Behe Jumps the Shark [response to Michael Behe's NYTimes op-ed, "Design for Living"]

Butterflies and Wheels (reprinted from pharyngula.org) ^ | February 7, 2005 | P. Z. Myers

[snarks_when_bored]

Behe Jumps the Shark

By P Z Myers

Nick Matzke has also commented on this, but the op-ed is so bad I can't resist piling on. From the very first sentence, Michael Behe's op-ed in today's NY Times is an exercise in unwarranted hubris.

In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design.

And it's all downhill from there.

Intelligent Design creationism is not a "rival theory." It is an ad hoc pile of mush, and once again we catch a creationist using the term "theory" as if it means "wild-ass guess." I think a theory is an idea that integrates and explains a large body of observation, and is well supported by the evidence, not a random idea about untestable mechanisms which have not been seen. I suspect Behe knows this, too, and what he is doing is a conscious bait-and-switch. See here, where he asserts that there is evidence for ID:

Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims.

This is where he first pulls the rug over the reader's eyes. He claims the Intelligent Design guess is based on physical evidence, and that he has four lines of argument; you'd expect him to then succinctly list the evidence, as was done in the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ on the talkorigins site. He doesn't. Not once in the entire op-ed does he give a single piece of this "physical evidence." Instead, we get four bald assertions, every one false.

The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature.

He then tells us that Mt Rushmore is designed, and the Rocky Mountains aren't. How is this an argument for anything? Nobody is denying that human beings design things, and that Mt Rushmore was carved with intelligent planning. Saying that Rushmore was designed does not help us resolve whether the frond of a fern is designed.

Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too.

No, this is controversial, in the sense that Behe is claiming it while most biologists are denying it. Again, he does not present any evidence to back up his contention, but instead invokes two words: "Paley" and "machine."

The Reverend Paley, of course, is long dead and his argument equally deceased, thoroughly scuttled. I will give Behe credit that he only wants to turn the clock of science back to about 1850, rather than 1350, as his fellow creationists at the Discovery Institute seem to desire, but resurrecting Paley won't help him.

The rest of his argument consists of citing a number of instances of biologists using the word "machine" to refer to the workings of a cell. This is ludicrous; he's playing a game with words, assuming that everyone will automatically link the word "machine" to "design." But of course, Crick and Alberts and the other scientists who compared the mechanism of the cell to an intricate machine were making no presumption of design.

There is another sneaky bit of dishonesty here; Behe is trying to use the good names of Crick and Alberts to endorse his crackpot theory, when the creationists know full well that Crick did not believe in ID, and that Alberts has been vocal in his opposition.

So far, Behe's argument has been that "it's obvious!", accompanied by a little sleight of hand. It doesn't get any better.

The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.

Oh, so many creationists tropes in such a short paragraph.

Remember, this is supposed to be an outline of the evidence for Intelligent Design creationism. Declaring that evolutionary biology is "no good" is not evidence for his pet guess.

Similarly, declaring that some small minority of scientists, most of whom seem to be employed by creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute or the Creation Research Society or Answers in Genesis, does not make their ideas correct. Some small minority of historians also believe the Holocaust never happened; does that validate their denial? There are also people who call themselves physicists and engineers who promote perpetual motion machines. Credible historians, physicists, and engineers repudiate all of these people, just as credible biologists repudiate the fringe elements that babble about intelligent design.

The last bit of his claim is simply Behe's standard misrepresentation. For years, he's been going around telling people that he has analyzed the content of the Journal of Molecular Evolution and that they have never published anything on "detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures", and that the textbooks similarly lack any credible evidence for such processes. Both claims are false. A list of research studies that show exactly what he claims doesn't exist is easily found.

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

How does Behe get away with this?

How does this crap get published in the NY Times?

Look at what he is doing: he is simply declaring that there is no convincing explanation in biology that doesn't require intelligent design, therefore Intelligent Design creationism is true. But thousands of biologists think the large body of evidence in the scientific literature is convincing! Behe doesn't get to just wave his hands and have all the evidence for evolutionary biology magically disappear; he is trusting that his audience, lacking any knowledge of biology, will simply believe him.

After this resoundingly vacant series of non-explanations, Behe tops it all off with a cliche.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

Behe began this op-ed by telling us that he was going to give us the contemporary argument for Intelligent Design creationism, consisting of four linked claims. Here's a shorter Behe for you:

The evidence for Intelligent Design.

• It's obvious.
• It's obvious!
• Evolutionary explanations are no good.
• There aren't any good evolutionary explanations.

That's it.

That's pathetic.

And it's in the New York Times? Journalism has fallen on very hard times.

This article was first published on Pharyngula and appears here by permission.

[Alamo-Girl]

After a good night's sleep and a few coffees, it occurs to me that some of the Lurkers here might be wondering what the heck a "hypercube" is. So here goes...

The space of a 2 dimensional area is flat, a plane. In three dimensions it is a cube. That much is pretty straight forward.

Add a fourth dimension (or more) and you have a hypercube which would look like this if the observer and it were standing still and the dimensions were 4 of space:

If the observer (or it) moved around so that the hypercube could be seen from different perspectives, it would look like this:

Add the perspective of time (space/time instead of just space) and it would look like this:

Getting back to communications for a second, Shannon's model looks at the message space as a sphere - the sum of which would look like a gumball machine before a selection is made by the receiver. That part is very well established in information theory and also as information theory is applied to molecular biology.

Glossary for Molecular Information

Shannon sphere: A sphere in a high dimensional space which represents either a single message of a communications system (after sphere) or the volume that contains all possible messages (before sphere) could be called a Shannon sphere, in honor of Claude Shannon who recognized its importance in information_theory. The radius of the smaller after spheres is determined by the ambient thermal noise, while that of the larger before sphere is determined by both the thermal noise and the signal power (signal-to-noise ratio), measured at the receiver. The logarithm of the number of small spheres that can fit into the larger sphere determines the channel capacity (See: Shannon1949). The high-dimensional packing of the spheres is the coding of the system.

There are two ways to understand how the spheres come to be. Consider a digital message consisting of independent voltage pulses. The independent voltage values specify a point in a high dimensional space since independence is represented by coordinate axes set at right angles to each other. Thus three voltage pulses correspond to a point in a 3 dimensional space and 100 pulses correspond to a point in a 100 dimensional space. The first `non-Cartesian' way to understand the spheres is to note that thermal noise interferes with the initial message during transmission of the information such that the received point is dislocated from the initial point. Since noisy distortion can be in any direction, the set of all possible dislocations is a sphere. The second `Cartesian' method is to note that the sum of many small dislocations to each pulse, caused by thermal noise, gives a Gaussian distribution at the receiver….

For a molecular machine containing n atoms there can be as many as 3n-6 independent components (degrees of freedom) so there can be 3n-6 dimensions. The velocity of these components corresponds to the voltage in a communication system and they are disturbed by thermal noise. Thus the state of a molecular machine can also be described by a sphere in a high dimensional velocity space.

But perhaps the geometry of the message is also a space/time "hypercube" comprising the Shannon sphere. In that case each phase space – or cell – and/or the sequence (or connection) could contribute to the encoding or decoding of the message itself. This could be seen on the sender side as the DNA, RNA - and on the receiving side the reduction of uncertainty (which is the state change in the molecular machinery) – or information.

A simpler way to consider how that might work would be to meditate playing Tic-tac-toe on a Hypercube and how a "solution" there might be akin to the message encoding structure of the DNA (not the DNA itself which is double helix).

[betty boop]

But perhaps the geometry of the message is also a space/time "hypercube" comprising the Shannon sphere. In that case each phase space – or cell – and/or the sequence (or connection) could contribute to the encoding or decoding of the message itself. This could be seen on the sender side as the DNA, RNA - and on the receiving side the reduction of uncertainty (which is the state change in the molecular machinery) – or information.

Fascinating insight, Alamo-Girl! Thank you ever so much for the link -- I'll take the time to do the "Tic-Tac-Toe in a Hypercube" meditation this evening. Then we must compare notes!!! :^)

Thanks so much for writing!

[RightWingNilla]

Me: Would you classify a sodium ion moving toward a chloride ion as "will"?

AG:No. I would classify it as the effect of a cause.

Interesting. I am not sure science at this point and time can address what is beyond the cause of the electrostatic forces (which drive everything in biology).

How does one get more of a handle on this cause?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

I am not sure science at this point and time can address what is beyond the cause of the electrostatic forces (which drive everything in biology).

To host the will to live, electricity – or an electrostatic force – will not do because the magnitude of the force rapidly decreases with distance and what we observe in this “will to live” is field-like.

Electricity coupled with magnetism however (electromagnetism) is a field (and wave) which is propagated by electricity and magnetism creating each other. So an EM field would have adequate magnitude for the will to live. Some investigators evidently believe it holds a key to answering the "will to live" question.

However, as Right Wing Professor suggests in post 870, if the EM field were the host field for a will to live per se then we ought to observe repeatable changes in biological systems in the presence of different frequencies, etc. And Frankenstein's experiment would have some basis.

How does one get more of a handle on this cause?

I’m much more inclined to a vacuum field – which cannot be easily measured directly but which might be studied indirectly. Taken as a field, we can also think of it as geometry. Also, as a field, there would be a relationship to EM (etc.) and thus studying the known fields in light of a new theory for the "will to live" - might provide some of the indirect evidence needed.

The first step of course is observation, analysis and definition - all of which is already in process. IMHO, it will be a natural extension of the work already proceeding wrt information theory and physics in biology: communications, complexity, autonomy, semiosis, etc.

[betty boop]

...as Right Wing Professor suggests in post 870, if the EM field were the host field for a will to live per se then we ought to observe repeatable changes in biological systems in the presence of different frequencies, etc. And Frankenstein's experiment would have some basis.... I’m much more inclined to a vacuum field – which cannot be easily measured directly but which might be studied indirectly. Taken as a field, we can also think of it as geometry. Also, as a field, there would be a relationship to EM (etc.) and thus studying the known fields in light of a new theory for the "will to live" - might provide some of the indirect evidence needed.

I think Right Wing Professor's suggestion is right on the money. And so think that something more than "just" an EM field would be required -- although I do imagine that the presence of a "local" EM field may well be the factor that allows an organism to self-organize and govern itself as a unified, dynamic whole. In short, my speculation is the EM field is a facilitator, not source, of the information required for the organism to constantly monitor and modify its internal boundary conditions, to organize itself at the cellular and organic levels, to form "collective degrees of freedom" which, on the basis of research I've seen, is primarily responsible for the organism's ability to enhance its Gibbs free energy at the most economical "cost" to the organism. But the EM field does not itself supply the information required for the organism to be able to do any of these things. The EM field is a field of force, not a field of information.

Which is why I'm with you, Alamo-Girl, in suspecting that a vacuum field is, if not the source, then the carrier of biological information. And to the extent that a hypothetical primary universal vacuum field is the "field of all fields," perhaps it also provides the information necessary for all the other fields as well, thus "informing" matter -- e.g., non-living systems -- as well as living systems.

I read the fascinating "Hypercube Tic-Tac-Toe" last night, A-G. Thanks so much for that link! It was an ingenious study of multidimensionality, starting with observations that are easily made in our 3+1D world within the framework of a seemingly "pointless" game: tic-tac-toe, a game played by two players on a board with n = 3 cells per side in k = 2 dimensions. In short, tic-tac-toe deals with a "planar" reality. Varying k (and also n) leads to some surprising results. The article deals with extra dimensions as a stacking up of planes (each additional dimension regarded as a "plane" engrafted upon the lower-dimensional plane(s) below it. I thought that was a useful way to envision the possibility of extra dimensions beyond our 4D block. And it was interesting to see the behavior elicited by playing the game of tic-tac-toe in higher dimensions. I was fascinated by certain symmetries that seemed to emerge, and also the possibilities for "paired behavior" of the game players.

Anyhoot, the hypercube that emerges from this discussion expresses as geometrical form. To me, the implicit point of the exercise seemed to be that whatever the value of k is, the "highest k" "enfolds" all the other ks, be they of space or time. And this is directly analogous to the idea of a "field of all fields." One would think there is no field more ultimate than the primary vacuum of the universe. But in what "k" that "lives," I imagine will be very difficult to ascertain....

The point is, in my thought experiment, the ultimate k enfolds all within itself; it may be geometrical in form; and it may carry a sort of "cosmic information set" that can be accessed by living beings (e.g., variously called the life principle, the fecundity principle, the will to live). Living beings are living because they are in successful communication with this information source.

[Alamo-Girl]

Magnificient post, betty boop! We are exactly on the same wavelength in this investigation - though you do tend to stay ahead of me most of the time because of your forest view of all my trees. LOL!

Right Wing Professor, I apologize for not pinging you to my posts from 872 forward. I had you in mind, even represented some of what you said and like an idiot, forgot to ping you.

I'm fixing to go paint again this afternoon but will be meditating on all of your points, betty boop - and look forward to furthering this investigation! See y'all later.

[betty boop]

...your forest view of all my trees

But you can't have a forest without trees in the first place, dear Alamo-Girl!

But then you do know how very intrigued I am with the problem of "the evolution of a population of one" -- as Rod Swenson so felicitously terms it in his article, "Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Behavior."

BTW, the crickets do not seem to be doing much chirping right about now. :^) It must be Winter.

Also BTW, I thought the "Hypercube T-T-T" article was truly extraordinary, A-G. On first reading, I think I have only scratched the surface of its meaning. I'll be consulting it again. Thank you ever so much!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply! I'm tickled you enjoyed the hyperspace tic-tac-toe. I agree with you there is more there than meets the eye, especially when one considers the possible structure of space/time.

It's all crickets all the time here - hopefully the conversation will pick up on the new thread when the article is finished.

Since we seem to always top off a long thread with a benediction, perhaps this will be appropriate for the final conversation here:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard...

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. – Psalms 19

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. - Isaiah 6:9-10

[Mark Felton]

Actually a 4-dimensional cube would be just an everyday cube. The 4th dimension being time and orthogonal to the space dimensions.

If it exists for any amount of time then it is 4-dimensional.

[Tribune7]

He then tells us that Mt Rushmore is designed, and the Rocky Mountains aren't. How is this an argument for anything?

PZ is pretty clueless. Because design can be detected and Mt. Rushmore is an example.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

There are two worldviews on the subject. One sees three spatial dimensions evolving over time.

The other sees four dimensions, one of which is time - x,y,z and t for time.

The first view allows no additional temporal dimensions, the second does, e.g. Vafa's F-theory and Wesson's 5 Dimensional Relativity, 2 Times.

The second view is also expressed in Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe:

“A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime — the bird perspective — these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta — a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.

“The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: The universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.”

Tegmark, Max, “Parallel Universes,” Scientific American, May, 2003

[RobbyS]

Celebrate by reading "Origin of Species". More like reading Ptolemy than Copernicus.

[hosepipe]

[ There are two worldviews on the subject. One sees three spatial dimensions evolving over time. The other sees four dimensions, one of which is time - x,y, and t for time. ]

Waded thru Wesson and Vafa and Tegmark a little, till each spat on my Jib which made me tack away.... Wonder if Jesus considered these possible ramifications.. The human body is a wonderful bit of mechanics.. Most (of them(humans)) in time and history)) are clueless as to how it works in space/time.. It just does.. i.e the arm connected to the shoulder then to the backbone on down to the sphincter..

Humans bodys work fine not knowing how they work (usually).. it don't seem to be required (by God) to know how the body works(exactly).. It does however seem to be a requirement to know what and how the spirit works.. evidence: the Bible(written or oral even experiencial)..

What is required of the "frog in the well"(frog metaphore).. Cause it is certain we are all frogs in wells.. Few, it seems, could possibly understand the "tailings" of human fact mining.. and the "gold" thats been found could indeed be fools gold.. (math, geology, anthropology, even geometry.. etc.)

After a lifetime of wading thru the shoals and swamps and mountain peaks.. nugget hunting.. One thing is/seems certain to me.. When it gets complicated I'm probably on the wrong path.. Jesus does seem to make things "simpler".. as a matter fact he appears to operate on the "keep it simple stupid(K.I.S.S.) principle.

In my readings, he recognizes the human body but leads toward the spirit.. Theologically as in other "sciences" when it gets complicated the odor of BS is detected.. even if not seen.. Cynical?.. maybe..

Two dimensions "this one" and the "spiritual one".. seem to me to be quite practical.. Tacyons may be just a mental construct.. with marginal use.. After all a frog in a well seems to be limited to an either/or duality.. More than two options might be beyonds mans ability to comprehend.. It seems so.. beyond duality man seems to lose track chasing the maze..

Little wonder the Bible is so solid.. The spirit riding the donkey(mankind) is quite bibical.. Could be "the spirit" where all thought is generated will never under stand "this universe".. The human brain can't handle it and the human spirit don't really need to know.. If, as I suspect, human spirits will one day command "gifts" to manipulate "this universe" easily.. "We" won't "have" to know..

Meaning, as the human body operates easily in this "realm".. (not knowing the mechanics of it).. the spirit will operate in the other/different realm not needing to "know" the mechanics of "there".. This human experience just might be a mandatory test to spiritual suitabilty for that "there" experience.. Oversimplified?.. maybe..

But consideing "many" of these types of conversations.. it appears to me people do better with "simple".. All mannar of imaginings can come from that well in the ground(frog).. Counting the rocks on the wall(math) seems to be a common practice then to the shape((of the rocks)geometry).. True, its lonely in that well.. you must do something.. To think that, that, frog is not alone in that well.. the Holy Spirit is there to.. often/mostly ignored.. Theres a duality for you, the frog in the well ignoring the Holy Spirt.. Must think on that today.. Now theres a concept..

Sorry, Wesson drove me to it..

[betty boop]

Oooooppsss! I misattributed Wesson's 5D relativity with 2 times to Schroeder! Duh!

Oh well.... my memory ain't as good as it used to be!

Thanks for this informative essay/post, Alamo-Girl!

[betty boop]

After all a frog in a well seems to be limited to an either/or duality.. More than two options might be beyonds mans ability to comprehend..

Seems that way hosepipe. Seems to have something to do with Aristotle's law of the excluded middle. This recalls what Einstein said: "If two descriptions are mutually exclusive, at least one of them must be wrong."

And yet his friend Bohr tried to point out to Einstein that "even though the wave and particle behavior of an object are mutually exclusive, we need both to completely understand its properties." This is Bohr's famous "complementarity principle." As a "classical physicist," Einstein could never accept this.

At bottom, the question of "either/or" basically goes to the issue of what the observer wants to see. Yet to choose one (is it a particle or a wave?) does not extinguish the other. To insist that it does is to not have the complete description of the system.

Thank you hosepipe for your inspirational essay/post!

[Mark Felton]

We can and do certainly create all kinds of different reference systems and multi-dimensional mathematical equations.

One of the most widely used and generally useful system for physicists in relativity today is called Minkowski space which defines the world in the 4 dimensions of x, y, z, and -t. (negative t)

However, there are a variety of coordinate systems that can and are used depending upon the particular physics under investigation.

Some of the systems have verifiable relevance to real life (Minkowski for instance) where all the dimensions can be measured and proven.

Other systems are multidimensional; and usually have very limited ability to be proven, verified, in the real world. String theory and its variants for instance.

Mathematically we deal witn n-number of dimensions and can make the mathematics do all sorts of interesting tricks, but many of those tricks will have zero truth, or reality, if they could be experimentally investigated (which most cannot).

I personally get a little impatient with the theorists (though I am one myself) who get all wrapped up in their mathematics and may lose sight of the real world. They tend to make a large number of simplifying assumptions, which take their formulas out of reality (but can still illuminate if verifiable)

It is rather like using a language to write beautiful elegant poetry or elaborate fiction rather than using the language to write dull documentaries and non-fiction. both use the same language, it must meet rules of grammar, spelling etc...one defines a reality (and is correct linguistically) and the other defines vast worlds of fiction (but is also correct linguistically).

Just because the math is correct does not make it real. (though certainly at times it does illuminate paths to new realities since it is much more a modelling language than the written language)

[hosepipe]

[ This is Bohr's famous "complementarity principle." As a "classical physicist," Einstein could never accept this. ]

So true.. I love Einsteins 2 x 2 = 4.. and if you come up with a different answer you're simply WRONG(this universe).. yet I love Bohr's if you're wrong that says something too.. Reciprocals are so often true in other than Math.. Reducing all to mathematics must be a second reality.. I think Bohr was righter than Einstein.. Albert was counting rocks in the well Bohr was gazing the sky.. Good froggies both..

Thought of the day- "If the bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass".. i.e. You Must be born again- Jesus...

[Mark Felton]

I suspect we need to look at the molecules that comprise life to begin to measure a "life force".

All fields are measured by their effects on something else which we can then measure. We don't really measure any fields directly.

Effects of gravity are measured by its effects on all matter (which in turn is measure by scales, etc)

magnetism by effects on iron. (measured also by scales for force)

elctrostatics by effects on gold leafs for instance (they seperate based on the amount of charge, one of the simplest oldest staic measuring devices. Or the effects of the electron.

strong force by its effects on hadrons (which is measured by effects on other materials in particle experiments, and of course in nuclear reactions).

weak force by beta decay (which in turn is measured by some other effects on material in particle detectors)

Thus for life force we must look for unique properties of the life elements/molecules that distinguish them from other molecules, with similar chemistries, perhaps silicon based molecules (the popular silicon life form ideas in sci fi which i suppose evolutionary theories suggest should already have been established, but don't exist)

[.30Carbine]

I finally made the time your long (but KISSed!) post, and it was a delight to my heart, as all your posts are, dear hosepipe. Thank you for pinging me to it.