How to deal with Dr. Behe?

[Brown]

I was very impressed by SilentKnight's account. Time was, not all that long ago, that issues of this type were addressed by brute force: hitting, stabbing, torturing... but rhetoric is far superior.

The impression I get from the account is that Behe's position is untenable, and he knows it. But he's trapped. He can't recant his previous public positions, for he would lose everything: his income, his credibility, his publicity.

 

[Lucky]

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

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

There are many places you might have seen this argument, or something similar – I don't claim to have originated it.

For example, Richard Dawkins makes the same point at much greater length in The Blind Watchmaker. I recommend you read this brilliant book. In particular, study Chapter 1 Explaining the very improbable, and especially the section on what complexity means with reference to watches, airliners, living things, blancmanges and Mont Blanc.

"I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems [our existence] but, incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place!
The problem is that of complex design."

"The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up."

"We animals are the most complicated things in the known universe. ... Complicated things everywhere deserve a very special kind of explanation."

"When it comes to feeling awe over living 'watches' I yield to nobody. I feel much more in common with the Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published. 'What about Hume?', replied the philosopher. 'How did Hume explain the organised complexity of the living world?', I asked. 'He didn't', said the philosopher. 'Why does it need any special explanation?'
Paley knew that it needed a special explanation. Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too."

"There are billions of ways of throwing together the bits of Mont Blanc, it might be said, and only one of them is Mont Blanc. So what is it that makes the airliner and the human complicated, if Mont Blanc is simple? Any old jumbled collection of parts is unique and with hindsight, is as improbable as any other. ... Now, if you consider all the possible ways in which the rocks of Mont Blanc could have been thrown together, it is true that only one of them would make Mont Blanc as we know it. But Mont Blanc as we know it is defined with hindsight. Any one of a very large number of ways of throwing rocks together would be labelled a mountain, and might have been named Mont Blanc."

"The minimum requirement for us to recognise an object as an animal or plant is that it should succeed in making a living of some sort. It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living – flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive."

As you are not a biologist, or any kind of scientist, all of that may be over your head, so I'll summarise the argument for you:

• Living things are complex in a special and interesting way, both highly improbable and definable (in general terms) in advance.
• The existence of these complex (biological) objects requires a special explanation, very different from the explanation for simple (physical) objects.
• Creationists (past and present) are correct in pointing this out. However, their favoured explanation is false.
• Anyone denying the problem of biological complexity, and the necessity to explain its existence, is making a more serious error.

Now, would you care to explain why you think Dawkins and I are wrong? I look forward to your valuable contribution to this interesting and important scientific topic.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

The thing is, I don't necessarily think Dr. Behe is a bad guy. I think he just took the concept of scientific skepticism and went way too far with it, jumping to the wrong conclusions altogether. As you probably gathered from my synopsis of the lecture, and the discussion that went on before it, he doesn't use the same weak arguments as other ID-ers, and thus can't be approached assuming that he does. Consciously or not though, he's being used as a tool by the people who truly are trying to push a purely religious agenda by way of intelligent design.

I also now understand that intelligent design can serve a purpose. Whether intentionally or not, by pushing for a debate / controversy with evolutionary theory, intelligent design is practically a way to ensure that evolution is taught. After all, in order to counter the faulty claims and reasoning of ID, one must learn about evolution to a sufficient extent. I know this was the case with me, where I found myself relearning all the stuff we did in AP Biology.

ID is not the threat it tries to make itself out to be. Good science involves constant questioning and the challenging of currently established theories. Even if they don't realize it, all the cdesign proponentsists out there are actually serving to temper and strengthen evolutionary science and our understanding thereof.

 

[articulett]

Behe has a blog at Amazon... I think he is an incredible example of cognitive dissonance. He has a weird way of not actually saying anything while implying that "intelligent design" explains something. It seems that most creationists don't really understand that he accepts "common descent"... I don't know if they know what that even means... creationists have a way of listening for the words they want... the idea that science doesn't have the answers and their god is a likely explanation...

I think these debates just make Behe more delusional in his idea that his views have merit. Or does he know he's full of crap? It's hard to pin down a creationist on exactly what they are saying and what they are denying about the scientific position because of the way the use words. And they move the goal posts as they go and infer meaning from bits and pieces of scientific dialogue as has been illustrated.

Do you think they KNOW they are being dishonest?

 

[JJM]

The thing is, I don't necessarily think Dr. Behe is a bad guy. I think he just took the concept of scientific skepticism and went way too far with it, jumping to the wrong conclusions altogether. {snip}

I used to think that; but we learned, during the Dover Trial, that he was working with Young Earth Creationists (YEC) shortly after getting his PhD.

{snip} It seems that most creationists don't really understand that he accepts "common descent"... {snip}

I am not sure that he accepts common descent. I think it is just something he says in order to sound a bit sane. For one thing, in Darwin's Black Box he suggests that all the DNA for every type of animal was deposited in the original life-form. Also, when he first worked with the YEC group, he wrote a pamphlet claiming that there were no transitional fossils from land mammals to whales (such fossils were found after he wrote the pamphlet); thus, he argued against common descent.

SK, thanks for the interesting report.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Let me belatedly thank you for your report Silentknight.

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.

Agreed too, and I think that's one of the few, if only benefits of ID. By pointing out gaps in either our knowledge of biology (or at least in how that knowledge is being communicated) they help encourage further study to close the gap or to communicate the actual facts more accurately.

 

[Lucky]

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]

That analogy doesn't work very well, primarily because (unlike for natural selection and ID) the subject matter of astronomy and astrology isn't the same. Astronomy is the observational and theoretical study of celestial bodies and the universe, whilst astrology deals with the purported influence of these celestial bodies on human affairs. Astrology is therefore in principle incapable of pointing to supposed gaps or flaws in the observations and theories of astronomy. Also, of course, ID hasn't been historically superseded by natural selection – it arose in response and is a live adversary to be combated.

The thing is, I don't necessarily think Dr. Behe is a bad guy. I think he just took the concept of scientific skepticism and went way too far with it, jumping to the wrong conclusions altogether. As you probably gathered from my synopsis of the lecture, and the discussion that went on before it, he doesn't use the same weak arguments as other ID-ers, and thus can't be approached assuming that he does. Consciously or not though, he's being used as a tool by the people who truly are trying to push a purely religious agenda by way of intelligent design.

It's reminiscent of Philip Gosse and Omphalos. Behe's (startlingly arrogant!) belief that he's the man to reconcile fundamentalist religious belief with current science was no doubt genuine to begin with. Both Gosse and Behe were ridiculed and rejected by scientists, but the difference is that Gosse was also rebuffed by the religious establishment whilst Behe has got a following of religious activists to bolster his delusions and errors (and, I would say, intellectual dishonesty).

Perhaps religious folk were more honest or discerning in 19th century Britain than 21st century USA.

I also now understand that intelligent design can serve a purpose. Whether intentionally or not, by pushing for a debate / controversy with evolutionary theory, intelligent design is practically a way to ensure that evolution is taught. After all, in order to counter the faulty claims and reasoning of ID, one must learn about evolution to a sufficient extent. I know this was the case with me, where I found myself relearning all the stuff we did in AP Biology.

ID is not the threat it tries to make itself out to be. Good science involves constant questioning and the challenging of currently established theories. Even if they don't realize it, all the cdesign proponentsists out there are actually serving to temper and strengthen evolutionary science and our understanding thereof.

Agreed too, and I think that's one of the few, if only benefits of ID. By pointing out gaps in either our knowledge of biology (or at least in how that knowledge is being communicated) they help encourage further study to close the gap or to communicate the actual facts more accurately.

I think there are several benefits. We sharpen our intellectual faculties by confronting rival ideas, even if these ideas have no merit. I have found this from some of my attempts on this forum to dislodge firmly-held misconceptions, especially in the topics of evolution and genetics, from the understanding of non-scientists. As we develop better ways of arguing, these often translate into better ways of thinking.

Also, as Silentknight says, the constant attacks from IDers have had an effect in raising the profile of evolution with the public.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think there are several benefits. We sharpen our intellectual faculties by confronting rival ideas, even if these ideas have no merit.

That's basically what keeps me on forums. I long ago realized that my opinions weren't all that important in the grand scheme of things, but I try to find ways of discussing them with others in an attempt to find a way to break through their defenses, and figure out arguments that actually work, as opposed to saying, "You're stupid!"

That's what I found impressive about SilentKnight's question. By twisting it just a little bit from the conventional argument, he apparently threw Behe off guard, just a tiny bit. Behe could have come back with some variation of, "We can't see the designer in action, because his work is done," but that would have forced him to make a conjecture about the designer, which would have made him inch a bit closer to acknowledging that, all pretense aside, his designer is really God.

 

[Gregoire]

Originally Posted by Silentknight

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

Gregoire responds to what this professor said

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

That analogy doesn't work very well, primarily because (unlike for natural selection and ID) the subject matter of astronomy and astrology isn't the same. Astronomy is the observational and theoretical study of celestial bodies and the universe, whilst astrology deals with the purported influence of these celestial bodies on human affairs. Astrology is therefore in principle incapable of pointing to supposed gaps or flaws in the observations and theories of astronomy. Also, of course, ID hasn't been historically superseded by natural selection – it arose in response and is a live adversary to be combated.

Maybe I was being too obscure. I was referring to his testimony at Dover where he admitted under cross examination that his concept of what Science is includes Astrology.

...... the constant attacks from IDers have had an effect in raising the profile of evolution with the public.

I agree with this and in fact I, like many others on the forum, have taken the time to read a great deal about the ID controversy. I have learned a lot and am now much more secure in the reasons why I accept evolution.

I am not against controversy. I just think we need to distinguish between questions of Science and questions of Philosophy.

To say random mutation and natural selection cannot explain all of evolution is a scientific statement which can be tested. To say the actions of a god must be the alternative "explanation" is a philosophical statement insofar as we cannot empirically test for this god entity.

 

[Gregoire]

Quoting from The Blind Watchmaker, one of my favorite books:

"When it comes to feeling awe over living 'watches' I yield to nobody. I feel much more in common with the Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published. 'What about Hume?', replied the philosopher. 'How did Hume explain the organised complexity of the living world?', I asked. 'He didn't', said the philosopher. 'Why does it need any special explanation?'
Paley knew that it needed a special explanation. Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too."


"The minimum requirement for us to recognise an object as an animal or plant is that it should succeed in making a living of some sort. It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living – flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive."

Thanks for the time you have put into giving us an excerpt of what I feel is a very important book.

Interestingly, when Behe was recently on the podcast Point of Inquiry, he referred to this very passage from Dawkin's book, using it in a very different way than it was intended.

Dr. Behe claimed that even professor Dawkins admits that nature "looks" designed, and so design is really the default hypothesis. He states that it is only Darwin's theory which leads us to a naturalistic explaination of evolution. Therefore, he argues, any claim against Darwin must be an argument to go back again to the default design hyposthesis.

Again, I think this is blurring the line between Science and Philosophy ( not to mention it ignores all the advances we have made since 1859.)

 

[Lucky]

That's basically what keeps me on forums. I long ago realized that my opinions weren't all that important in the grand scheme of things, but I try to find ways of discussing them with others in an attempt to find a way to break through their defenses, and figure out arguments that actually work, as opposed to saying, "You're stupid!"

That's what I found impressive about SilentKnight's question. By twisting it just a little bit from the conventional argument, he apparently threw Behe off guard, just a tiny bit. Behe could have come back with some variation of, "We can't see the designer in action, because his work is done," but that would have forced him to make a conjecture about the designer, which would have made him inch a bit closer to acknowledging that, all pretense aside, his designer is really God.

Hmm ... not sure what keeps me here. I tend to post in topics that have at least something a bit new for me. I'm interested in refining my own understanding and, as you say, working out new ways to communicate and (hopefully) educate - not in showing off my erudition through a lecture (or bludgeoning my opponent into submission).

I agree about Silentknight's question – would be hard to think of a better one.

I am not against controversy. I just think we need to distinguish between questions of Science and questions of Philosophy.

To say random mutation and natural selection cannot explain all of evolution is a scientific statement which can be tested. To say the actions of a god must be the alternative "explanation" is a philosophical statement insofar as we cannot empirically test for this god entity.

I don't think there's a clear distinction. Or, rather, the distinction is between technology and philosophy. Science contains (and supports) aspects of both. Where science attempts to provide a mental model of how the universe works (as it should), it verges on philosophy. It's evident, though, that many people don't understand that they have to grasp the basics before they can (fruitfully) venture into the philosophy.

As for the 'god entity', I'd say that any postulated 'fact' about the universe falls within the province of science, and can, in principle, be tested. That includes ID's 'designer' - it's up to the proponents to devise suitable tests.

Interestingly, when Behe was recently on the podcast Point of Inquiry, he referred to this very passage from Dawkin's book, using it in a very different way than it was intended.

Dr. Behe claimed that even professor Dawkins admits that nature "looks" designed, and so design is really the default hypothesis. He states that it is only Darwin's theory which leads us to a naturalistic explaination of evolution. Therefore, he argues, any claim against Darwin must be an argument to go back again to the default design hyposthesis.

Again, I think this is blurring the line between Science and Philosophy ( not to mention it ignores all the advances we have made since 1859.)

Well, Dawkins did say that design was the default hypothesis – and went on to show that it was superseded 150 years ago! The Blind Watchmaker makes the point better than anything else I've read that there are two major errors in thinking about biological complexity – thinking that the explanation must be conscious design, and thinking that it doesn't need a special explanation. Since The Origin of Species there's no excuse for perpetuating either of these errors.

The problem with the IDers' so-called 'evidence against Darwinism' is that they are inconsistent (i.e. dishonest) about how widely they interpret 'Darwinism'. It's obvious to us (and doubtless to them, though they won't admit it) that 'Darwinism' contains a lot of subsidiary theories and hypotheses about mechanisms and specifics. Evidence against any one of these (which evolutionary biologists deal with all the time) is evidence against 'Darwinism' only if you temporarily re-define 'Darwinism' to mean just that specific theory or hypothesis. They might argue that the modified overall theory, having accommodated the new evidence or objection, is no longer 'Darwinism', but that's just pointless playing with words (whatever it is, it ain't ID).