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.
Whether you see reality as the greater derived from the lesser or as the lesser derived from the greater depends on your viewpoint, your worldview.
And worldviews cannot be "proven." They are also not impinging on pure science.
So this debate is irreconcilable and pointless.
I do understand your frustration arguing the same points time and again, but truly we have been unable to come up with a solution. There are always new posters and new Lurkers and these are the ones being targeted by the re-assertions, repeat counter-arguments, etc.
Also, unhelpful behavior is not limited to one side. I've been on the receiving end of stinkbombs from both sides.
IMHO, it is best to leave such conduct unaddressed because it speaks more about the poster than the intended recipient - (more poison in the handle than the point).
I gave up on those two after they their philosophy statements on massless matter ... Total waste of time trying to follow their rantings.
You forgot to include the lies and false science ...
I've thought about it, ansd you're right...a "blacklist" of repeated, proven liars would doubtless cause trouble in mod-land. A list of the honest (if ill-informed) ones seems like a positive step.
I figure that "maliciously clueless" posters are those who DO NOT acknowledge when they are proven wrong, repeat proven lies, and who do not make efforts to correct others. They also toss their stinkbombs (Evolution=communism/Naziism/etc) crap with wild abandon and refer to sources which have many times been debunked. Oh, and they also continue to claim that there's "no evidence at all", or "there's no transitional fossils" or suchlike when they have repeatedly been shown examples of each. Those are the "bad guys".
The "good guys" are those who do not engage in lies or slander, correct errors when shown, refrain from using bogus and debunked sources, and generally conduct themselves on the up-and-up. They are also those who genuinely listen to counterarguments and make efforts to look at and understand the evidence presented.
I'd simply recommend ignoring the "bad guys" completely. Even if one must correct one of their posts, don't even give them the acknowledgement of pinging to them. Post a rebuttal to someone who'll actually read it and get something from it.
... who don't belong on the list of righteous creationists. Simple.
Those with honest questions and open minds, we should respond with answers and decency. Those we have dealt with too many times should face the sound of crickets.
Yours and my opinion of just what constitutes a jackass might differ, and that's also cool. 'sall up to the individual as to whom they post to.
Wwe tried an "agreement of the willing" (check PH's homepage for a copy) backalong, but it fell apart when the crazies simply ignored it. Honest people on BOTH sides worked on it, including Alamo-Girl. It was done with the best of intentions, but the dishonest people made it a joke, as they are wont to do.
I agree that posting a list of "righteous creationists" (RC's) is a good idea, but only for a first step. I say just plain ignore the hucksters and wingnuts.
What gets my goat is how so-called conservatives denie the insights of Adam Smith and give aid and comfort to communists and socialists. ID is isomorphic with socialism. Nothing happens unless it is planned.
Very good insight. I haven't seen it before.
I have problems with actually posting such a list. We generally know who the good guys are. And I question what good it would do to put up a list of the "righteous" with a separate category of "clueless but not malicious" creationists.
I've been ignoring the venomous nut-cases for years. Some guys apparently like to grapple with them. It clutters up the threads, but as you say, it's a personal choice.
1) Today evolution is believed by the vast majority of scientist,.Yet you don't see many scientist embracing eugenics today.
2) Eugenics has nothing to do with Evolution. While I'm sure many of the early followers thought so, they were wrong.
a) Evolution is natural selection, Eugenics a'int natural
b) There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says in order for one group to "win" another group must "lose". Which includes nothing in the TOE that suggest in order to get you genes into the next generation you must kill/prevent others from doing the same.
c) According to the TOE (and modern genetics), Variation is a good thing while genetic purity is a bad thing. Trying to create a genetically pure "Master Race" is totally going against evolution and if these Yahoos truly understood evolution they would have realized the fastest way for the Human race to go extinct is to create a so called Master Race. Just look at the natural world, There isn't alot of successful genetically pure organisms out there. For example Cheetahs are nearly genetically pure while leopards have a lot of variation. Which is doing better?
3) Let's not forget Religion also embraced eugenics, It seems you might be unfamiliar with the Reverend Oscar McCulloch, Charles Davenport, The Nazis (who were Christians) or the credited father of eugenics English economist and clergyman Thomas Robert Malthus whose work "The Principle of Population" started it all (and which BTW was written in 1798, 11 years before Charles Darwin was even born!!!). All very religious people.
4) How is eugenics any different than Christianity's goal through out history of striving for religious purity by killing non-believers, Jews, perceived Witches, and Christians of other denominations? And speaking of which; You want to see eugenics in action just read the Bible, specifically the Book of Numbers and the Book of Joshua. The only difference between Moses and Joshua compared to the Eugenic movement (including the Nazis) in the 1st part of the 20th century is Moses and Joshua were actually quite successful in implementing their eugenic/genocidal campaigns (How many Midianites do you see running around)
Or even that recent case of a Professor of Science at Villanova -- who opted her downs sydrome baby out, and then herself too.
1st, You are lying, She wasn't Professor of Science, She was a history professor
Quote "The Central High School and Macalester College graduate is a history professor specializing in the Middle East at Villanova University outside Philadelphia and director of the school's Center for Arab and Islamic Studies..."
Gee, a Creationist not being truthful, What a shocker!
2) Her beliefs in evolution isn't stated in the article (or is her religion, so for all we know she could have been a very religious person, If she's Islamic that would mean she is actually really opposed to evolution ), nor is there anything to suggest evolution had anything to do with this tragic case. She seemed to be a very depressed mentally ill women.
3) Even if somehow evolution was a factor in this case, it doesn't matter. The actions of one mentally ill women doesn't mean everyone who believes in evolution are prone to do something similar. Does the fact that Andrea Yates killed her 5 children because she wanted them to go to heaven mean that all Christian mothers are prone to do something similar?
"I agree that posting a list of "righteous creationists" (RC's) is a good idea, but only for a first step. I say just plain ignore the hucksters and wingnuts."
This also interfers with your stated reason for holding up the evo case on these threads: that you want newbies and lurkers to get good information and not be swayed by mush. If you ignore them, you run the risk of someone becoming ill informed.
Nice delimma, huh?
Actually I have had a difficult time decoding some of your longer posts. It is certainly possible that your intellect far surpasses mine. I also suspect you have a great liking for complexity. I spend most of my time trying to simplify things. It appears we are running down different roads. Still, we ought to cross paths sometimes and when they do, I'll do my best to be nice :^)
Damn spell checker!
And speaking of Eugenics and the killing of the sick & those deemed unworthly how could I forget this little ditty
Numbers
5:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
5:3 Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.
5:4 And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.
When I said I ignore them, I meant only that I don't post to them, and I [usually] ignore their taunts and insults. But I don't ignore their mis-information. We're usually pretty good about correcting creationists' errors, and exposing their bogus quotes. When I expose a bogus quote, I'm usually quite vigorous in denouncing such frauds. But again, I don't post such denunciations directly to the nut-case.
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.