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.
Speaking of what is "real," here is a truism if ever there was one: "Perception IS reality."
Reality comes later. Animals perceive. Plants perceive. Microbes perceive. But intuition, the reflection on perception, that is where reality comes up.
Ahhhh. A pure example of conditional love.
You should have been a lawyer, a prosecuter; for if anyone has the 'will to prosecute' highly developed, it is you. Chances are good you are a first born; heck maybe even an only child.
And I feel sorry for the kids who are receving 'moral' instruction from you.
And as for feeling bad for the kids that receive moral instruction from me (I think that could be called a slam against a Christian, don't you?), be honest; don't you feel bad instead for ALL kids who go to sunday school and learn about Jesus?
Wouldn't they be better off going to yourSunday School class? Oops. You don't go to church; I keep forgetting. You do teach morals, however, yes? Perhaps you have a weeknight neighborhood 'morals according to darwinian principles' class that is open to the local kids?
But what the heck, maybe proper moral instruction is something you have some expertise in given your willingness to impugn and denigrate me and my reports of teaching kids about right and wrong. In fact, way back on this other thread that I started (here) you said in post 340
"...I can give you some compelling reasons why everyone should be honest."
(I remember it so well, for it is so bold; and if there is one thing lacking in so many males in our society today, it is boldness).
I sense that a priest who never got to be a priest lives in you RWP; but be that as it may, I am quite interested in your 'reasons' .... I can't wait to see how compelling the rationalisms are for honesty from someone who openly rejects the teachings of Christ and openly proclaims himself a priest of reason.
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.Yikes! I didn't know that claim had been refuted. Granted, if the TTSS had come after the flagellum it still would have proven that a major part of the flagellum was indeed useful on its own. But still, wow.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.
Agreed. Our observations and abstractions, including the laws of physics, and all the rest of science, are of the same character -- in your words: intangible, non-physical, immaterial. In my words: intellectual constructs.
They are not "things" in the sense that the moon is a thing, or that you are a thing, or that the photons of moonlight are things. Unlike you, the moon, and moonlight [** sigh **] all those other items are mere abstractions. If we all died, those abstractions would not exist. They are, as I said earlier, within us, and they are not additional aspects of the things we observe and about which we abstract.
In this sense, "science" is no more a real thing (like you and the moon) than is the English language, or any other intellectual work of man's mind. (Obviously, a book in English is a tangible thing, but that's not what we're talking about.)
I'll be stealing that someday soon for my sig line.
These things (post 365) are what I imagine Aristotle would have said to Plato, and Plato in return would have rolled his eyes and responded: "Aristotle, you were my brightest student, but you are my biggest disappointment."
In brains there is no distinction between hardware and software. If you have some evidence to contradict this, I'd like to see it. Brains learn by modifying the connections between neurons.
Excellent insights, RobRoy! Plus I think you're absolutely right about this: "Creation reeks of a designer, and those who study it with this thought in mind are the ones who make the most progress unlocking it's secrets."
Thank you so much!
Why do you say such things are "more real" than material things? I never said that!
So do crystals reek of design?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341981/posts?page=351#351
You never said that? That's been said though, and if you didn't say it, it must have been that I said it. It's a good thing to say and puts the world at peace. The realer world is the legal world not the visible world.
I want to see the evidence that backs up the assertion, "The mind is the behavior of the brain," js1138. For otherwise, it strikes me as being yet another "theological statement."
As to this "learning visibly alters the structure of the brain" business: It is well understood that the infant brain continues rapidly to develop well past birth, for at least another 24 months or so. This is the time when (presumably) the infant is most rapidly learning. But which came first, the brain development or the learning? Or to put it another way, is the brain developing because the infant is learning, or is the rapid learning of an infant the result of the brain development? Do you know? Does anybody know for certain fact which it is?
This is not an intelligent response. The fact that Darwinism had trouble being accepted for decades doesn't justify the way current Darwinists use their power against dissenters and engage in name-calling. And even if Intelligent Design is not a new argument, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be heard today. The 1802 argument that you refer to surely isn't being heard now, absent the ID people, so what's wrong with bringing it up again? What are you people afraid of?
Yes, it does. Microscopic analysis show the neuronical connections change with learning. Don't know if there is a similar change for reading without comprehension.
You sound like someone who thinks that there is no possible knowledge outside of science, narrowly defined. This is called "scientism," and it has been responsible for a great deal of bad in our civilization. Such people tend to be barbarians in white coats. They reduce human knowledge to a very narrow little sphere. No thank you.
You people are really reacting hysterically to ID. Look in the mirror and ask yourselves why.
You really need to read some Hayek. In The Road to Serfdom he showed that there was an essential difference between regulating the process, in the form of enforcing simple, clear rules of contract, etc., and regulating the outcome, as happens in centrally planned societies. Free market societies flourish & evolve, while centrally planned societies turn totalitarian and crush the peoples' lives. This is because The People keep getting in the way of The Plan.
Hieronomous explains another system. It is not gov't that regulates the futures market, but the market itself. Many confuse gov't with state, and it could be argued that the market is of the state, but it isn't of gov't. Laws do not create state, but civil laws exist under state.
sorry professor the article says "There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity." in 4.1
i said the article's dna and protein conclusions assume ONLY heredity causes 2 organisms to have similar ubiquitous sequences..you said They assume no such thing.
then you made an assumption again by presuming organisms have a common ancestor when that is the question being dis/proven..
why should design predict either more or fewer similarities bw various species?? it doesn't
point being, design is a second valid mechanism.
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.