any possible interferences, and much more. Only then, will he be convinced. No doubt he'd have to see your research before he sprang some of that "much more' on you.
3. His standard for ID: The negetive case: Hey, you didn't convince me via #2.
The positive case: Its designed if it looks designed.
"Given that, it takes either a transcendant amount of chutzpah or impenetrable cognitive dissonance for him..."
I have to start thinking it is both, given what you quote from his ID blog about that day in court.
"Only then, will he be convinced. No doubt he'd have to see your research before he sprang some of that "much more' on you."
This would assume that he would actually read any of it in the first place. From his own testimony, and even his disdainful quotes, he seems too unwilling to bother reading journals, studies, research papers, reports, that may contain material contradictory of his own views.
"it takes either a transcendant amount of chutzpah or impenetrable cognitive dissonance for him to declare"
Cognitive dissonance assumes cognition. Behe is simply babbling what others have told him to with no care for what damage it does to any credibility he might still want to claim.
In Orwell's terms, Behe is a doubleplusgood duckspeaker that has mastered doublethink. He loves Big Brother, and that is all that matters to him.
I think DaveS hits the nail squarely on the head here. He claims that ID is testable and the test is providing an evolutionary explanation for those systems he claims are irreducibly complex. But this only tests whether those particular systems are IC or not, it doesn't test ID as an explanation, and he already admits that lots of other complex biochemical systems developed through evolutionary processes without the need for intelligent intervention. But as Dave points out, there really isn't any difference between those systems he accepts as having developed naturally and those systems he claims require intervention by an intelligent designer other than that his standard of evidence is far higher for the latter than for the former.
For example, he accepts that the hemoglobin system developed naturally because we have plausible explanations for how it developed through gene duplication, cooption and exaptation. But we do not have the undeniable, molecule-by-molecule, caught-on-video perfect explanation that he demands for the flagellum, the immune system or the blood clotting cascade and we never will. That is simply the nature of historical theories. If he applied the same standard of evidence to the flagellum as he does to the antifreeze proteins, his entire argument would fall apart. And the application of two different standards points up the importance of what Dawkins notes is the nature of Behe's objection - the argument from personal incredulity.
The one dollar question is this: does Behe actually believe what he's saying?
The two dollar version: how could he?
How could he? I've wondered the same thing. But recall that shortly after he published his book in--when was it? 1996--he became the darling of the National Review types. That was recounted through links posted on the web page Behe's Empty Box http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
The only way Behe could genuinely believe what he says is if he is incredibly stupid, and I don't think he is. He just thinks other people are. People have pointed out the fallacies in his arguments to his face too many times for any other interpretation. He knows full well, for example, that the conditions he puts on the unevolvability of IC systems bear no relation to what evolutionary theory actually says. And as Ed points out, the only time he has actually tried to prove the unevolvability of an IC system he proved the exact opposite.
I've dealt with the ID guys for many years now and came away with the following impressions. I think they all believe that they are right in the ultimate sense - even if they recognize the weakness of some of their particular arguments, I think they all truly believe their conclusions. But there are varying degrees of intellectual honesty among them. At the top of the honest list I would put Paul Nelson; at the bottom I would put William Dembski. In between, in roughly this order, I would put: Behe, Stephen Meyer, Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells.
When trying to overthrow an established theory - I almost said belief - Don't you *have* to believe you are right even if it goes against current theory? For example, Pasteur *knew* that spontaeneous generation did not exist, but it was really hard to prove at the time, and I guess he "cooked" his books a bit to win the argument.
Now, the trick is to be scientist enough to know when the evidence is going the wrong way and give up your pet theory.
Keith, it sounds to me like you are describing the difference between a hypothesis and and a theory.
Well, isn't one man's theory another man's hypothesis? 8^)
When Plate Tectonics was put forward, was it a theory or a hypothesis?
I think it's sad when some of you people have no idea why Behe was happy with his testimony in court. It's perfectly obvious to those of us who understand that evolutionary theory simply evolves with any new evidence that exposes their hack job on science. It is simply a huge case of hide n seek. Well, as Behe says, mutations and selections , the very foundation of athiestic evolutionary THEORY is proven wrong by tiny intracellular, irreducibly complex, machines. Keep fooling yourselves in this cult activity..
Alexandra,
A nice effort, but I feel you could have used more misspellings and insults. I can only give you a 3/10 on the Troll-O-Meter. It had a good beat but it wasn't thuggish enough to dance to. Nice try on sneaking a comment in 12 days after the previous post to try and have the last word, though (that's where the extra 2 points on the Meter came in, otherwise it was just a 1).
Jeff
Typical of the dumbed down, insult when you have absolutely nothing to say of value. I note that's a trend in science and politics.
I'd say that was an excellent critique of your original post. I think we're really growing here! Let's call this a "Breakthrough Moment" and end our session on a positive note. Next week don't forget to complete your "Me Inventory" and we'll go from there.
Jeff
P.S. Had you said anything of value originally, I'd have posted a more thoughtful response worthy of the generally high level of critique that goes on here at Ed's place. However, having nothing of substance to address in what was clearly a trolling post, I went with snark instead. To each their own. For instance, you demonstrated with this sentence:
that you don't even understand what Behe is arguing for, much less what he's arguing against. It's pointless to engage in a debate with someone who has such an inaccurate understanding of their own position. A good laugh is about all of value one can hope to wring out of such an exchange, and having done so I wish you a good day.
alexandra wrote:
A lot of empty rhetoric and nothing in the way of actual substance here. There is no such thing as "athiestic (sic) evolutionary theory", there is only evolutionary theory; any philosophical implications one might draw are extrinsic to the theory, not intrinsic to it. Evolution is no more "atheistic" than the germ theory of disease or the atomic theory. Secondly, I would suggest that your response here either means you haven't read Behe's testimony, or you didn't understand it. Behe essentially admitted under oath that A) his arguments about the nature of the current scientific explanations is based solely on ignorance; B) that while he thinks his ideas are testable, he has no interest in testing them; C) that the closest he has come to testing them, the computer simulation he did with Snoke, actually came out the other way, showing that irreducibly complex systems could evolve relatively rapidly even when they've rigged all of the parameters to make it as unlikely as possible; and D) that there are biochemical systems with multiple interacting parts all required for system function that he accepts as having evolved without intelligent intervention (i.e. antifreeze proteins in arctic fish and hemoglobin). Those admissions pretty much make the notion of irreducible complexity as a challenge to evolution a lot of hot air.
Ed, of course evolutionary theory is atheistic. What do you think "naturalism" means? This shows how lttle you obviously know. The science community rejects any theory that might actually point to a higher power. This is why they reject Intelligent Design. Many scientists are afraid to admit that ID is a valid study, and the Scientific Journals won't publish them. Or, if they do, their editor is attacked. You can say I don't understand Behe's arguments , but I do. I read his book when it was first published. All the lame arguments you give in objection to Behe have already been exposed as bunny trails..go to the many responses that Behe has given. It's rather boring to go over old objections that have no real scientific value.
Enjoy your blindness.............it is you who have shown no understanding of either atheistic evolution or ID by your ignorant comments.
It does'nt take too much time to respond to your comment below:
"that there are biochemical systems with multiple interacting parts all required for system function that he accepts as having evolved without intelligent intervention (i.e. antifreeze proteins in arctic fish and hemoglobin"
To evolve this pathway required the modification of maybe 2 or 3 preexisting enzymes. There was really nothing new here, and certainly nothing approaching an irreducibly complex biomolecular machine. Minnich called this microevolution.
You guys are hysterical!
I understand Behe's testimony as well as all the other illusions thrown around as science when it is simply cosmology- a philosophy without any foundation.
More and more biochemistry will expose the lies and don't forget physics. This is where the real action is taking place. I'm loving life!
Irony meter ... overloading ... can't contain ... ::booom! brain explodes::
alexandra wrote:
These little conclusionary taunts from someone so clearly uneducated on this subject are more than a bit ironic. The term "naturalism" can mean many things, actually. It has two very distinct meanings in this context and creationists love to conflate the two meanings because it is convenient for them to do so. There is "methodological naturalism" and there is "philosophical naturalism"; the first is very much a part of science, as it must be while the second is not. All of science is "naturalistic" in the first sense. Hypotheses that include supernatural causes are disallowed from the very start, for the simple reason that they are impossible to test or to falsify. Evolution is naturalistic only in this very limited sense, and only in the same sense that all scientific theories are naturalistic - as a matter of methodology. The fact that there are thousands of scientists in evolutionary fields who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and other faiths, proves that evolution need not necessarily lead one to atheism and is not synonomous with it.
I'll take psychological projection for $1000, Alex.
Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Behe's definition of irreducible complexity is any biochemical system with multiple interacting parts all required for the system to function, such that if you took one part away the system would fail to function. That definition applies perfectly to numerous biochemical systems for which Behe accepts an evolutionary explanation. That's why in his testimony, he suddenly had to change his definition so that something could be "more" IC and "less" IC. But the entire thesis of his book was that IC is a condition that cannot evolve, period, that if a given system had multiple interacting parts that are all required to function properly, the system could not have evolved. Now he's saying, in essence, "Okay, so some of those systems can evolve, but some can't." And he's not providing any way to tell the two apart other than his own credulity.
The development of the hemoglobin system required multiple mutations in multiple proteins over a long period of time, with each intermediate step preserved despite the fact that the system itself would not function until all of the components were in place at the end of the chain. That is exactly what Behe says is impossible, yet he accepts that this system developed without intelligent intervention.
I guess we've finally proven that ignorance is bliss.
excuse me, that is called theistical evolution.....you can rationalize all you want...
if ignorance is bliss..........you must be blissful, i am happy...........there is a difference
I am fairly well educated in this topic but it becomes so boring.
Why don't you pick one fact and explore it.......i'll be happy to comment.......you have no facts , you have junk science and yes, little trails that tend to accomodate real scientific facts. Perhaps an adequate description would be "scientific prostitution"
waiting for one fact that falsifies ID
alexandra wrote:
Have you been taking grammar lessons from President Bush again? This is quite an interesting "strategery" you have here. You've labelled an argument and somehow think that by labelling it you have defeated it. But you completely neglected the substance of my argument, which is the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism. The very fact that one can be a theistic evolution disproves the notion that evolution is inherently atheistic, does it not?
Who said that ID could be falsified? The problem with ID is that it can't be falsified, or tested in any way. That makes it a sterile position. Specific arguments for ID may be falsifiable, and Behe himself did an admirable job of falsifying his own argument from irreducible complexity on the witness stand in the Dover case. He admitted that his own paper (Behe and Snoke, 2004) concluded that even with all of the parameters in the computer simulation tweaked to make it as unlikely as possible (ignoring all mutations other than point mutations, using a population estimate several orders of magnitude too small, ignoring all non-selective mechanisms for preservation, and presuming that all intermediates had no function at all that might be preserved), an irreducibly complex biochemical system (in this case, a new protein binding site requiring multiple sequential point mutations, each one immune to selection) could evolve in only 20,000 years (a geological microsecond). He has falsified his own argument.
Excuse me? Now try to be honest.......I know it's difficult....come back and give all of Behe's testimony, try and put it in proper context.If you don't I guess i'll have to paste it........and then tell you what it means sentence by sentence.
Alas, wrong again, theistical evolution is simply a way to try and make God fit in to atheistical evolution. But for some "modern christians" it makes them feel good to use that expression.
You keep attacking my grammar: this makes you look a little silly.
alexandra wrote:
Ed's been over this, multiple times. He has his comments on the Dover trial in general here.
It includes several well-reasoned and fairly complete takes on Behe's testimony. Line by line explication is a silly thing to ask for, generally on this blog it's assumed that people can read for themselves and have some minimal level of comprehension of the material. I admit this is a stretch in some cases, but asking for a line by line analysis is lazy and would be an unutterable bore to read.
Just a tip -- it doesn't look nearly as silly as your awful grammer does. Seriously. Also, there should generally only be one period in a sentence, and it commonly comes at the end of the sentence. Sometimes you can use ellipses (three periods right next to each other) to indicate that something is being left out or, as is increasingly common, to show a pause. Putting together lots and lots of periods as you do means has no meaningful content and is distracting.
When you're trying to speak with authority, failing to use common rules of grammar or spelling does lessen your credibility. Ultimately, of course, it's the weakness or strength of your argument that counts the most, but you're not doing yourself any favors when your writing looks so uneducated.
Finally, I keep trying to find actual arguments in your posts, but you don't make any. You call people silly or boring, you make up words ("theistical"?) and concepts ("theistical evolution"?) without bothering to define them, and in general add nothing to the discussion of worth. My favorite line so far is:
Allow me to translate: "Why don't you go do some real work while I sit around eating grapes, then I'll graciously deign to come in here and make off-handed dismissals without having to make an effort."
If YOU think an argument is weak or ill-founded, the burden is on YOU to make a counter-argument. If YOU think Ed is wrong in how he is interpreting Behe's testimony, it is incumbent on YOU to say how you think he's wrong and to back it up with evidence.
Your current approach is just laziness. Why should Ed (or I, or anyone else) do your work for you? Take the time you're spending on being snarky and write out your argument in a logical fashion. In fact, make a game of it, and for every redundant period you've used previously, fill it with a sentence of actual thought!
alexandra wrote:
Okay, I've had just about enough of your bullshit. You've offered not a single shred of substance, just these juvenile little taunts. And you're not even bright enough to recognize that you're claiming that theistic (not "theistical") evolutionists are full of crap AND supporting Behe, and thus contradicting yourself. Behe IS a theistic evolutionist. He accepts common descent, he just thinks it was all guided by God, who programmed in major changes in DNA long before it was necessary. That IS theistic evolution.
And by the way, I've already pasted long sections of Behe's testimony and analyzed them in great detail. On the Behe and Snoke paper disproving irreducible complexity, see here. On Behe's testimony demonstrating the sterility of ID because it is compatible with any set of data, see here. On his continual confusion of function and purpose, see here. But if you're going to reply, I suggest you reply with substantive arguments rather than with these juvenile little insults. I'll give you one more chance to say something substantive. If you can't, you're not gonna last long here.
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf
Now, take your time, relax and try to absorb that all those so called scientific rebuttals to ID conjure up visions of Dorothy in the Wizard of OZ.
Read it carefully and understand that your so called proofs are not quite up to snuff on the details /implications of ID; they can't even grasp the concepts or they are just being intellectually dishonest . They pretend to have answered the problem but not the right problem.
Alexandra the Troll wrote:
So now we've moved from "You go do the hard work and come up with some ideas, I'm too lazy" to "Go look at the work other people already did, I'm too lazy."
Nice. I thought sloth was one of the Seven Deadly Sins?
Gee, and people wonder why scientists get so angry at IDists. Alexandra, you have the intellectual maturity of a petulant toddler. Behe's book claims that IC systems cannot, under any circumstances, evolve by natural selection. Hence evolution must be wrong. At the Dover trial Behe admitted, under oath, that the closest thing that he's ever done to a test for the inevolvability of ID actually demonstrated that IC systems could evolve quite quickly, even under extremely unfavourable conditions. He also admitted that by his definition astrology is a valid science. Are you going to address these points, or do you believe in astrology as well?
"Putting together lots and lots of periods as you do means has no meaningful content and is distracting."
Yes, I can tell your a great editor. lol
Actually, i've graduated from a great university and know the difference between a casual conversation on a blog and a PHD thesis. I realize you take great pride in your grammar; i'm sure your mom is beaming with pride.
my dear, the word theistical and theistic are both adjectives. I realize your aim is to appear
oh so much brighter than me. So without furher adieu, I crown you "the best and the brightest".
Feel better?
Again, you don't want to pick one specific fact that will demonstrate errors in Behe's research or his conclusions? You, instead, attempt to put the burden on me. This is exactly what Behe is saying. Darwin's challenge to scientists was to prove irreducible complexity. Behe did. Your challenge is to show he is wrong. It has'nt been done and many honest scientists, even evolutionary scientists, admit it.
So, you may have the last word, since it means so much to your ego. I will not respond unless you engage me by sharing scientific research in biochemistry that solidly rejects Behe's assertion of irreducible complexity - as he so scientifically defines it. Until that is done, instead of Darwin's challenge , we now have Behe's challenge. I know it's difficult when one is on the defensive. Like it or not, that is exactly where atheistic evolutiony stands today.
I will continue to use the term atheistic because it is simple, direct and absolutely true. I realize instead of terms like abortion, the pro-murder crowd now uses the term "women's healthcare" but I won't play semantic games. If I were in an academic setting, i'm sure I would be compelled to play the word game but remember this is a blog. Or do you claim to be a serious scientific site?
alexandra, after getting multiple opportunities to say anything substantive, has been shown the door. She was way out of her depth and has been sent back to the kiddie pool where she can relieve herself without bothering the adults.
Alexandra, using proper grammar is a mark of respect for the person you're talking to. You claim to be having a scientific debate, but you're behaving like you don't care. Why should we show any respect for your arguments, irrespective of their merits, if you can't even be bothered to present them like an adult?
"Again, you don't want to pick one specific fact that will demonstrate errors in Behe's research or his conclusions? You, instead, attempt to put the burden on me. This is exactly what Behe is saying. Darwin's challenge to scientists was to prove irreducible complexity. Behe did. Your challenge is to show he is wrong. It has'nt been done and many honest scientists, even evolutionary scientists, admit it."
I don't think I've ever seen more lies in a single paragraph. We've pointed out many errors in Behe's arguments. He hasn't actually done any research, aside from the "test" that he admitted under oath proved IC systems could evolve. Darwin's "challenge to scientists" wasn't to prove irreducible complexity. Darwin's challenge to scientists was to come up with a mechanism for heritable variation. They did - DNA mutations in the germ line. Behe hasn't proved IC. He has asserted it. Moreover he has asserted that IC systems can't evolve while placing restrictions on evolution that don't exist, for example that a system and its parts must retain the same function while evolving. This is so far from what happens in evolution as to be laughable. Finally, would you care to name some honest evolutionary scientists who "admit" that Behe is right? You'd think they'd change jobs if it were.