I like it. Of course, ID is to full-blown creationism what this masked man is to ...
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.
Can you take another question? What is the great distinction between a cultural historian and a biologist studying evolution? I'm sure you'll be highly ethical in your answer. Maybe even scientific!
I like it. Of course, ID is to full-blown creationism what this masked man is to ...
>Sounds RandianThey should be. :-)Are you unaquainted with market economics? Are conservative ideas automatically associated with Ayn Rand?
Actually it's as old as Adam Smith - and Friedrich Hayek did a lot of work on this in the last century. He came up with the notion of the "spontaneous order" that emerges from the free market. The idea is that the overall result is much more complex & vibrant than what the individual participants could ever have designed themselves.
Creationists look at that and say, "well, the particpants are intelligent human beings". But the proper take-away lesson for biology is that the system is much more complex than what the intelligence of the individual actors could let them design.
It says a lot about the plausibility of abiogenesis too: The individual biomolecules have an intelligence of virtually zero. But since they interact according to the laws of chemistry (a few unambiguous rules of behavior), they can combine to create a system that's very complex indeed. 'Course, these unintelligent molecules took tens (or maybe hundreds) of millions of years to produce something interesting & self-sustaining.
"Are you unaquainted with market economics? Are conservative ideas automatically associated with Ayn Rand?"
Hey now, don't bite. jennyp has posted some things quite complimentary to Rand and one of the themes of Atlas Shrugged is what gives the life's blood to the US, exemplified by New York City (that railroad).
No, conservative ideas are not automatically associated with Rand, as you know. She certainly would not agree with many conservatives of today, especially politicians.
Nonetheless, is it in the archives?
It might have been nice if you had added that Behe is a professor at Lehigh University, and not just a Fellow at the Discovery Institute.
I didn't write the rebuttal of Behe, Myers did.
But, for the record, Behe's affiliation with Lehigh University is noted in his original NYTimes op-ed piece, which piece is reproduced in its entirety on this FR thread that I linked to in my post #1 on this thread.
Whether Lehigh University and Behe's colleagues there are especially thrilled about being associated with Behe's defence of ID is an issue I cannot address from first-hand knowledge. But if anybody wants to lay down a betting line on the issue, we can talk...
Actually, I agree with you. For most men will think of anything to get rid of God who instructs them to live above the instincts of animals.
And I notice you had zilch to say about Annie's Box. I'd say that was a decent rejoinder to your post which contained the word 'idiot'. PH is right. You folks never insult t'all.
Dr. Ener arrived at Villanova University in the fall, 1996, from the University of Michigan, where she had begun the research that would be the foundation for her book Managing Egypt’s Poor and the Politics of Benevolence, 1800-1952 (Princeton 2003). Her goal, she once wrote, was nothing less than to “develop an entire sub-field of study” dedicated to “forms of charity (including Islamic and Judaic-Christian traditions) and assistance to the poor within Middle Eastern societies.” Laboring in archives that (with the exception of the Ottoman archives in Istanbul) lack catalogs and indexing systems, she poured through mountains of paper, searching for any mention of the destitute and forgotten. Forging friendships with Egyptian scholars, she turned the lonely work of the researcher into a cooperative effort, as she learned of likely sources in long conversations with them. Her drive and persistence sometimes yielded serendipitous surprises, such as the seemingly innocuous Cairo municipal register that led her to a 20-volume record of relief recipients. Her insatiable curiosity led her beyond her initial inquiry about Egyptian charity to comparative studies, which then spawned a series of wide-ranging articles about charity in Istanbul, multiple colonial contexts, and an overview essay aimed at a broad, non-specialist readership.What is the distinction you would draw between "scientist" and scholarly researcher? The latter which she was, the former she was too, for the term scientist means one who seeks knowledge.
I was drawn to mention her case because of her Down's Syndrome baby. I suspect that it was the callous attitude some have towards deformed and retarded babes, Down's, spinal bifuda, etc. -- especially those steeped in secular humanism, atheism, or the "superman" and "survival of the fittest" mindsets that drove the eugenics movements and many of those, imo, who make a religion out of a theory -- the modern institutional evolutionists.
However by that mention of Down's syndrome in this case, my own bias is exposed, for I have encountered in my work medical researchers who were hot to develop and push wide-use of pre-natal tests for Downs and SB where the major prognosis (am I using that word right?) was to raise fear and provoke abortions amoung expectant mothers whose risks summed to a high probability. My work was otherwise unrelated, it was a randomness of venture capitalizations that I fell in with that bunch.
That admitted, let me ask you again, please -- What is the distinction you would draw between "scientist" and scholarly researcher? What is the distinction between a scholarly cultural historian and a biologist studying evolution through classification schemes?
Hardly, You are the one trying to pin all the world's evil on people who don't hold your particular Biblical worldview.You are the one acting like the world was living in perfect harmony in a Christian utopia with no war, murders, power grabs, racism, etc. until Darwin shown up and ruined it all. I'm just pointing out the silliness and hypocrisy of your argument. Sorry but just as there are some scientist who have used science & evolution for evil purposes there are some Christians who use religion & the Bible for evil also.
But yes, If we end up wasting our political capital on this silly issue and the 2006/2008 elections are about evolution instead of important stuff like illegal immigration, tort reform, small government, etc and it cost us the election and Hillary ends up as President, You better believe I will have a big grudge against you.
Why am I a liar, btw? Is it possible that I may have made a mistake? Is every mistake a lie? To a prejudicial grudge-seeker it sure is. Are you one? If you hold to that I am a liar prove then that my mistake was intentional, deliberate! That last is a rhetorical question. You can not so prove, at least by honest proof. Don't accept less.
Come on now, It would have been one thing if you mistakenly said something like she was a music professor instead of a history professor, But on a post where you are trying to make the case scientist are evil, you just happen to mistakenly blame an obvious disturbed women's actions on her being a scientist. Very hard to believe it was just an honest mistake, at the very least it was willful negligence.
If you'd have replaced the "but the proper" assertion -- which is making it a dogma, and used instead "The more useful" -- which is not dogmatic, then you'd be "scientific" and not "religious".
Oh, I doubt it. You love to attack the 'liars'. You love to twist statments by Christians and call them lies.
But you ignore repeated requests which link to scientific studies indicating why your motives for attacking Creationists is good for the GOP. Marrieds voted for Bush overwhelmingly. Folks who never attend church ... why they voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. Folks who never attend church, why, they overwhelmingly believe in evolution too I would bet.
How, scientifically (links would be great; but you, and your band of brothers, have failed to post a single one thus far), does it help the cause of the GOP to disregard the legitimate concerns Christians have against the amoral foundations taught to kids about their origins?
Let's work with that. Why do you find evolution ex nihilo so easy to believe? Why do you deny that intelligent design -- G-d -- is far more likely?
"What is the distinction between a scholarly cultural historian and a biologist studying evolution through classification schemes?"
One has the moral endorsement of evolutionists, the other isn't bright enough to understand evolution?
Are you making me King then that I should have such control over you, over the entire electorate? If so, I would like better robes. Mine are quite threadbare!
Your point of what is a wasted argument is a good one. Why then do these discussions create such passion? We are all sane and capable, or would not be here to this forum, to this thread, able to post from keyboard, computer and connection. Why do we put so much energy into these mud wrestling matches -- for so they become, so often, and when not so aggravating fade under boredoms glare into forgotten, ignored threads?
You gave up? It would be far more precise to state you all have 'given up'. The vast majority of betty boops and AG's arguments, postings, observations, links, what have you, are essentially ignored. You tolerate both of these folks; you certainly don't engage them. Both of them cogently address ID stuff, scientifically. Both of them are given no scientific credibility whatsoever. They are given credit merely for having good manners; but they are simply misguided who need 'to read more' in the insightful words of one of you.
Not ONE person on your side has stated for the record that AG and/or BB has persuaded them that indeed, there is more to it than what Darwinists have provided.
Watching how they are treated by all of you has convinced me of just one thing: you don't really care what either think.
Let's face it: these evo threads are a religious debate in disguise between legalists and grace activists. Darwinism presents a rational way, based on 'laws' in his words, to morally justify living by any code that man decides to invent and codify; whoever is strong enough to impose it wins. There are no morals, just 'logic thru strength'.
Grace activists, otoh, reject out of hand that ANY code is more important than the obedience to Jesus Christ's commands. The biggest crime any creationist could be guilty of here is not lying ... it is telling the truth. It is a very inconvenient truth that the Darwin family inspired the most famous monster story of all time. It is a very inconvenient truth that Annie Darwin's death at a young age affected how Charles delievered 'Origins', and how he felt about God during the time he grieved for his daughter. Folks here don't like talking about inconvenient truths.
I would feel very, very differently about this, if in Public School, I was given the whole picture, and given the option of figuring this out myself. But no. The agenda was king, and inconvenient pieces of information were omitted. PH's link list .... the discussion of Annie Darwin is .... missing.
It is inconvenient to the argument.
btw, I am Jewish. Just for the record.
Sounds Randian, jennyp should like it. Is it in the archives?
It was a reply posted to a thread about 5 days ago; I can't recall which one, but I do recall conversing via FReepmail with the author (whose identity I can't recall either.)
It is essentially a variant of Milton Friedman's essay on how pencils get made, except the pencil is replaced by the food that goes into the mouths of New Yorkers. It was very good.
As you say, they obviously find agreeable the good postings of AG and BB, but by that very agreement they seem to find no reason to engage on any point they make excepting the agreable tone.
I know that's what all the creationists keep saying, but they "forget" to mention that they're wrong. From a previous post of mine covering a creationist "paper" which made the same claim:
Finally, phylogenetic analyses of the gene sequences [20] suggest that flagellar motor proteins arose first and those of the pump came later. In other words, if anything, the pump evolved from the motor, not the motor from the pump.
Wow, a citation finally! But if they ever attempt to publish this "paper", they're going to have to correct their error in the title of their citation...
In any case, Minnich et al "forgot" to mention that newer research has superceded their citation. That's a *BIG* no-no in *real* peer-reviewed scientific papers (seriously -- as in evidence of incompetence and/or dishonesty), but I see that it's no impediment to the sort of unreviewed "conference papers" that IDers put out in order to try to keep the dream alive.
See for example:
Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events, U. Gophna et al. / Gene 312 (2003) 151–163This was published in APRIL *2003* -- what excuse to Minnich et al have for not being aware of it while preparing a paper in LATE 2004? A publication keyword search for either "Type III secretion systems" or "Flagella" (and even more importantly, *both*) would have turned up this paper without a problem. Hell, *I* found it in three minutes with Google *without* using a keyword search, just by Googling for the (correct) title of citation#20 -- it turned up this paper, which cites the Nguyen paper, something that Minnich et all should have done at a *MINIMUM* as due dilegence to find subsequent related research (pro *or* con)... Did Minnich et al not *bother* to research anyone else's findings before they sat down to put together their "paper"?Abstract: Type III secretion systems (TTSS) are unique bacterial mechanisms that mediate elaborate interactions with their hosts. The fact that several of the TTSS proteins are closely related to flagellar export proteins has led to the suggestion that TTSS had evolved from flagella. Here we reconstruct the evolutionary history of four conserved type III secretion proteins and their phylogenetic relationships with flagellar paralogs. Our analysis indicates that the TTSS and the flagellar export mechanism share a common ancestor, but have evolved independently from one another. The suggestion that TTSS genes have evolved from genes encoding flagellar proteins is effectively refuted. A comparison of the species tree, as deduced from 16S rDNA sequences, to the protein phylogenetic trees has led to the identification of several major lateral transfer events involving clusters of TTSS genes. It is hypothesized that horizontal gene transfer has occurred much earlier and more frequently than previously inferred for TTSS genes and is, consequently, a major force shaping the evolution of species that harbor type III secretion systems.(Also note the passage about "lateral transfer" -- this is YET ANOTHER evolutionary mechanism which Behe's cartoon scenarios of evolution COMPLETELY OVERLOOK.)
This is, unfortunately, all too typical of "papers" by IDers/creationists. Unlike real *scientists*, they're not interested in gathering the best available findings and then seeing the best "big picture" the evidence suggests. Instead they're *starting* with their desired conclusion, and then searching out and presenting *only* the "findings" which would *seem* to support their position when considered IN ISOLATION.
And then you wonder why we claim that ID/creationism isn't real science (at least the way it is invariably performed)?
200?
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.