Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?
http://RussP.us/IDscience.htm ^ | 2005-12-20 | Russ Paielli

Posted on 12/25/2005 1:41:41 PM PST by RussP

This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. --Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia

Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

2005-12-20 -- If you've participated in online debates about the theory of evolution, you know the standard arguments of evolutionists. Their "trump card" is the claim that Intelligent Design (ID) theory is simply outside the realm of science. This claim is not that ID has insufficient empirical corroboration, although they often make that claim too. This claim is that ID is not even a valid scientific theory because it is "unfalsifiable."

The notion that ID theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism." The main idea is that a hypothesis or theory does not qualify as "scientific" unless it is "falsifiable" (which is independent of whether it is actually "true" or "false"). Popper is revered by evolutionists, but certainly even they would agree that we should not blindly accept his word as revealed truth. So let us consider some of the implications of his "falsifiability" criterion.

Consider first the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist." If a spaceship landed on earth carrying aliens from another planet, this hypothesis would obviously be disproved or "falsified." If an intelligent message were indisputably received from a non-man-made source in space, that would also disprove the hypothesis. Hence, this hypothesis clearly meets the falsifiability criterion and is therefore "scientific" according to Popper's definition.

Now consider the opposite hypothesis, namely that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists." How could this hypothesis be falsified? The only way to falsify it would be to prove that absolutely no intelligent life exists anywhere in the entire universe other than on (or from) earth. Because that is obviously impossible to prove, this hypothesis fails the falsifiability criterion and is therefore "unscientific."

According to Popper's criterion, therefore, the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist" is "scientific," but the opposite hypothesis, that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists," is not. But if the former "scientific" hypothesis is disproved, then the latter "unscientific" hypothesis is obviously proved! Hence, a hypothesis about the natural world can be proved true yet still be "unscientific" according to Popper's criterion. Popper's definition of science is therefore misleading if not just plain nonsensical.

Popper's followers readily concede that what they call an "unscientific" hypothesis can be true. For example, the hypothesis, "nutritional supplements can improve a person's health," is "unscientific," yet it is also certainly true. The problem is that their misleading technical definition of science is used by evolutionists to deceive the public about ID theory. Hence, a substantial percentage of the public has been fooled into believing that, because ID theory is "unscientific" (according to Popper), it must also be untrue or bogus.

Several years ago the "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (SETI) project was initiated. Large radio telescopes were used to receive radio signals from space, and massive computing facilities were used to analyze those signals in search of "intelligent" messages that could be presumed to have originated from an "intelligent" life form. Apparently, nobody informed the SETI team that their motivating hypothesis -- that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists" -- is "unscientific"!

Suppose an apparently "intelligent" message were detected by SETI. The first question would be whether the message really originated from space and not from a man-made source, but suppose a man-made source could be ruled out. The next question would be whether the message really originated from an intelligent source, or whether it was merely a statistical fluke that only appeared to have come from an intelligent source.

Suppose the message contained the first 100,000 binary digits of pi, repeated indefinitely, with each repetition separated by a "spacer" of 1000 zeros. Now, one cannot "prove" with absolute mathematical certainty that such a sequence cannot occur by random chance, but most reasonable people would agree that the probability would be extremely low. In fact, most would agree that the probability of a such a signal originating from an "unintelligent" source would be zero for all intents and purposes.

The repeating pi signal coming from a non-man-made source in space would therefore conclusively prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and it would prove it even if the location and identity of the source were never determined. But according to Popper's falsifiability criterion, the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists" does not even qualify as "scientific." Thus, SETI would be in the strange position of having proved a truly monumental -- but "unscientific" -- fact about the universe!

The hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence can shed some badly needed light on the philosophical debate over whether or not intelligent design theory is "scientific." The philosophical question is not about how much order or complexity is needed to reasonably prove the existence of Intelligent Design; that is a scientific and mathematical question. The philosophical question is whether any amount of evidence for ID could be enough to get evolutionists to concede that it ID is even a possible explanation. Apparently the answer is no, because they have ruled ID "out of bounds" from the start.

Evolutionists often point out that ID theory "makes no testable predictions and explains nothing." But what "testable predictions" can be made based on the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligence exists? None. So, what do evolutionists say about the potential for intelligent messages from deep space? Do they insist that such messages wouldn't prove anything and should simply be ignored? I doubt the SETI team would agree with that, yet it is the logical equivalent of the evolutionist position on ID. The irony is that evolutionists would probably be the first to embrace the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence because it would transform the origin of life from a "miracle" to a "statistic," as Carl Sagan once explained. Indeed, most or all of the SETI participants probably are evolutionists!

Both professional and amateur evolutionists will continue to arrogantly asert that ID theory cannot possibly be "scientific." If a famous philosopher said it, apparently that's all the "proof" they need -- common sense notwithstanding. And that's just the start of their many ridiculous assertions. After explaining that ID is "unfalsifiable," many evolutionists then proceed to explain that it has indeed been falsified anyway! "It can't be done, but by golly we did it anyway just to reassure ourselves"! And the significance of the fact that their premise and their conclusion are identical apparently escapes them.

Another popular evolutionist canard is that ID theory is nothing more than a "thinly veiled" cover for Biblical creationism and is therefore unscientific. Never mind that many ID advocates were originally evolutionists before they studied the matter in depth. By the same "logic," evolution could be considered a "thinly veiled" cover for atheism, of course. Nonsense. Both atheists and creationists may indeed be biased, but attributed biases are never directly relevant to the actual validity of any scientific theory. The validity of Einstein's theory of relativity is completely independent of whatever personal biases he may have had!

In any significant online debate over evolution, some genius will inevitably proclaim that Intelligent Design theory is meaningless until the actual "Intelligent Designer" is physically located and identified. That is logically equivalent to claiming that the pi signal mentioned above would not prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence until the source of the message was explicitly located and identified. A related and equally absurd notion is that purely naturalistic evolution must remain the accepted theory until the "Designer" can be understood and explained scientifically. That is the logical equivalent of a prosecutor claiming that a criminal defendant must be presumed guilty unless or until another culprit is found. The truth is that, just as a defendant can be exonerated before an alternative suspect is identified, purely naturalistic evolution can be disproved before an alternative theory is fully understood or even available.

The point here is not that ID theory is true and purely naturalistic evolution is false. The point is that reasonable people can disagree on the issue, and both positions should be respectfully permitted to co-exist in the spirit of free and open inquiry. That is not what is happening today. A misleading definition of science is being used to exclude ID a priori. A judge recently ruled that even mentioning ID is prohibited in the science classes of a particular public school system. That kind of censorship is certainly more in the spirit of the Soviet Union than of the United States. Professors have been publicly censured by their peers for espousing ID. One can only wonder if Isaac Newton would be censured today for his professed belief in the intelligent design of the universe.

Centuries ago the church was the ultimate authority, and dissenters from orthodoxy were excommunicated and punished for their supposed heresy. But science and the church have reversed positions in modern times, and secularized scientific institutions now have the upper hand. Scientists who deviate in their public writings or teachings from the prevailing naturalistic orthodoxy are now ostracized, ridiculed, and sometimes even denied tenure or research funding. Those dissenters are modern day Galileos who are standing up to the Neo-Darwinian dogma and the misleading attacks by its believers, who fear the truth just as the church did centuries ago.

http://RussP.us/IDscience.htm


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; drunkendesigner; evolution; id; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; intelligentdesign; mythology; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 401-402 next last
To: Coyoteman



Have you noticed that in response to whatever occurs in America or around the world (ie--Katrina, tsunami, etc) the typical and automatic knee-jerk reaction of Leftists is to spew: "Bush did it"?


This is the nonthinking nonresponse of a 'sloganeer" who has been supplied with cue-card sound-bytes "for all occasions".


This too, is an 'all-occasion" knee-jerk sound-byte slogan "nonresponse": "A classic entry for your "This is Your Brain on Creationism" series except that it is way too long"




321 posted on 12/27/2005 3:17:34 AM PST by Lindykim (Courage is the first of all the virtues...if you haven*t courage, you may not have the opportunity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
That is an straight up LIE. I never said that. You won't find it.

Oh please. The question was if Newton's belief in a creator should be taught in science class. Your response was that that Newton made mistakes and his mistakes shouldn't be taught. In context, your meaning was clear, that you considered Newton's belief in a creator to be a mistake. If you can suggest another interpretation, please do so. I can't come up with one.

Otherwise, I can only assume you haven't understood a single point in our conversation. Nothing wrong with that. But don't call me a liar for interpreting your comments in the context of the question you were addressing.

My problem with this whole topic is that people under the banner of science are censoring thought. It is reasonable to teach science in the context of the world people live in. But to forbid a teacher from recognizing this common societal belief and allowing only atheism and agnosticism to be the proper point of view for science to be taught is way over the top. To say "here are questions science can answer and here are questions it can't answer," would be a much more reasonable teaching practice than to promote atheism over a belief in a creator.

Sometimes you have to use English words in Spanish class to help learning. If we treated other topics the same way it is proposed that science is taught, we wouldn't be able to do that. "It is Spanish, after all." I hope that analogy isn't completely lost.

322 posted on 12/27/2005 4:05:51 AM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

From what you are saying, it appears that you think that the mention of the possibility of a creator during high school would turn more kids away from science. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is that your point? I would think that the opposite would be true.


323 posted on 12/27/2005 4:10:46 AM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I think this is a classic.

Certainly it's a classic, but like so many we see, it's not coherent enough to have a quotable sentence. It doesn't qualify for inclusion in: THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM .

324 posted on 12/27/2005 4:34:55 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Lindykim
-evolutionary theory, which is premised upon the "metaphysical" claim (scientific???) that God does not exist is

Being a deist is consistent with evolutionary theory, i.e. evolution and God can co-exist.

I noticed that you avoided entirely my statement about "Bible thumpers who lie in court in order to push faith-based beliefs as scientific theory." That is exactly what happened in the Dover trial. How can a good Christian justify the means (lying) to achieve the ends (teaching ID in school as a science)? Perhaps a vision from God telling them that it was okay to bear false witness? Or maybe their minister said it was okay?

One of the fundamental problems with religions based on divine revelation is the propensity for situational ethics. Inconsistencies are explained away by "God told me to do X" or "My minister said it was okay to do Y." Then there are the multiple interpretations of the Bible. You can find verses to support just about any action no matter how inconsistent with prior actions based on the same book.

Don't think I'm picking on Christianity. All religions based on divine revelation have the same flaws. Just look at the multiple interpretations of the Koran. To jihad or not to jihad? Depends on how you read it or your imam interprets it for you.

325 posted on 12/27/2005 4:49:32 AM PST by peyton randolph (<a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/">shrew</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: RussP
I made no statement about Behe's testimony other than to point out that the earlier post referring to it was the *judge's* statement.

Quoting you: But even if Behe said that there are no peer-reviewed articles advocating intelligent design, that's not all he has said.

Frankly, I cannot figure out what is bothering you so much -- unless you are just frustrated that the truth might be sneaking out. Better get a lid on it fast.

What bothers me is intellectually lazy and dishonest people who, even when sources are freely and easily avaiiable, prefer to conjecture what might have been said, rather than discuss what was said. Most of the claims in Behe's book were rebutted in Behe's testimony and cross-examination in Kitzmiller. I don't wonder you don't want to discuss that. But you won't be allowed to get away with such evasion.

326 posted on 12/27/2005 5:02:13 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn -- Tom Bethell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
It's looking like some folks would like to overlook Behe's (the defense's premiere expert witness) inconvenient testimony, and wish instead to rely soley on what he wrote in his less than thoroughly peer-reviewed book.

You hit the nail on the head. And you're being way too kind about the 'peer review'. It's not exaggeration to say that articles posted on FR are far more comprehensively peer-reviewed than Darwin's Black Box

327 posted on 12/27/2005 5:05:56 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn -- Tom Bethell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: DougJ
Evolution is an unproven, untested theory that the far left is trying to shove down our throats as fact.

Nothing in Science is proven. If you want proofs go to Math or Whiskey. And it's not the 'Far Left' that's pushing evolution it's overwhelming evidence.
328 posted on 12/27/2005 7:02:04 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
Back in #208 you wrote: We aren't training scientists in junior highs and high schools.



In #308 I responded: All US scientists are initially trained (among other places) in junior highs and high schools!

Unfortunately, many of our students are directed into other fields by the quality of the educational process, and so become lawyers, economists, or sociologists.

(Fortunately, many non-US scientists are helping to fill the educational gap.)



In #323 you asked: From what you are saying, it appears that you think that the mention of the possibility of a creator during high school would turn more kids away from science. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is that your point? I would think that the opposite would be true.



My point was that we do train scientists in junior highs and high schools. And all other grades as well.

Perhaps it would be more clear if I rephrased my comment; we can turn kids off to science at any point in the educational process, resulting in more lawyers, economists, or sociologists (which I don't think we need; let me also add "educators" to that list).

Clearly the mention of a creator is not what would turn kids away from science. But, many of the creationist posters on these very threads want to destroy any part of science dealing with evolution, and in many cases they attack the very methods of science to do so.

Attacking the methods and goals of science is not a productive method for raising young people to be scientists, and that is what I would not want to see in schools.

329 posted on 12/27/2005 7:19:16 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
Oh please. The question was if Newton's belief in a creator should be taught in science class.

I did not use those exact words but in post 160, I basically said that in slightly different words and I stand by that.

What I did not say is "Then you say that Newton's believe in a creator is a "mistake."

That is very different and if you think I said that, you are mistaken, or a liar. If you don't see the difference between "believe in a creator is a mistake" and "teaching belief in a creator in science class is a mistake" You need to go back to grade school and take reading class over again.

330 posted on 12/27/2005 7:45:39 AM PST by staytrue (MOONBAT conservatives are those who would rather lose to a liberal than support a moderate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: RussP
If the bi-plane goes "extinct," does that mean it wasn't designed by an intelligent being? It's only an analogy, but it answers your question.

Not a very good analogy. To my knowledge, bi-planes have never been observed reproducing on their own accord. If they did, one might have to consider an evolutionary origin of bi-planes to be a possible explanation of their existence.

331 posted on 12/27/2005 7:56:18 AM PST by Quark2005 (Divination is NOT science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: beaver fever
His wifes instructor at a veteranarian school?

No, the wife of editor of Behe's book was a student of Atchison, who is an instructor at a vet school.

My apologies for the confusion.

332 posted on 12/27/2005 8:08:40 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
I did not use those exact words but in post 160, I basically said that in slightly different words and I stand by that. What I did not say is "Then you say that Newton's believe in a creator is a "mistake." That is very different and if you think I said that, you are mistaken, or a liar.

There really is no need to call me a liar, okay? Not the first time and not the second. Even in justifying your statement, you acknowledged its truth, or appear to have done so.

I'm not going to debate you on whether I am a liar. I am not. The record of these postings is clear. Why you have to revert to such a tactic is beyond me, unless you simply have nothing left to say. In which case, you need say nothing.

Believing you are smart enough to dictate to others what they can say and what they can hear is the MO of liberals and fascists. Freedom-loving conservatives don't fear it.

333 posted on 12/27/2005 8:19:54 AM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Clearly the mention of a creator is not what would turn kids away from science. But, many of the creationist posters on these very threads want to destroy any part of science dealing with evolution, and in many cases they attack the very methods of science to do so.

I agree. That is not my desire either. I would point out, however, that HS science classes are taught to more people who will not become scientists than will. I think of it as more of an introduction to a field and, like most courses, the nuances can wait until college when we learn more and more about less and less in most technical fields. I see no harm in a teacher being able to suggest to the kids that differences in the science and what their parents have taught them about religion can be reconciled. How they are reconciled would be up to the individual (student) and his particular beliefs, but to me, that is a wonderful exercise in demonstrating that decisions are not all binary.

Attacking the methods and goals of science is not a productive method for raising young people to be scientists, and that is what I would not want to see in schools.

Agreed. However, discouraging a kid from reconciling his religion and what he learns in science class is equally non-productive.

334 posted on 12/27/2005 8:33:46 AM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
Newton's believe in a creator is a "mistake."

I never said this or implied this and I tried to give you an out that you were mistaken. You are not god, you can be mistaken. You should take the out.

If you insist I said this, then you are a liar.

335 posted on 12/27/2005 8:53:14 AM PST by staytrue (MOONBAT conservatives are those who would rather lose to a liberal than support a moderate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; RadioAstronomer; Senator Bedfellow; balrog666; ...
Some people seem to be whining about the testimony concerning the laughable "peer-review" of Behe's Book that was presented on this thread last night. Specifically, the complaint is that the details of ONE "reviewer" (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense of the word), is not representative of what other "reviewers" of Behe's book thought of it.

In the interests of a more complete record of the responses of Behe's book "reviewers" I commend the readers to the following information. I think they will find it "highly instructive."

October 27, 2005

Two of Behe's Reviewers Speak Out

Last week I wrote about the fact that Michael Behe claimed under oath in the Dover case that his book, Darwin's Black Box, received even more thorough peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal. Now more and more facts are coming to light. We only know the names of 3 of the 5 reviewers - Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro and K. John Morrow. Atchison, I've already documented, did not review the book at all. He had a 10 minute conversation about the book over the phone, without ever seeing the text, with an editor who was concerned about whether it would sell, not whether the science was solid. Skip Evans contacted Robert Shapiro and was told that he did review the book, and while he agreed with some of his analysis of origin-of-life research, he thinks his conclusions are false. He did, however, say that he thought that Behe's book was the best explanation of the argument from design that was available.

Now, what of Morrow? As it turns out, this is the best of all. Over on the Panda's Thumb, a commenter has left the text of an email from K. John Morrow in response to an inquiry about his review of Behe's book. I contacted Dr. Morrow and we've spent some time on the phone over the last couple days discussing the situation. He has given me permission to post his response in full, with one disclaimer:

He dashed this response off pretty quickly in response to an inquiry and in retrospect he isn't certain whether he reviewed the book for Free Press, who ultimately published the book, or for an earlier publisher who was considering publishing it. His recollection from a decade ago is that after he had given his review of the book and the review written by Russell Doolittle of part of the book, the editor told him that they didn't think they were going to go ahead with publishing the book. But he can't be certain at this point whether that was an editor for Free Press or an editor from a different publisher who was considering the book for publication. Ultimately this doesn't matter. Behe himself named Morrow as a reviewer of the book in his testimony, so his views on the book are obviously germane to the question of the rigor of the peer review and whether it determined whether the book should be published. With that disclaimer, the post of his full response after the fold:

I did review Behe’s book for a publisher who, if I recall correctly, turned it down on the basis of my comments, and those of others (including Russell Doolittle who trashed it). When I reviewed Behe’s book I was much more polite than Doolittle, who didn’t mince words. Eventually Behe found another publisher, so he’s right; it was peer reviewed. What he doesn’t say is that is was rejected by the first set of reviewers.

I also debated Behe in Dallas in 1992. Once, again, I attempted to be civil, professional and dignified. Behe’s response was aggressive, condescending and simply rude.

I will say, unequivocally, I am (as practically every professional working biologist I have ever met) convinced by the overwhelming body of evidence that Darwin’s concept of evolution, and its subsequent modifications by the last 150 years of investigation, is the correct, and the best explanation for the great cornucopia of living creatures with which we share this planet.

I’m absolutely appalled by Behe’s arguments, which are simply a rehash of ideas that Darwin considered and rejected. There is not a shred of evidence to support intelligent design, and a vast body of evidence that argues against it. It is not a scientific hypothesis, it is simply the philosophical wanderings of an uniformed (or disingenuous) mind.

At present I’m involved in product development for an immunodiagnostics company, and we are discussing how to approach to Avian flu, and how we can design a test that takes into account the constantly evolving nature of the RNA viruses. Do the intelligent designers want to return us to a time when mankind attributed disease to evil spirits, and allow us no tools to understand the ravages of epidemic diseases, and how to design therapies and diagnostics against them?

I believe that the argument is not about science at all, but simply right wing fundamentalists using a different tactic to force religious teaching in the public schools. I thought that Judge Overton had put this case to rest 30 years ago, but apparently not.

Thanks for this opportunity to clarify my feelings on this subject.

He mentioned Russell Doolittle in that letter. Dr. Doolittle is perhaps the world's foremost expert on the evolution of blood clotting, so Dr. Morrow asked him to review the section on blood clotting in Behe's manuscript. He then sent Doolittle's brief review to the publishers along with his own review of the rest of the manuscript. Both Morrow and Doolittle have given us permission to make public the review Doolittle wrote back in 1995. Here is the full text:
November 14, 1995 Professor K. John Morrow, Jr. Dept. Cell Biology & Biochemistry School of Medicine Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center 3601 4th Street Lubbock, TX 79430

Dear Dr. Morrow,

I read the draft of the chapter for a proposed book by Micheal Behe that you sent me. As you warned me on the telephone, my own writings play a prominent role in his attack on evolution. I don't know whether the word ingenious or disingenuous is more appropriate here, but he has certainly turned all my thinking completely around to suit his own ends. That it is really disingenuous is clear from the fact that he has managed to belittle important scientific findings by couching them with sarcasm.

But what annoyed me the most in the chapter was the author's appeal to Rube Goldberg, one of my favorite cartoonists, and a person I often refer to for my own perspective. On numerous occasions I have shown the two enclosed Goldberg cartoons as examples of how evolution works! Indeed, I used them in (trying to) teach our medical students about how complicated cascades work in contemporary cells. Also, I have used the same cartoons in debating our local creationist (Duane Gish), pointing out that certainly no Creator would have designed such a circuitous and contrived system. Instead, this is how the opportunistic hand of natural selection works, using whatever happens to be available at the moment. (I wonder if he knew about this?)

But let me back up a bit. First, the 1993 article of mine, which is so heavily quoted from and intentionally disparaged, was the text of a lecture I presented at an international conference on blood clotting. It was presented to an audience of mainly clinicians and biotechnologists, not persons well versed in the rudiments of protein evolution. The tone was intentionally light and breezy. My "casual language" has to be viewed in this light. My main point was to demonstrate that the delicate balance of forward and backward reactions that regulate blood clotting came about in a step-by-step process. I emphasized that the Yin-Yang was simply a metaphor and that other similar point and counterpoint comparisons could be made.

A more rigorous development of these ideas can be found in the cited references, one of which (Doolittle & Feng, 1987) is enclosed. This article predicted that certain components of the cascade appear relatively late in vertebrate evolution, and data in support of this contention are just now forthcoming (lower vertebrates appear to lack the equivalents of factors XI and XII).

A wonderful example of how gene duplications operate in this regard was noted almost 25 years ago. Thus, in hemoglobin, similar sequence extrapolations backwards in time suggested that the gene duplication leading to alpha and beta chains occurred at about the time of the diversification of fishes (see Fig. 1 of Doolittle, 1987, (enclosed). Indeed, when hemoglobin from lampreys and hagfish were examined, they were found to be single-\|chained! They had diverged before the key alpha /beta duplication that has led to the allosteric regulation of oxygen transport. Max Perutz has written elegantly about this.

Here are a few of his comments that I found most irritating.

On page IV-29 the author bold-facedly claims that "the (Doolittle) article does not explain.. how clotting might have originated and subsequently evolved." and then in italics "..no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation cascade came to be."

I disagree. I have a good idea, shared by most workers in the field, and it is a matter of the (important) details that we are trying to establish.

On page IV-24, Behe underscores that no "causative factors are cited." "What exactly is causing all this springing and unleashing?" Gene duplications, of course, the frequency of which is difficult to measure (I often note that "duplication begets more duplication," for reasons of the misalignment of similar sequences), but which is turning out to be enormously more common than expected.

Causation is tricky. Sometimes environmental or internal benefits are obvious. Often however, the rule for survival is "no harm, no foul," with adaptations occurring subsequently. For the moment, they don't even have to be slightly improved.

As for the "enormous luck needed", we are now into the crux of all evolutionary problems, which is to say, what is the probability of survival? Population geneticists are attempting to answer such questions in general terms (see, e.g., J. B. Walsh, Genetics, 139, 421-428, 1995). In fact, the product of most gene duplications, which are the heart of the evolutionary process, are doomed to random oblivion (see enclosed, Doolittle, Science, 1981).

Also, on page IV-26, he states, "the crucial issues of how much? how fast? when? where?" are not addressed. These are relevant and not unknowable matters. There is a wonderful article about to appear in Molecular Phylogenetics by D. Gumucio et al on how fetal hemoglobin has evolved in primates and that also outlines exactly the regulatory circumstances that allow its differential expression. Finally, my "model" does give some important numbers. The power of sequence-\|based analysis is that it reveals the order of appearance of new proteins, even when the sequences are limited to one or a few species. As noted above, it also has the power to make predictions about the occurrence of proteins in different creatures.

In the meantime, we must ask Mr. Behe whether he doubts the existence of gene duplications? (There are many examples of closely related species where one has n copies of a gene and the other m.) If he acknowledges their existence, then how does he account for the pseudogenes that these duplications often give rise to? Does he think they have a function? And what does he think was the origin of allosteric hemoglobins in all but the most primitive vertebrates? As I say, even his derisive comments call attention to a system that could only have come about by natural selection.

Should the book be published? Scurrilous as it is, I am a believer in a free press. I also know most publishers will publish anything that can make money, and I'm sure there's a naive market for claptrap like this.

I only ask that if you do recommend publication that you suggest that I be invited to review the book, so I can put my own Rube Goldberg cartoons to use.

Feel free to phone if there are other questions.

Sincerely,

Russell F. Doolittle
Research Professor
of Biology and Chemistry

Dr. Morrow further said in his email to me what I said a few days ago, that books and refereed journals are very different and that no book is ever as rigorously peer reviewed as a journal article for the simple reason that the book publisher's primary concern is whether the book will sell or not. He notes, "I think Mike is being pretty disingenuous (I use that word a lot) to say that the manuscript was subjected to rigorous peer review. Everyone knows that the criteria that book publishers use are mainly financial and economic."

Let me also say this: I think the book should have been published. I agree with Dr. Shapiro that while I think much of his argumentation is less than honest and his conclusions absurd, it's very well written and is probably the best example of the argument from design that has been published since Paley's day. It's a provocative and well written book on a hot subject. From the perspective of a book publisher, that certainly means the book should be published. The point of all of this is not to say that his book should have been rejected by the publishers. It is only to say that the claim that it underwent more rigorous peer review than a journal article is patently absurd and contrary to the facts.

Posted by Ed at October 27, 2005 04:08 PM

[emphasis added]

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/more_on_peer_review_of_behes_b.php

There you have it, sports fans! Atchison never read Behe's book at all, Morrow (who DID read it) trashed it, and Doolittle rips Behe a new rectal orifice. And If you track down Shapiro's review (I did), he first compliments Behe for what he considers the best job to date of laying out the ID/irreducuble complexity argument, but then states he disagrees with most of Behe's conclusions!

My only regret is that this material never got into the testimony at the trial. I suppose the plaintiffs' attorneys probably felt it would be considering "piling on," to continue the sports metaphor.

336 posted on 12/27/2005 9:25:26 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Three times you have called me a liar. I won't ask again for you to explain what else your statement may have meant. It seems pointless. I'm not trying to win an argument. I am trying to understand your point. If all you can do is call names, I'll just conclude that you never had a point to start with. Apparently your point isn't worth explaining.

You don't need to leave me an "out." If I thought you were right, I would tell you. I'm not here to "win." I thought it was an interesting initial question and you gave a provocative (as opposed to "thought-provoking") answer. Maybe you didn't understand the original question. But your lack of understanding doesn't justify calling anyone a liar.

I agree, I am not god, and I can be mistaken. Is it also possible that you could be mistaken?

337 posted on 12/27/2005 9:43:53 AM PST by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Doolittle: Should the book be published? Scurrilous as it is, I am a believer in a free press. I also know most publishers will publish anything that can make money, and I'm sure there's a naive market for claptrap like this.

Yes. There's an EXCEEDINGLY naive market for that kind of claptrap.

338 posted on 12/27/2005 9:52:49 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

O you horrible man!


339 posted on 12/27/2005 10:24:42 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; longshadow
Doolittle: Should the book be published?

If someone wants to publish it, why not.

The next question should be

Should children be required to read it as a high school text book ?

My answer is no way.

340 posted on 12/27/2005 10:30:12 AM PST by staytrue (MOONBAT conservatives are those who would rather lose to a liberal than support a moderate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 401-402 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson