• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How to deal with Dr. Behe?

Frozenwolf150

Formerly SilentKnight
Frozenwolf150
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
4,134
I may have a rare opportunity, although I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

I found out that a school in my area is featuring a presentation by Dr. Michael Behe as part of their "Distinguished Speakers" series. The speech will take place on campus tomorrow, and it just so happens that this is the school where I'm picking up a few classes as a part-time student. You can read the event announcement here:

http://www.bergen.edu/pages/2852.asp?PageId=112

My question is, what should I do? This is definitely a topic of interest for me, since I've already heard Behe's arguments many many times, and am quite familiar with the logical flaws in them. The problem is that I don't know what level of participation students will be allowed, or even if we'll get to ask any questions. My concern is that Behe will just be up there spouting his lies, nobody will get a chance to refute him, and the less informed audience members will be suckered in by his woo.

The last thing I'd want is to attend a presentation where everyone is expected to sit down, shut up, and listen. On the other hand, I don't want to get myself in trouble by interrupting the lecture or overstepping my bounds. To put it one way, this does seem like a good chance to take a crack at a creationist, but at the same time, my expectations may be unrealistic. What would you do if you were in my situation?
 
Perhaps a brief, written handout?

You could write up a short (under 1 pg) refutation or a list of sources that the people could check out?
 
Go. Listen.

Don't assume you'll be able to score any points.

If someone else can phrase your objections more eloquently, let them.

You don't have anything to lose (except your precious time).
 
Find out the format of previous speaker presentations. Has there been a question and answer session at the end? It is unlikely you will be able to interrupt during his actual talk unless it is very informal indeed.

Also find out who invited him and why? If the person responsible is a pro ID then you may find he is ring fenced and there will be limited opportunity to discuss the issues raised. If the person responsible is not pro ID then there may be considerable time allotted to discussion afterwards.

Behe will have encountered refutation before so don't be surprised if he has some fairly pat answers up his sleeve and quickly moves on to the next question. It is best to think outside the box so that he has to actually consider the implication of the question and make some decisions on the hoof.
 
~enigma~ said:
Practice the phrase....DON'T TASE ME BRO :D
Click to expand...

Very funny.

I called the Office of Student Life and found out several things. First, Dr. Behe was invited by professors Kaye DeMetz of the Arts and Communications department, and George Cronk, who is head of the Philosophy department. I asked what their stance was regarding Dr. Behe's position, and from what I gathered, they invited him to provoke thought and discussion. In other words, they aren't for or against his position, which is good news.

There will be a question and answer session, and a reception afterwards during which attendees may speak to him if they want. The question session is open and will not be screened, and the lecture is open to the public.

Given the fact that Behe has encountered refutation before, he'll probably be ready for most of the common arguments, as Nogbad pointed out. Given that he also had his ass handed to him in the 2005 Dover trial, he may be reluctant to answer questions honestly or directly. I'm probably only going to get to ask one question during the lecture, and that's assuming I'm even called on. I know I won't get a chance to debate him the way I'd like to, so I don't want to waste the opportunity.


What kind of question should I ask him? It has to be one that he likely has never heard before and would be unprepared for. I want to catch him off guard, if possible, or at least give the other attendees something to think about.
 
I wouldn't be too optimistic: from your link:

The author of many prominent works on the topic, Dr. Behe’s discussion titled “Intelligent Design in Biology and the Limits of Darwinism” will focus on his work that has found many complex biochemical systems possess components inexplicable through evolution. He believes an intelligent agent remains responsible for these complex systems. Through his lecture, the professor aims to educate his audience on the topic of intelligent design but encourages individuals to come to their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

My emphasis.

Looks as if it the publicity officer has made up their mind already...
 
Silentknight said:
{snip} What kind of question should I ask him? It has to be one that he likely has never heard before and would be unprepared for. I want to catch him off guard, if possible, or at least give the other attendees something to think about.
Click to expand...
You will have to check his book, "Darwin's Black Box" for this (sorry, can't do more on short notice). Late in the book, he claims (something on the order) that sometimes scientists have to accept supernatural explanations. Going further, he notes that he would be reluctant to accept "divine intervention" as an explanation from one of his students.

The question- how does he decide when to accept supernatural explanations? I e-mailed that question to him many years ago; so far, he has not replied.

ETA: Let us know your experience, whether or not you pose a question.
 
Last edited:
Michael Behe is said to accept Common Descent, but not the mechanism of Darwinian Evolution, to carry it out. Can he describe his alternative mechanism in detail (aside from just calling it an "Intelligence"), and how would we test for its existence?


He may have been asked this next one, already, a bunch of times, so he may be prepared for it, but I would be inclinded to ask it, anyway, myself:
If certain structures in life are "too complex" to have been the product of evolution, how would you test for the negative hypothesis? In other words, how would you test to make sure they could not possibly be the product of evolution?
 
Silentknight said:
I asked what their stance was regarding Dr. Behe's position, and from what I gathered, they invited him to provoke thought and discussion. In other words, they aren't for or against his position, which is good news.
Click to expand...

That is what they often say.
 
Last edited:
I doubt that you can make headway although science professors at the school might be able to. Behe is not a dummy and has thought out most of the arguments to a point that if you are not well versed with the data available you would have a hard time responding in a meaningful way. People going to listen aren't likely to be open minded. I doubt it will stimulate meaningful debate.
 
Thanks. I printed out the PDF of that bacterial flagellum article, and I'm going to bring it with me tomorrow. :D

There are two questions I'm considering asking. These are questions that, as far as I know, have not been asked by very many skeptics, and that no creationist has ever given an honest answer to. Whenever I ask them, such as in the topics around here on JREF, it seems that the creationists would rather ignore them.

Question 1: How is design any different from an evolutionary process? All of the things humans have designed have been based on simple machines or concepts, and then worked their way up from there. We base new designs on existing designs, and a process of trial and error. If something works, we keep it, and if it doesn't work, we discard it or find another use for it. Just as different environmental conditions will result in different evolutionary paths, different engineer teams will design slightly different products. All things humans design are a product of our evolution regardless, so the only way design makes sense is if it piggy-backs on evolutionary theory!


Question 2: Is there a single shred of positive evidence for intelligent design? All of Behe's arguments seem to consist of attacking Darwinian evolution, as if that somehow proves something other than the fact that science doesn't yet have all the answers (never mind that most of his questions already have answers, which he ignores). We have yet to observe anything being consciously designed in nature. Analogizing living things to nonliving things does not work, because we have never seen man-made tools such as watches mating with each other and producing little watches on their own. This is another way of asking, "Assuming evolution is false, so what?"
 
Last edited:
If you could find a sphere of metal, and a hunk of misshapen metal, you could hold them both up and ask him which was more obviously complex. Point out the the formulas to describe a sphere are taught to children, while it would be almost impossible to describe the hunk of metal mathematically. Clearly, since the misshapen piece of metal is more complex, it must have been designed, and the sphere is so simple is could have easily happened by accident.
 
What natural phenomena could be postulated to effect intelligent design? Can he think of a mechanism? And the classic: Who designed the designer?
 
Silentknight said:
There are two questions I'm considering asking. These are questions that, as far as I know, have not been asked by very many skeptics, and that no creationist has ever given an honest answer to. Whenever I ask them, such as in the topics around here on JREF, it seems that the creationists would rather ignore them.

Question 1: How is design any different from an evolutionary process? All of the things humans have designed have been based on simple machines or concepts, and then worked their way up from there. We base new designs on existing designs, and a process of trial and error. If something works, we keep it, and if it doesn't work, we discard it or find another use for it. Just as different environmental conditions will result in different evolutionary paths, different engineer teams will design slightly different products. All things humans design are a product of our evolution regardless, so the only way design makes sense is if it piggy-backs on evolutionary theory!


Question 2: Is there a single shred of positive evidence for intelligent design? All of Behe's arguments seem to consist of attacking Darwinian evolution, as if that somehow proves something other than the fact that science doesn't yet have all the answers (never mind that most of his questions already have answers, which he ignores). We have yet to observe anything being consciously designed in nature. Analogizing living things to nonliving things does not work, because we have never seen man-made tools such as watches mating with each other and producing little watches on their own. This is another way of asking, "Assuming evolution is false, so what?"
Click to expand...


I think you are underestimating him as an opponent (especially as the event is rigged in his favour). I'm quite sure he will have meaningless but polished and (to a naïve listener) erudite-sounding and impressive answers to these questions, and any other scientific ones we could think of.

I'd say it's hopeless to try and make an impact with a specific scientific point, because:
1) The audience won't understand it.
2) He'll have a prepared answer that will make him appear far more expert than you (that is always the case with cranks).

Instead, perhaps try to get across the dishonesty of his position? Ask why the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field (many of whom are religious) reject ID, based on their own studies. Point out that all IDers are religious fundamentalists, and are fiddling the evidence and the arguments to manufacture bogus support for their religious belief system (need to phrase it as a question). Obviously he will have a pat answer for this as well, but it will be new information for some of the audience, and may open their eyes.

The handout is a good idea (and could include some technical arguments), but get friends to do this – don't associate yourself with them else you probably won't be called to ask a question.
 
I would honestly would like to know how he explains present intermediate structures like pores and pilli. These are homologous in function and DNA sequence and for all intent and purposes "Halfway to a flagellum". Therefore his argument that half a flagellum would not work is untrue.
 
Just quote a choice piece of what the Judge said about him and his stupidites at the Dover Trial and ask him to comment.

I doubt rational discussion of a complex topic before an audience that does not know enough science to open a paper bag is going to be possible.

So you might as well go for ridicule!
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Just quote a choice piece of what the Judge said about him and his stupidites at the Dover Trial and ask him to comment.

I doubt rational discussion of a complex topic before an audience that does not know enough science to open a paper bag is going to be possible.

So you might as well go for ridicule!
Click to expand...
I pie in the face should do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom