Replies

If you scroll back on this thread you will find a link to Shapiro's review of Behe's "Black Box." I also produced Phillip Johnson's response to the review. There's no need for me to continue repeating myself

That is correct. Repeating your claims won't make them any more useful.

I have already read Shapiro's review numerous times. I keep pointing out that he "praises" Behe for his criticism of "orthodox evolutionary theory". Which you continue to ignore. Yes he does criticise Behe, but not exactly in the way you try to present it. This is essentially Shapiro's criticism of Behe.

First he establishes that Behe has 3 goals.(I have included what they are)

Professor Behe sets three goals in this book. The first is to introduce the lay reader to the fascinating world of biochemistry.

Professor Behe asserts that any credible evolutionary theory must account for biochemical inventions essential to survival. This assertion brings us to his second goal: to show that the Darwinian conceptual framework cannot explain cellular biochemistry.

Professor Behe's third goal is to herald the importance of the intelligent-design concept.

He then analyzes whether Behe achieves those goals and I include the "final" assessment that Shapiro gives to Behe as a preface to the rest of my post.

With the unqualified enthusiasm expressed by these statements, he guides the reader through the biochemical intricacies of several adaptive systems, ranging from the defensive artillery of the bombardier beetle to vision, blood clotting, and the immune response. His patient explanations reveal a conscientious teacher.

Surely, then, contemporary Darwinists have answers to rebut critics like Professor Behe. In fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution --with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.

Professor Behe's third goal is to herald the importance of the intelligent-design concept. Here he seems to lose his footing.

As you can see Shapiro praises Behe on achieving his goals for the first two of his three goals. Only on the third goal is Shapiro negative on Behe. I will only mention that the most devastating comments Shapiro makes in those two achieved goals are those about Darwinism e.g. "only a variety of wishful speculations", " It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution --with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

Now his "attack on Behe's third goal begins with, "Curiously, he treats intelligent design as a novel discovery." In his expansion on that point, Shapiro slaps Darwinism again while establishing his interpretation of the "real" third goal, Historically, then, the real issue is not the recent "discovery" of intelligent design in biology but rather why orthodox science currently denies what has seemed obvious for so long." What? Intelligent design in biology has seemed obvious for so long. Shapiro said that. Okay, he is not establishing the wellspring of that intelligence, but he nonetheless establishes that it still applies and must be explained.(ergo Dawkins fails to explain it)

Continuing his negative criticism of Behe, he expresses his dissatisfaction with Behe's lack of reporting the tremendous inroads biology has made in "revealing the inherent intelligence of complex molecular and cellular systems." Shapiro then describes something that Behe describes as "a Rube Goldberg", the blood-clotting cascade in glowing terms.

Shapiro then describes his biggest problem with Behe, "Professor Behe's most serious faux pas is suggesting that intelligent design may lie outside the domain of scientific investigation." He does this with an incomplete quote, "The dilemma is that while one side . . . is labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God." Well, he left out some important information. The complete quote seems to be "The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God.". The incomplete statement is confusing in that one might conclude that God is on the opposing side against intelligent design. The complete quote makes it clearer that Behe was equating intelligent design with God. That along with Shapiro's reading of the subtitle of the book allows him to comclude "suggests that it attacks the idea of evolution, not just Darwinian theories of change. " Well, that is an attack on Shapiro so he further concludes "Even the scientific approach is questioned. In the third section of Darwin's Black Box, in a partially justified attack on groupthink in the scientific community, Professor Behe chides colleagues for asserting that scientists must strive for explanations exclusively in terms of natural phenomena. " At this point Shapiro makes the statement(s), "But his appeal to explanations beyond the realm of nature is premature. Darwinism and creationism are not the only conceivable intellectual frameworks for thinking about the evolution of biological adaptations and diversity. The pertinent scientific questions have not all been asked." Notice the word "premature". He does not enclose the word in quotes or otherwise indicate ironic understatement. He thus does not forever exclude explanations "beyond the realm of nature". So you are premature in speaking for Dr. Shapiro.

Shapiro continues his dismissal of his reading of Behe's intent by asking, "Yet where does intelligence come from? . He follows with a series of questions relating to intelligence culminating in, "Could these examples of intelligent action in nature relate to the appearance of intelligent biochemical systems in evolution?" That is the question. He continues on to say, "Its fundamental driving forces have not been resolved either in detail or in principle." Fundamental driving forces have not been resolved!? Well, that certainly leaves Darwinism out.

He sums up his critique with this statement, "Where Darwin's Black Box undermines itself is in abandoning the effort to treat the question of intelligent design within science's own ongoing evolution." and this one which you've posted, "The second new factor, strangely ignored by Professor Behe, is the existence of computers and information networks. Having exemplars of physical objects endowed with computational and decision-making capabilities shows that there is nothing mystical, religious, or supernatural about discussing the potential for similarly intelligent action by living organisms." Having physical exemplars is absolutely correct. But those exemplars do not arise except from higher intelligence, namely us. So if we discuss the potential for similarly intelligent action by living organisms using the exemplars we must conclude a higher intelligence is at work or conclusively show how this innate intelligence is produced de novo. And that does not involve Darwinian handwaving.

Shapiro's final words are fairly temperate in critcism of Behe, "Sadly, despite its valuable critique of an all-too-often unchallenged orthodoxy, Darwin's Black Box fails to capture the true excitement of contemporary biology because it is fighting the battles of the past rather than seeing the vision of the future." You'll note the title of the book is "Darwin's Black Box" and not "Science cannot explain Life". Shapiro agrees with the black box concept.

Now your citation of Johnson as the source of Discovery Institute being "pretty unhappy" is a little confusing. I find it difficult to be even a little bit unhappy with, That sounds like a ringing endorsement of Behe’s scientific claims". The only overt criticism of Shapiro by Johnson is that his mind is locked into the materialist philosophy. And concludes with a reasonable question. The "criticism" you cited is pretty weak. In any case, for what it is worth, I disagree with Johnson's assessment of Shapiro being locked into the materialist philosophy.

You may try to speak for Shapiro and the Discovery Institute, but you are Tiny Tim as Canio in "Pagliacci".