How to deal with Dr. Behe?

[Dogdoctor]

Thanks. I printed out the PDF of that bacterial flagellum article, and I'm going to bring it with me tomorrow.

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!

When humans create things there is a chain of events that lead to the creation. These are mostly documented in history. I doubt the invention of the wheel was documented but the various discoveries in science and technology that go into creating a car tire have been documented over the years. Science and technology build up over time much like evolution and not like creation according to Behe. Behe doesn't say evolution doesn't occur. He says that there are cases where science cannot explain how it evolved and therefore it was created.

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?"

Behe doesn't say evolution is false. There isn't really anything other than the cases that proponents of ID bring up which they can't understand how evolution created them although others can often.

 

[Olowkow]

Ask him if he still believes that astrology is a science, something he said in the Dover trial. Also, the question about why all proponents of ID are fundamentalists is a good honest question. No point in debating this guy any more than Hovind. He is not interested in learning anything.

What has always impressed me is when someone rises and eloquently praises the speaker and thanks him for coming to speak, and then politely asks a zinger. Very effective, if done without sarcasm.

One excellent example of this is Dr. Bob Price (the atheist Bible Geek) on the phone with Reggie Finley and Matt Slick, a very slick bible guy. Price very nicely ran rings around this guy, and he didn't even realize he was being pwned.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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?

I'm leaning towards this question, but I may have to rephrase it so that it's simple and short enough to ask quickly. Maybe I could ask him to describe how we could scientifically test for the existence of a mechanism for design? Would that be simple enough for the audience to understand?

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?

He'll probably dismiss this with the same argument from incredulity that all of his claims are based on. He would say that the test is to remove a component, such as of a bacterial flagellum, and observe how it no longer functions. So I probably won't get anywhere with this.

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.

This makes a good point, but I don't think it would be taken seriously.

What natural phenomena could be postulated to effect intelligent design? Can he think of a mechanism? And the classic: Who designed the designer?

This ties into the first question, which I already commented on. As for the latter, he will likely respond the same way I've heard creationists respond whenever this is asked. They will pull the fallacy of special pleading and exempt the designer from needing a designer itself OR claim that infinite regression is "impossible." While I can refute both of these apologetics easily, I probably won't get the chance to do so.

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).

I know. That's why I'm trying to come up with an honest and simple question that he hopefully has not heard before.

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.

This might come across as too hostile, because if he's anything like other religious fundamentalists, he'll probably view this as an ad hominem attack, and I don't want the "persecution" complex to work in his favor. I want my question to sound like honest curiosity, not a verbal attack.

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!

I could do this. Any suggestions?

Ask him if he still believes that astrology is a science, something he said in the Dover trial. Also, the question about why all proponents of ID are fundamentalists is a good honest question. No point in debating this guy any more than Hovind. He is not interested in learning anything.

What has always impressed me is when someone rises and eloquently praises the speaker and thanks him for coming to speak, and then politely asks a zinger. Very effective, if done without sarcasm.

One excellent example of this is Dr. Bob Price (the atheist Bible Geek) on the phone with Reggie Finley and Matt Slick, a very slick bible guy. Price very nicely ran rings around this guy, and he didn't even realize he was being pwned.

I would ask the astrology question, but I forget how it was phrased. I'll see if I can find that.

Wait, I found this:
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

I'll see if I can find the astrology comment or other embarrassing screwups on his part.

Edit: Well damnit, it looks like these transcripts are several hundred pages long each, and I forget where exactly in the trial these comments occurred. Would anyone happen to know off the top of their head?

 

[Brown]

My recommendation:

Read this thread. It includes quotes and analysis of a column Behe submitted to the New York Times.

If a question and answer session is available, ask a short, pointed planned question. Don't wing it, and for the love of all that is holy, don't drone on and on making your own speech before getting to the question mark.

The question can be something simple, like:

"Do ALL designs imply the existence of a designer? The intricate design of a snowflake, for example."

"Are evolution and intelligent design opposites such that if evolution is wrong, intelligent design must be right? And in what other areas of science has this sort of logic held sway?"

"If we held to the view that we should teach intelligent design because it's 'obvious,' should we not also teach that the Sun goes around the Earth, which is even MORE obvious, since that how it appears to everyone?"

 

[Dogdoctor]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html

There's lots of info on Behe's arguments and the rebutal of them on the internet.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I've read over the other thread, and I've found some questions asked by other members that look like they might get through:

My questions for ID proponents would be:

Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"):
1. What does the present design tell you about the designer?
2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work.
3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs?
4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility.
5. Where is the designer now?
6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural?

Not 1 or 2, but 3-6 sound like they might work. I might get away with #6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural? If natural, then how is that any different from evolution? If supernatural, then how is ID different from a religious argument?

ID is just bizarre. How did stuff get designed in the first place? In a labratory of some sort? Where was this place? Why no physical evidence of this designer(s)? Did they stick around or keep coming back to add things? Are they still designing more stuff? If not why did they design anything in the first place? Are they going to come back and eat us or something? Are we emergency rations of some sort?

I could tie this into a question about how we could obtain observational evidence of a designer in the act of designing.

Do you think I'd get anywhere by bringing up the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" or would that only be relevant if he claims that ID is not a religiously motivated argument?

 

[Dogdoctor]

"If we held to the view that we should teach intelligent design because it's 'obvious,' should we not also teach that the Sun goes around the Earth, which is even MORE obvious, since that how it appears to everyone?"

I like this one. It's simple and deals with the problem of ID directly.

 

[Olowkow]

Here is is testimony on cross about astrology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?
A Yes.
Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."
That's the scientific theory of astrology?
A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.
Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.
And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

 

[politas]

I think the best question is simply how to test for supernatural causation and how to rule it out in experimental design. Behe and the Discovery Institute which presumably funds him (he is a senior fellow of the DI's "Center for Science & Culture") are going up against methodological naturalism. What do they propose as a replacement?

This is a necessary condition of being able to "consider supernatural explanations" as Behe claims should be done.

 

[Olowkow]

Just one more thing, his own university's disowning him:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Q This is a statement that was issued by the Lehigh Department of Biological Sciences?
A Yes, it is.
Q And what it says is, "The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and the recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, that 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" -- and I think they're just referring to your department at this point -- "Professor Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of intelligent design. While we respect Professor 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."
So you ve not even been able to convince your colleagues, any of them, Professor Behe?

 

[Olowkow]

Or simply:

"Other than 'irreducible complexity' what are the three discoveries that you are most proud of in intelligent design theory, and how have they benefitted mankind?"

 

[Frozenwolf150]

"If we held to the view that we should teach intelligent design because it's 'obvious,' should we not also teach that the Sun goes around the Earth, which is even MORE obvious, since that how it appears to everyone?"

I like this one. It's simple and deals with the problem of ID directly.

I'll try to keep that in mind, but I can't ask that one unless he uses the "obvious" line, otherwise it would be seen as a strawman.

Here is is testimony on cross about astrology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

I've decided against bringing up the Dover trial or the astrology claim, because first of all, he'll probably deny it and the audience won't know any better, and secondly, because the audience probably doesn't have the same familiarity with said trial as most JREF members.

I think the best question is simply how to test for supernatural causation and how to rule it out in experimental design. Behe and the Discovery Institute which presumably funds him (he is a senior fellow of the DI's "Center for Science & Culture") are going up against methodological naturalism. What do they propose as a replacement?

This is a necessary condition of being able to "consider supernatural explanations" as Behe claims should be done.

That's similar to the one I'm considering, although I'm not sure how to phrase it. If he isn't stupid enough to use the "consider supernatural explanations" line then I'm going to have to set it up first. I could try to compress that into a single question. Maybe I should just ask how to test for the existence of a design mechanism and how to rule out evolution. The problem is that whether I refer to it as a "design mechanism" or "design process" he may just fall back on equivocation and think that my question was about the designed object itself.

Just one more thing, his own university's disowning him:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

I don't know how to phrase this without it sounding confrontational.

I could ask him your other question though, which is to ask what scientific predictions, discoveries, and applications intelligent design has provided.


Right now, it seems like the best choice is to compile a list of potential questions I could ask, depending on what points he brings up. Then wait until several people have already gone, to see if someone else covers some of the questions for me.

 

[Gregoire]

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 agree with what Lucky has said.

I have read most of Behe's recent book which I suspect will be the topic of the talk. And I even saw him recently on CSPAN where he did take questions from the audience, most of which were very friendly. Oh, how I wish I had the time to go over these again to give you some help!

His argument is very technical and the data he discusses is not straight forward.

I found the best arguments against his position in a review of his book by Dr. Sean Carroll in the journal Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427

Of course, to answer a technical argument, you have to get technical yourself as Carroll does with numerous citations. I have collected some of these journal articles, and I think the best one is the one in PNAS (citation number 15) that has already been mentioned by Alric.

Ultimately, I agree that probably the best question would ask why he thinks his arguments have not been accepted by other protein biochemists. And I always wondered why he isn't troubled being associated with so many fundamentalists who reject common descent in the face of what even he believes is overwhelming scientific evidence.

Sorry, I don't have time to help you more. Let us know how this turns out.

 

[Olowkow]

I could ask him your other question though, which is to ask what scientific predictions, discoveries, and applications intelligent design has provided.

Yeah, I agree with all your comments. Confrontational doesn't work. Asking what he is most pleased with or proud of might work. The audience will know if they personally think these are in fact "discoveries to be proud of".

I am always amazed at Massimo Pigliucci when he debates these guys, even Hovind at least once. He is so pleasant and never gets rattled.

Good luck!

 

[Wowbagger]

I'm leaning towards this question, but I may have to rephrase it so that it's simple and short enough to ask quickly. Maybe I could ask him to describe how we could scientifically test for the existence of a mechanism for design? Would that be simple enough for the audience to understand?

Yeah, that might suffice.

Though, my own taste would be a bit meaner. But, then again, I am no expert at asking questions from an audience.

 

[Asolepius]

Just ask him how much of the content of his lecture is verified by experimental evidence in the peer reviewed literature. Everything he says comes from his book, not from papers he has published.

 

[Darat]

Perhaps ask him how he has concluded that the "designer" is the god of the RCC?

 

[Pixel42]

You might try asking him for his response to this quote from Sir David Attenborough:"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". You could add that every single precedent in history, from thunder and lightening to plagues, confirms this is indeed the correct response.

 

[Mojo]

Michael Behe is said to accept Common Descent, but not the mechanism of Darwinian Evolution, to carry it out.

Is this actually his position? I thought his argument was that natural selection can't explain some of the systems present on the molecular level, but he doesn't really say anything about the evolution of one species to another.

 

[Mojo]

Perhaps ask him how he has concluded that the "designer" is the god of the RCC?

I thought the whole point of ID is that it doesn't conclude that the "designer" is God, so that it isn't religion and thus can be taught in American schools.