How to deal with Dr. Behe?

[Mojo]

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.

According to his testimony in the Dover trial, the section of Of Pandas and People he wrote about blood clotting was peer-reviewed:

Q But you actually were a critical reviewer of Pandas, correct; that's what it says in the acknowledgments page of the book?

A That's what it lists there, but that does not mean that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on it in detail, yes.

Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?

A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally responsible for that section.

Q So you were reviewing your own work?

A I was helping review or helping edit or helping write the section on blood clotting.

Q Which was your own contribution?

A That's -- yes, that's correct.

Oh, and apparently (again from his testimony in the Dover trial) Darwin's Black box was also peer-reviewed:

Q. Okay. Now you stated on Monday that Darwin's Black Box was also peer reviewed, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

A. No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

Q. And one of the peer reviewers you mentioned yesterday was a gentleman named Michael Atchison?

A. Yes, I think that's correct.

Q. I think you described him as a biochemist at the Veterinary School at the University of Pennsylvania?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. He was not one of the names you suggested, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. In fact, he was selected because he was an instructor of your editor's wife?

A. That's correct. My editor knew one biochemistry professor, so he asked, through his wife, and so he asked him to take a look at it as well.

... [snip] ...

[Professor Atchison wrote:] "She advised her husband to give me a call. So unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript.

I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later."

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Yes, that is actually his position.

 

[Darat]

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.

Yep - but as usual they were wrong!

 

[Asolepius]

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.

Even if that is his position, it doesn't hold water. Science does not pretend to know everything. If it did, there would be no need of it. There are obviously many biological phenomena for which we don't yet have a scientific explanation, but why invoke an imaginary one?

 

[Cuddles]

Personally, I'd just sit in the back pointing and giggling. Debate is all very well for some ideas that deserve it, but others deserve nothing more than ridicule.

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.

Wasn't the whole point of the Dover trial that they ruled ID is religion?

 

[Asolepius]

According to his testimony in the Dover trial, the section of Of Pandas and People he wrote about blood clotting was peer-reviewed:

Oh, and apparently (again from his testimony in the Dover trial) Darwin's Black box was also peer-reviewed:

Yes, exactly what I had in mind. This is not a case of controversial views held genuinely in good faith, it's one of deliberate obfuscation.

 

[Gregoire]

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.

Yes, it is. Dr. Behe is not your typical creationist. In the first chapter, he states he divides "Darwinian evolution" into three components:

1)Common Descent
2) Natural Selection
3) Random Mutation

He says he accepts #1 and #2, but feels the #3 cannot explain all of common descent.

He argues it can explain the evolution of a new species or even a new genus, but that it cannot explain beyond that. In other words, random mutation and natural selection can explain the evolution of bacteria confronted by antibiotics. But he states it cannot be the mechanism of the origin of the bacterial flagellum........enter god

 

[Deetee]

Perhaps you could ask why the designer is so bad at his job.

 

[Asolepius]

Perhaps you could ask why the designer is so bad at his job.

Oh yes, I forgot that. I used it at a dinner party with some Christians recently, and it totally stopped the discussion. Why do we choke so easily, have so many back problems, and keep banging our funny bones?

 

[Alric]

That's a good one. I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's take:

Why do we have the sewer system right next to the reproductive system? Thus increasing the chance of infection of arguably the most important system.

 

[Wowbagger]

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.

He argues it can explain the evolution of a new species or even a new genus, but that it cannot explain beyond that. In other words, random mutation and natural selection can explain the evolution of bacteria confronted by antibiotics. But he states it cannot be the mechanism of the origin of the bacterial flagellum........enter god

I think Behe's position could best be sumamarized as Guided Evolution.

Though, he has yet to demonstrate a mechanism for such guidance.

I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's take:

Why do we have the sewer system right next to the reproductive system? Thus increasing the chance of infection of arguably the most important system.

I think it might have been "recreation system", which refers to the reproductive system, as in: "Why would they build the sewer system, right next to the recreation system...?!"

 

[brodski]

Oh yes, I forgot that. I used it at a dinner party with some Christians recently, and it totally stopped the discussion. Why do we choke so easily, have so many back problems, and keep banging our funny bones?

because we're sinners.

 

[Alric]

I think it might have been "recreation system", which refers to the reproductive system, as in: "Why would they build the sewer system, right next to the recreation system...?!"

You are correct! Its even better that way. This is the original quote:

"And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?"

 

[Wowbagger]

This is the original quote:

"And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?"

I think the wording I used must have come from someone else, then.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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

He'll most likely dismiss that with a denial, which even though he would be lying, would force me to describe the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" in detail. I don't think I'll have a chance to bring that up.

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.

That would work in a normal debate, but this is just one question I get to ask. Besides, I'm sure he believes that by positing intelligent design, he's not really jumping to conclusions as much as he is "questioning" the established evolutionary science. I could work this in to one of the questions I had in mind, but only if he specifically says "supernatural cause," otherwise it would sound like I'm using a strawman.

That's a good one. I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's take:

Why do we have the sewer system right next to the reproductive system? Thus increasing the chance of infection of arguably the most important system.

Sub-optimality arguments would work against any other cdesign proponentsist, but Behe seems to have found a way out of this by admitting that some evolution does occur. This would only work if he believed that everything was designed, which he'll say that he doesn't, even though all the fundy idiots who hang on his words certainly believe that.

I've come up with a list of some of the questions I think might have a viable chance. Keep in mind that these are for the sake of the audience, because obviously Dr. Behe isn't there to respond honestly to questioning, or to learn from an upstart like me, or to be made an ass out of like he was at the Dover trial. Suggestions are welcome, but I have to leave in an hour to make the lecture.

1. How can we scientifically test for the existence of a mechanism for design?
2. What scientific predictions, discoveries, and practical applications has intelligent design provided us with?
3. Why has intelligent design not been accepted by other protein biochemists, or the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University?
4. If we should be able to “consider supernatural explanations” then how would one test for supernatural causation, and how would it be falsified?
5. Assuming intelligent design is science, then how could we obtain observational evidence of an “intelligent designer” in the act of designing?
6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural? If natural, then how is that any different from evolution? If supernatural, then how is that any different from a religious claim?
7. Is there any positive evidence to support intelligent design, aside from claiming that complex systems are inexplicable through evolution?
8. Everything that tool-making species design is a product of their evolution, so how is design itself any different from an evolutionary process?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Well, I should get ready to head out now. Thanks for the suggestions, and for wishing me luck. I'll try not to get myself tasered.

Although the campus police aren't like that.


I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[Asolepius]

The best of luck - hope you get your day in court

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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).

That will backfire as he will simply point out, correctly, that he is not a fundamentalist.

 

[Dogdoctor]

According to his testimony in the Dover trial, the section of Of Pandas and People he wrote about blood clotting was peer-reviewed:

Oh, and apparently (again from his testimony in the Dover trial) Darwin's Black box was also peer-reviewed:

Obviously this is not the same as scientific peer review.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Just got back!

I just got back from the lecture. First I'll tell you what he spoke about, then I'll tell you what happened during the Q&A session.

Dr. Behe's slideshow lecture was entitled "The Depth of Intelligent Design in Biology." I took extensive notes throughout, in case anyone wants to comment on his arguments. He started out with a quote from Richard Dawkins, taken out of context from "The Blind Watchmaker," where Dawkins describes how biological systems have the appearance of design for a purpose.

Behe then began discussing ID itself. He started off with 5 points:

1. Design is not mystical. It is deduced from physical structure of a system.
2. Everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear designed.
3. There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution.
4. Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination.
5. Bottom Line: Strong evidence for design, but not for Darwinian processes.

He defined design using the "purposeful arrangement" definition, which is not the definition most ID-ers use. He then drew an analogy using a screenshot of a pile of Legos, and then a shot of the Legos built into a catapult toy. Behe claimed that the strength of this inference is quantitative, and that the greater number of arranged parts, the greater our confidence that a system is designed. To illustrate this, he showed a picture of a mountain, followed by an image of Old Man in the Mountain, and then the monument of Mount Rushmore. The implication was that it would be silly to assume that Mt. Rushmore hadn't been designed.

He then took another Dawkins quote out of context, having to do with the "master watchmaker." Having read Dawkins' book myself, I know that Dawkins was talking about appearances and making a simile, not lending support to ID. He was, in fact, trying to debunk the notion of deliberate design.

Behe said that most biologists, like Dawkins, will look at whole organisms, like the way birds fly, or the way fish swim. But it's when you get down to the cellular molecular level that you find that microscopic structures are too complex to have evolved. He pointed to how the publication "Cell" (1998) compared cellular structures to "machines." He put up the famous Darwin quote that creationists love to use, again out of context, where Darwin says he can't think of any examples of progressive development. He left out the second part, which I think is important, where Darwin describes what we should expect to find if there were a stepwise evolution.

Behe went into his "Irreducible Complexity" argument. Predictably enough, he showed a diagram of a mousetrap, saying that if you remove any parts, you end up with a broken mousetrap. It couldn't have evolved piece by piece from something simpler. He said that you can't start with the wood base and hope the mouse trips on it, or then add the catch and hope the mouse impales itself when it trips. He then, predictably enough, put up a diagram of the bacterial flagellum, and said that removing any of the parts would result in a broken flagellum.

Next, Behe plugged his first book, "Darwin's Black Box." He included a quote from Franklin M. Harold, when in discussing Behe’s idea of Irreducible Complexity, Harold says, “We should reject it as a matter of principle.” (2001) Behe suggested that this point of view is arrogant and over-the-top, and implied that Darwinism is dogmatic.

He showed a diagram of the Ghostbusters logo, saying that people dismiss ID as being mystical. But then he said that when he was being trained as a scientist, he was taught to ignore philosophical or theological implications. He said that this is the wrong approach, and that these explanations should be considered as well.

Next came a quote from Dr. Griffin (2000) about how people supporting Darwinian evolution always resort to telling him that he's just read the wrong books. In other words, Behe was using this as an excuse to ignore the evidence. He said that such evidence does not exist when you look for it, and then equated Darwinism with urban legends.

Before plugging his new book "The Edge of Evolution" (2007) he claimed that even here in the year 2008, the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to design. He then said that he doesn't deny that some evolution happens, just that because people use evolution to refer to many different things, parts of it may be right while others are wrong. He said he accepts common descent and the process of natural selection, but that they're trivial points that don't prove anything, such as how life got here in the first place (which is a different theory entirely).

Next came a long explanation about how random mutation can't bring about the changes that Darwinian evolution claims it can. He summarized his main arguments as follows:

1. Life is too complex. He attacked the early work of Haeckel who said that cells could arise from ocean mud, saying that this is wrong because we now know that cells are like machines. He pulled out a quote from Watson (2006) regarding computer programming, saying that a hill-climbing model for development like we find in Darwinian evolution is too simplistic to be applied to computers. In other words, steady progression doesn't explain complexity.

Behe went on to claim that the best evidence of Darwinism is in studies of malaria, and went on to explain sickle cell disease and all the genes associated with malaria resistance. He argued that most mutations are harmful, and that the only way Darwinian evolution can work is by breaking old genes, as is the case with malaria resistance.

2. Darwinism works only by breaking what's already there. In other words, mutations can't add information, merely distort and rearrange old information.


That was the lecture. I'll tell you want happened afterwards in a minute.