How to deal with Dr. Behe?

[Mojo]

Towards the end of the discussion, we were talking about how ID is often used as a placeholder, but once science does find the answers, ID has to be bumped further back.

Did you explicitly mention the false dilemma fallacy at the heart of Behe's argument: "if Darwinian evolution cannot account for a particular feature of living things, it must have been designed"?

 

[SezMe]

Very interesting thread. Thanks, SK, for the opening and follow up. This is what the E in JREF is all about.

Here's one great big ATTA BOY you can take down to your local pub for a pint.

 

[Lucky]

Well done!

However, to try and dig himself out, he compared intelligent design to the Big Bang theory back when it was first proposed. He said that it was based on the observations of galaxies moving farther apart, but as with ID, we can't experimentally test it, and we haven't observed anything like it. Many people opposed the Big Bang theory and called it ridiculous, yet nowadays it's widely accepted, and people have even built new theories off of it. The impression I got was that he has faith that intelligent design will eventually be vindicated by the evidence (even though this has yet to happen and the future looks quite bleak for it).

That surprises me. I'd assumed that he's a fraud and that, whatever he once believed, he's now just in it for the public attention and money. So you think he genuinely believes his 'theory'? (Unfortunately, I guess the Big Bang argument sounded quite impressive to the non-scientific part of the audience.)

One professor said he's actually grateful for ID and people like Behe, because he believes science should be open to debate and questioning. I pointed out that the main problem I have with ID is that, even though Behe claims it's not a religious argument, the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute says otherwise.

I agree with the professor. As well as educating the public, defending our studies and theories against opposing views (even downright ridiculous ones) is the best way to improve them (though I'd qualify that by adding "up to a point" – evolutionary biologists have other important work to do than debating IDers). The fact that ID is based on religious wishful thinking isn't a reason not to debate it, it's just an important point to make in the debate.

 

[The Gnomon]

Brilliant

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 is the best, simplest, and most convincing counter-argument to the "complexity requires intellegent design" assertion I have yet encountered. Thank you.

 

[Lucky]

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 is the best, simplest, and most convincing counter-argument to the "complexity requires intellegent design" assertion I have yet encountered. Thank you.

It's a good argument if you want to make the point that it's not at all obvious what 'complexity' is, and that it's related in a complicated way to both probability and a priori significance.

But it is very far from explaining how any complex system, biological or otherwise, actually arises. The point is that the mis-shapen metal is not complex in any interesting way (and the sphere presumably was manufactured). The argument therefore says nothing about biological systems (which we regard as genuinely complex in an a priori sense, and therefore corresponding neither to the sphere nor to the mis-shapen metal).

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I warned against the temptation to think you can come up with a simple killer argument that will expose ID (or some other crank theory) as a fallacy. Any competent crank could easily demolish this one.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's a good argument if you want to make the point that it's not at all obvious what 'complexity' is, and that it's related in a complicated way to both probability and a priori significance.

But it is very far from explaining how any complex system, biological or otherwise, actually arises. The point is that the mis-shapen metal is not complex in any interesting way (and the sphere presumably was manufactured). The argument therefore says nothing about biological systems (which we regard as genuinely complex in an a priori sense, and therefore corresponding neither to the sphere nor to the mis-shapen metal).

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I warned against the temptation to think you can come up with a simple killer argument that will expose ID (or some other crank theory) as a fallacy. Any competent crank could easily demolish this one.

Well said.

 

[Asolepius]

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.

He will just say the misshapen hunk was made by God Just kidding.

 

[Lucky]

He will just say the misshapen hunk was made by God Just kidding.

He wouldn't need to. He could say what I just said.

The point is that the mis-shapen metal is not complex in any interesting way (and the sphere presumably was manufactured). The argument therefore says nothing about biological systems (which we regard as genuinely complex in an a priori sense, and therefore corresponding neither to the sphere nor to the mis-shapen metal).

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Did you explicitly mention the false dilemma fallacy at the heart of Behe's argument: "if Darwinian evolution cannot account for a particular feature of living things, it must have been designed"?

Someone else did bring up that particular question, or at least one form of it. It was one of the last questions (keep in mind I can't remember the exact order of the questions) in which a student mentioned how Behe seems to be attacking Darwinian evolution in order to justify ID, but why can't they be part of the same thing? Why can't ID be part of evolution itself? Behe's response was to remind everyone that he doesn't disagree that some evolution has occurred, and he said that they could be.

In other words, he sort of avoided the false dilemma fallacy. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped other cdesign proponentsists from doing it.

 

[CFLarsen]

The point is that the mis-shapen metal is not complex in any interesting way.

Gee, where have we heard that "argument" before....?

 

[jimbob]

Let me repeat that one more time. Dr. Michael Behe had to admit in front of everyone that he did not know of a way to test intelligent design, and that there is no proposed mechanism for design!

as Detee has said, there are ways to determine whether something was competently designed.

Unlike Behe I can think of several features that are highly indicitive of either an evolved system or one that has been competently designed.

1) Designers can correct their mistakes
Given that Behe accepts common descent of humans and chimps, why would the designer not fix the appendix so it didn't burst, once this " obviously not-so omniscient" designer noticed the first hominid case of appendicitis?

2) Designers can reuse aspects of their designs
There are several animals that have additional eyes (e.g Notostraca). Their "third-eye" is different to their two compound-eyes, which is perfectly consistent with an evolved system, where there is no "defined function" the system just does what it does. However most competent designers, particularly those competent enough to desing one type of eye, would simply reuse that eye design for any additional ones.

Similarly, convergent evolution, where many organisms in similar environments demonstrate similar traits, is further evidence against a designer acting like this. Why are there so many diffferent plants that produce fruit? Why are there so many different parts of the flower that turn into fruit (either true-fruit, or false fruit)? This is easy to explain if they evolved seperately, but hard if you posit a designer attempting different solutions, to the same problem.

3) Competent designers don't get something right, then get it wrong later without correcting it
The octopus-retina lacks many of the drawbacks of the mammalian retina, which came later (or the same time if you are a YEC, which Behe isn't). Any human with the intelligence to design an eye would also spot the flaw in the mammalian "design".

4)Evolved systems can only get "information" from their ancestors
If a traits evolved seperately in different orgainsms, the genes that express these traits should have different sequences, whilst if they were designed, they could be quite likely to have the same genetic sequence. Should anyone find this, when there hasn't been lateral gene transfer, then this would require some explaination. But (as the world's entire news media hasn't trumpeted this discovery) this hasn't been found.

5) Evolved systems are quite likely to "throw away" traits that are no longer advantageous
Why are vestigal organs vestigal, and neither fully working nor non-existant, which would look more elegant. For example either Basilosaurus, or modern whales have the more aesthetic rear leg "solution". Why did Basilosaurus have vestigal legs?

I am sure there are more but that should show why I disagree with Behe's admission...ETA that one couldn't test for ID.

 

[SimpleIrony]

The question I would love to ask him is:

Could you give an example of a system that was definitely not designed, so we know what we are comparing?

 

[Meadmaker]

The question I would love to ask him is:

Could you give an example of a system that was definitely not designed, so we know what we are comparing?

I think he would respond with a picture of a mountain, and compare it to Mount Rushmore. When it comes to biological systems, he would say that there are no such systems.

 

[Complexity]

Stay home and read a good book.

Don't give him any attention or one more moment of your time.

 

[SimpleIrony]

I think he would respond with a picture of a mountain, and compare it to Mount Rushmore. When it comes to biological systems, he would say that there are no such systems.

Sigh... you are probably right.

 

[Gregoire]

The question I would love to ask him is:

Could you give an example of a system that was definitely not designed, so we know what we are comparing?

He actually does discuss this in his book The Edge of Evolution (2007).

Specifically, he discussed malaria resistance in humans caused by a single point mutation in the gene that codes for hemoglobin. He agrees that the mutation was random and that natural selection has lead to a large population of those who have this gene (aka sickle cell trait) in areas where malaria is endemic.

He points out that while those who have one copy (the heterozygous) of this gene gain resistance to malaria, those who have two copies (the homozygous) suffer from Sickle Cell anemia. Therefore, he opines, evolution does occur through "Darwinian mechanisms", but only through the destruction of a gene which was already there.

At first glance, it is refreshing to see a person who believes in ID to use actual science as evidence. But as has been pointed out, he is ignoring a lot of evidence that he clearly should have known about by now. For example, Alaric's article (of which I started a thread on a while back http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98746) clearly contradicts what he is saying.

 

[Gregoire]

One professor said he's actually grateful for ID and people like Behe, because he believes science should be open to debate and questioning.

So then it would be OK to discuss astrology "theories" at the next academic astronomy meeting...
/sarcasm]

 

[Gregoire]

Yep, that made my day!!

I would love to see video of that! Was any taken?

I am nominating SilentKnight's first post about the description of Behe's talk.

Awesome job!


For what it is worth, I actually TIVO'd Dr. Behe's lecture about his new book on CSPAN which he gave last summer, I think. And it still might be possible to get it from the CSPAN site.

Otherwise, I could always put it on a video tape if others were interested. The questioning, however, was not nearly as critical. And I seem to remember a Biology student claiming that a lot of Biology students from his university were sympathetic to ID....god... heaven ....science help us!

 

[articulett]

I'm glad your post was nominated Silentknight... so I got a chance to read this thread.

I think I would have asked... "so, your evidence supports an intelligent designer-- like Xenu?"

(Whose to say the nature of the designer, eh? Allah? Zeus?).

 

[Brown]

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

A similar discussion appears in this thread, inlcuding an argument to the effect that, if there was a designer, the designer was not merely a bumbler but wicked and malicious.