Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
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.
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.
What in Sam hill are you talking about? I can't think of anything more anti-evolution than abortion which is killing off your own genes. In evolution those who get their genes into the next generation "win", In terms of evolution aborting your child is gotta be the worst thing you can do.
And I don't know where you get you get that people need the Bible to be against abortion, The Bible is hardly Pro-Life
See
2 Kings 15:16
Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Nice, Huh?
Plus it's apparent to God that fetus and children under 1 month aren't people
See
Numbers 3:15
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.
Now if God is so pro-life why wouldn't God count children under a month of age as people?
And again where God gives a monetary value on human life
Leviticus
27:3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
27:4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
27:5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
27:7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
Again, If the Bible tells us to be against abortion than why doesn't God give a value for fetuses and children under 1 month of age? Plus notice how God devalues old people.
Actually in one of life's great ironies, It's Science (via better & better ultrasounds) that so many Christians hate so much and not religion that is turning the tide against Abortion.
Here a nice article for you
If I wanted to join the left against Christians, I wouldn't be complaining about articles by con-man like Behe, I'd be out there encouraging more of them. Nothing hurts Conservatives as well as Christianity more than anti-science, let's go back to the dark ages people like Behe and if/when the left figures that out we will all be in big trouble.
I love to see atheists join their proper crowd.
Good luck on that one, The election of Bill Clinton twice should have taught you that you fundies can not win elections by yourselves and there are a lot fewer of you now then there was then. Kick/Drive us out and you will never win an election again. And if you think the Pro-Evolution people on this board are hostile towards Christians just wait until Hillary gets to appoint judges. That unfortunately will be the inevitable results if this insanity continues.
Maybe you are unto something. But, maybe you just not looking at what you don't want to see.
" [10] Loss and Remembering - Annie's funeral, affects of her death on the family, Darwin's memorial to Annie.
[11] The Destroying Angel - Analysis of the cause of Annie's death
[12] The Origin of Species - Darwin's loss of faith, publication of "Origin of Species", public reactions to the Origin.
From "Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, his Daughter, and Human Evolution "
From here: http://www.aboutdarwin.com/literature/Review.html
And this book, is from a Keynes ancestor .... you know, the econo dude the liberals love to love ....
I suppose you have one of these irrelevant stories about Alfred Russel Wallace, too and the many thousands of scientists since who have presented evidence for evolution (myself included).
Wake up man. 99.9% of the evidence for evolution is post Darwin. You only pick on Darwin the man because you cannot pick on the actual science. Would you beat on Wallace, if he had beaten Darwin into print? I am ready for your anti-Wallacism posts. I know you need a whipping boy, since it's easier to make things personal than to dispute fact with nothing.
Evolutionists don't pick on Behe on a personal basis, but based on his lack of science and own published word. If his mother had taken too many drugs while she was pregnant and created some chromosome abnormalities in him to make the intellectual monster that he is, it would not be mentioned here. It is irrlelvant.
I can personally guarantee you that evolution would be where it is right now with or without Darwin and possibly further along.
Figures. Gobucks' superior moral code evidently permits him simply to make things up when convenient. I've caught him at this several times.
They don't care. They would gladly bring our entire civilization crashing down upon our heads if it would also mean the end of that evil, twisted science bugaboo, evolution.
By that I mean those who 1) Continue to quote or reference discredited, debunked sources which have been pointed out to them; 2) Repeat falsehoods which have been proven to be lies without any acknowlegement of their mendacity; 3) refuse to correct any misstatements, but defend the lies as if true; and 4) repeatedly make up "facts" out of whole cloth, as well as lie about other posters ("All Evo's are atheists/homos/communists/ etc...).
Post this list with every thread, so that the lurkers can know full well how to regard the posts of those people.
I can think offhand of about a half-dozen confirmed liars who keep spouting their BS here.
I think that might violoate the rules around here, but if it was possible and you could include the criterion of "hopelessness" (a real tough one), I might like to see the list. Some spout mush and when called on it, just quietly go away for awhile. There may be some hope for these.
I mean you claim -- by that cobbled article -- that 10% to 15% of children are murdered. Does that number seem at all reasonable to you?
However, there are some whose only purpose seems to be to spread lies and propaganda, or to toss one-post stinkbombs.
Or even that recent case of a Professor of Science at Villanova -- who opted her downs sydrome baby out, and then herself too.
I've been giving this some thought. It might be simpler to list the creationists who don't lie. They do exist, but they are few. We could keep a short list of "righteous creationists."
What I've been think about is how to handle the "chronic insulters." Those who routinely spew their venomous fantasies that the science-oriented freepers are leftists, homos, god-haters, etc. We don't sling insults the way they do. At most, some call them liars, but that's about as strong as it gets. More is deserved, but we like to adhere to Robinson's posting guidelines. The hard-core creationists really don't care about that, or much else.
chronic placemarker
You may be "interested" in science but I doubt it. Anyone interested in science would use valid sources, not Behe's false propaganda.
"Both Alamo-Girl and BettyBoop come to mind as two superior people in this regard."
I'll buy these two, although Alamo-Girl sometimes leaves me scratching my head - she's never nasty.
Would you be speaking to Mr. W. Turkey, then?
"Numbers 3:15
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.
Now if God is so pro-life why wouldn't God count children under a month of age as people?
Not to address your argument in general but just to answer this one question - infants under 1 month were very apt to die, so they were not counted until they had made it for a month. Not that they weren't considered people before then.
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.