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.
I love to come on these type of threads. It is fun to see bible myth followers get pounded. No wonder the Romans fed them to the lions.
"ID proponents might even say that like American capitalism, regulation is required to keep unfettered capitalism on the straight and narrow. "
I know senor walsh has been around a long time, but this is one of the most socialist things I have ever heard, and I certainly didn't expect to see something like this on FR.
I suppose somebody should point out that this sentence would identify you as a bigot. It may as well be me.
I know the reality, friend, but you do your IDers no good calling them socialists on FR.
LOL, I have never heard such stupidity here at FR. Well, in truth I have but not from somebody with an advanced degree. SEC ring any bells?
Look pal, you're not my friend. My friends don't refer to me as a socialist. Furthermore you're ignorant about US markets and the regualtion thereof. In addition, you're statement is a lie. I have called noone a socialist.
I listened to Behe a few times and he made no sense at all, just another theologian pushing theology. Gould was always my favorite; an objective atheist, his punctuated equlibrium makes the most sense and fits the evidence pretty well. Also, he was a master of ridicule to shut up the creatios.
"We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."
Statement of FR home page. This includes unwarranted government regulation (a form of governmental largesse) of many things, but especially markets.
"ID proponents might even say that like American capitalism, regulation is required to keep unfettered capitalism on the straight and narrow."
This is support of the government regulating our market system. By definition, that is statist (if you don't like "socialist"). The fact that our markets are regulated and not free does not minimize that you stated that IDers would agree that government regulation is required to keep capitalism on the straight and narrow.
You surprised me very much, but they are your words.
I don't think most people on your side are bigots who would like too see Christians murdered by Romans.
I suppose somebody should point out that this sentence would identify you as a bigot. It may as well be me.
Heck, I'll even second your assessment, jw.
Correct. What that has to do with you lying about my views I have no idea.
Statement of FR home page. This includes unwarranted government regulation (a form of governmental largesse) of many things, but especially markets.
Right, but it doesn't call to eliminate ALL regulation and it doesn't excuse you lying about what I said either.
"ID proponents might even say that like American capitalism, regulation is required to keep unfettered capitalism on the straight and narrow."
Regulation and socialism are not synonomous. You may believe that unfettered capitalism is desirable which would be an anarcho libertarian position but it is well within mainstream conservative thought for government to act as a check through regulatory agencies.
This is support of the government regulating our market system. By definition, that is statist (if you don't like "socialist"). The fact that our markets are regulated and not free does not minimize that you stated that IDers would agree that government regulation is required to keep capitalism on the straight and narrow.
What is the check on unfettered capitalism?
You surprised me very much, but they are your words.
You surprised me as well, I didn't know you had a propensity for lying.
I like this evolution equals capitalism angle. It's a new idea, the evolution of a meme! LOL
I am not interpreting your words - you said them. So I have said no lie.
I do not think the government has any right regulating markets - we disagree.
There should be no check on "unfettered capitalism". The checks only serve to cripple our market system.
Any government regulation of markets is statism, by definition. I'm sorry if you disagree with that.
For an old time Freeper, you surprise me with this rather unconservative view. Would you like to rephrase the statement so that it says what you really meant (if it didn't quite come out as you meant)?
You recognize hyperbole. (Also, to a predicted upcoming question, the answer is no, or no I won't.)
Get real. These threads have more people calling other people liars and more name calling than any other threads on the internet, so don't just jump on me, these particular discussions are so entertaining because they are so smug and adolescent.
I like this evolution equals capitalism angle. It's a new idea, the evolution of a meme!
I'm afraid there's nothing new about it—it amounts to Herbert Spencer's "social darwinism". Here's a one-liner:
"...Spencer had full confidence in them [i.e., the social applications of Darwin's ideas], and toured the United States giving the explicit scientific blessing of evolutionary theory to the wilder excesses of free-enterprise capitalism."
Google "social darwinism" for more references.
Are we talking infantcides or abortions? You started with infantcides. In that cohort of your known ancestors as you've already mentioned, how many *infantcides* -- baby killings were there? Did I miss something, it seems to me you mentioned none at all. That would be 0%.
And you maternal grandmother may be a anomaly -- while you might find -- if you look hard -- some women since Roe v Wade with 9 abortions, back 50+ years ago, 9 abortions? Perhaps your maternal grandmother is younger than might be guessed, still 9 is a lot.
Yet we started out with infantcides. How exactly did your researcher estimate them? How was able to distinquish between natural deaths in childhod and infantcide? That seems not possible to do very reliably.
Another lie, I never wrote the word socialism, you made it up out of whole cloth.
I do not think the government has any right regulating markets - we disagree.
OK.
There should be no check on "unfettered capitalism". The checks only serve to cripple our market system.
Thats one opinion, another opinion is that unfettered capitalism lead to the murder of between 2 and 10 million Congolese by some European capitalists after rubber in the Congo in the 20th Century.
Any government regulation of markets is statism, by definition. I'm sorry if you disagree with that.
Oh, I disagree with it alright and your characterization of anybody who doesn't support laissez-faire capitalism as a statist is simply wrong.
For an old time Freeper, you surprise me with this rather unconservative view. Would you like to rephrase the statement so that it says what you really meant (if it didn't quite come out as you meant)?
No, I wouldn't. As long as I've been here I've been clear about where I stand. I am an economic conservative, not a libertarian. I am a social conservative, not a libertarian. I support lower taxes, but not the elimination of all taxes. I support regulation but not excessive regulation.
And I walk the talk. I have nevere taken any money from the government with the excpetion of when I served in the Army. I sign my own checks and the checks of my employees. I paid for my kids educations in cash, no subsideis from the government. I own my home, my business, my 5 acres and I own what I need to protect them.
My question for you is do you walk your talk?
What dishonesty? Talking past people is not engagement. And how can one determine whether someone has been talked past? How they re-engage after. If they've latched into what you've said, suggested or infered, they will apply some of that in reply to you, or to someone else. That's just simple idea-evolution.
Hey, "they" can speak for themselves.
You recognize hyperbole. (Also, to a predicted upcoming question, the answer is no, or no I won't.)
Sometimes, I also recognize bigotry.
Get real. These threads have more people calling other people liars and more name calling than any other threads on the internet, so don't just jump on me, these particular discussions are so entertaining because they are so smug and adolescent.
Look, you're not getting any special attention, you make a bigotted statement like that you got to expect to be called on it. Why whine about it?
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.