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.
Complete nonsense. I've seen their points engaged many times -- where have you been?
In fact, just recently you obnoxiously characterized some of that "engagement" (which you felt wasn't respectful enough, apparently) by calling betty boop's posts "pearls before swine", so I *know* you're aware that their posts get discussed.
So why the dishonesty?
Consider a famous example. Several million people live in Manhattan. Almost everyone there is well fed. How does that happen? Who designed the system that feeds Manhattan?The answer is nobody. Individuals do various small tasks (for money) that in aggregate produce an astounding result - New York gets fed, day after day. Nobody understands how it happens - no single person or even small group of people understands where the food comes from, or how it is transported, or how it is distributed. Yet New York gets fed.
The complex "system" that feeds New York was never designed - it evolved over time, and continues to evolve as conditions change. Despite its enormous complexity, no one ever sat down and said "Let's figure out how to feed New York". And no one is monitoring the entire system today to figure out exactly what changes need to be made.
It's true that the individuals involved are intelligent, but their intelligence is only applied to the limited part that they play in the overall system. The system is self-organizing. Those people in the system have signals (the free-market) that tell them whether the small part they are doing is appropriate or not. The combination of individuals doing their small, simple parts and a signaling system that tells them if those parts are good yields a system as complex as any organism, with no one designing it.
I have to ask - do creationists feel compelled to discuss things they don't understand? Wouldn't you feel better if you did a little research on something like self-organizing systems before you showed that you didn't know what you were talking about? I'm just asking...
from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1336776/posts?page=405#405
by "Joe Bonforte"
My maternal grandmother had 9 abortions - she lived in a country that encouraged them as birth control. All her 4 brothers were killed childless in World War I. Her 1 sister was unable to bear children (adopted 2 whose mother died of cancer). My maternal grandfather had no siblings (his father also died young). My paternal grandparents had 2 children.
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?
Naturally it does, since it's accurate. In my wide-ranging studies of history, I've encountered ample supporting evidence over the years. If you actually bothered to research things before you fantasize about them you'd reach the exact same conclusion.
Since you think personal anecdotes are important, then my maternal grandparents raised 4 children, their children (my mother/aunts/uncles) raised 8 children (3/3/2/0) and aborted 2. Those children (myself/siblings/cousins) have 6 children (3/0/0/2/1/0/0/0) none of which have yet had children. As you might guess, a series of tragic circumstances have led to a precipitous drop in the family birth rate.. The 3 are mine. There have been no aborted children in this generation (but two miscarriages, and an infant died of cancer). My one paternal uncle had 1 child who has 1 child. None of this includes any illegitimate children if they're out there & I don't know about them.
The ratio of live births to abortions in these three generations would then be 23:11 - the infant that died is counted in the 23. That's a 32.35% infanticide rate.
You picked the wrong person to ask for anecdotal support of your inanity. LOL
This would be like a laywer going to court and citing the Dred Scott case as a precedent for his position.
Although I think most of what you have posted on this thread is drivel, my posts to you concerned only Darwin's Daughter and to expose it as the red herring it is. Anything else you bring in is just that also, a red herring.
You may evade reality, but it won't evade you.
Thank you. That is very enlightening.
PS. Just to be clear (if you could call it that) my father is one of the two children adopted by my maternal great aunt and so I have not left out any additional lineage that I'm aware of on the paternal side.
PPS. Oh, but if I do include my father and uncle then the ratio is 25:11 with a 30.55% infanticide rate.
And what the evolutionists call "evidence" is simply twisted logic/interpretation of physical entities. Of course no one - including themselves - can prove absolutely that "evolution" (in the sense that some one-celled blob became a human being after a few billion years - however, evolution within a species is very understandable and reasonable) is true. It is just a guess, a hypothesis.
Okay - let the flames begin! :o)
It is an outgrowth of the fundamentalist view of the absolute authority of the Bible. Unfortunately, they misinterpret the meaning of the text and fall of the reality cliff.
I tried to work with AG and BB only to be told that their "offer" was just a joke on me. Later they were shamed into working on certain issues like "the entropy issue" to ward off the liars. AG and BB then started going off into philosophical tangents on entropy and ignoring science so I left the thread (it is still going) and just ignore their pings. They don't want to talk science, just rant on philosophy and allowing the wild-cards to get their two cents in. Sorry. That is my experience with them in the recent weeks.
Maybe if you tried and posted something that's not the the same old worn out, mush, you wouldn't have to expect flames.
You advise me to ignore the wing-nuts and you engage b, the king of wing-nuts.
Oh, horse manure. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. But just for giggles, please feel free to give some examples of the "physical entities" which you feel have been misinterpreted due to "twisted logic/interpretation" (and in what way), so that I can show you just how wrong you are in your simplistic beliefs. Or feel free to tackle the research papers in post #85 and point out where the authors have (allegedly) fallen prey to "twisted logic/interpretation", *and* what scenario actually better matches and explains the evidence (*all* the evidence, not just one isolated piece of it out of context).
Go for it, since you're such an "expert" on where all those biologists "must" have gone off track, and what "must" be wrong with the "evidence"... Come on, son, show us what you've got...
Of course no one - including themselves - can prove absolutely that "evolution" (in the sense that some one-celled blob became a human being after a few billion years - however, evolution within a species is very understandable and reasonable) is true.
No one can "prove absolutely" *anything*. You set the bar so high that you couldn't even "prove" that you actually exist, or that the world wasn't created last Tuesday. Is that how far you really want to go just so you can cling to an excuse not to accept what the evidence clearly indicates?
It is just a guess, a hypothesis.
You are very sadly mistaken. Wherever you got your "education", it's time to demand a refund. Evolutionary biology has been tested and confirmed literally millions of times, and has been subjected to potentially falsifying tests countless times, and has passed with flying colors, for more than a hundred years.
That makes it worlds beyond "just a guess", kid.
Careful, your ignorance is showing.
I most certainly did engage them. I gave up after posting to them all their scientific errors and realizing they weren't about science but posting their non-science philosophy.
Damn, you bit. Now he might not go away.
ID claims no such thing which means you're not being intellectually honest. ID doesn't exclude evolution any more than American capitalism excludes markets. ID proponents might even say that like American capitalism, regulation is required to keep unfettered capitalism on the straight and narrow.
"ID doesn't exclude evolution any more than American capitalism excludes markets. ID proponents might even say that like American capitalism, regulation is required to keep unfettered capitalism on the straight and narrow."
regulation, of what, by whom, why? straight and narrow what?
OMG, jennyp, you've got to see this.
In theory you're right, but in practice most of the folks arguing for ID seem to go out of their way to try to deny the validity of evolution.
Or put another way: Maybe *your* view of ID doesn't exclude evolution, but the majority of the movement appears to disagree with you on that point.
Government regulates markets. Sorry for the shock to your system but thats life in America.
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.