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.
It reflects the nature of creationists and IDers. They can put up no science to support a scientific argument.
Do you have any science that refutes evolution?
What?! The last thing Citizens Bank Park in Philly needs is more home runs! It's the sea level version of Coors Field. Ban the DH.
You couldn't have that. There would be designed plays that would involve intentional wild pitches in order to get around pitching to a difficult batter. It would be no different than an intentional walk with the only difference being having an opportunity to throw the man out a first. It should remain as it is, with the batter only allowed to run after the third strike - at least in that instance the pitcher was forced to pitch and play the game, and did his job by getting three strikes. A batter is not like a runner on base. He's trying to get on base, as he is not counted as a man left on base when an inning ends.
No, I don't. I have no expertise in this. But I do wish the Darwinists would lighten up just a bit and be more civil and less know-it-all.
One of the great influences on Darwin's thinking was Whewell's notion of the consilience of inductions, the attempt to relay all knowledge obtained by the scientific method under a simple set of explanatory propositions. All subsequent work in biology has continued this Whewellian programme of Darwin's.
We have a bit of both types of regulation. But happily, because of people like Hayek, Friedman, Rand, & Reagan, the idea of regulating outcomes is intellecutally discredited, and only survives on inertia & because it's more likely to help well-defined interest groups. (And because of all the tenured leftists still in academia who still believe in economic "intelligent design".)
Well, the batter wouldn't be obligated to run to 1st. Some batters would be at a disadvantage, but others would be happy to exploit the opportunity. Ichiro's at the plate, and the ball gets by Ivan Rodriguez. I'd love to see that one. :-)
Its late now and Im ready to turn in, but I wanted to make a few notes for the conversation in the event it is still active tomorrow:
In relativity, an effect belongs to the future lightcone of its cause on an observers worldline in four dimensions. But in quantum field theory, that is not the case:
Splitting a single photon of well-defined energy into a pair of photons with initially undefined energies, and sending each photon through a fiber-optic network to detectors 10 km apart, researchers in Switzerland ... showed that determining the energy for one photon by measuring it had instantaneously determined the energy of its neighbor 10 km away
We perceive the physical realm as four dimensions 3 of space and 1 of time. But string theory suggests that there may be a number of additional dimensions. In Kaluza-Klein theory they are compacted, but in some other theories they are not. In f-Theory, there is an additional time dimension, therefore the time dimension we sense as a line an arrow of time under f-Theory is a plane. Therefore, cause/effect could also be effect/cause and past, present, future all are perceptible from the other time dimension.
This is the single biggest objection to the theory because science wants to rely on physical causation as suggested by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Non-locality, however, as well as superposition and various other phenomena would make more sense with the extra temporal dimension. Who knows - as with the early objections to inflationary theory trying to preserve a steady state universe, these objections may also disappear.
The Designer in Intelligent Design arguments
Of course most of us would immediately aver that the Designer is God, but as others here have noted the designer could also be alien life in the cosmos (panspermia, astrobiology, cosmic ancestry) or even collective consciousness of the universe itself.
Causally-Closed Hypothesis
There is also great resistance in some of the sciences (notably neither mathematics nor physics) - to that which is non-corporeal, i.e. does not exist in space/time. Some correspondents here have the same difficulty: universals, mathematical structures, geometries, physical laws, information, qualia (likes/dislikes, pain/pleasure), complexity, semiosis, the will to live, consciousness, spirit.
It is challenging to discuss evolution with someone who believes that "all that there is" is all that exists in nature but it is particularly difficult when they also dismiss all non-corporeals.
Okay, so you don't understand the difference between the scientific use of the word "theory" and the common use of that word. Why did I expect anything different?
I don't believe that you are nuetral in this battle.
That's kinda off-topic for this thread--private reply coming.
You are exactly right, human memory is just new neuron synapses! Oh rue the day that I ever thought otherwise. Oh wise linker, I humble and prostrate myself before the great edifice of an MRI machine which actually sees memories! They even record dreams on DVD! Surely that must be so according to the scientitific theory you so honestly, caringly and thoughtfully espouse!
We would all love to see just one of your dreams or memories available on their videos, oh wise linker! Please let us know when they are available!
First of all, evolution is not equivalent to saying that there is no design. Evolution is simply the theory that the variation over time of allele frequencies in populations of organisms is sufficient to give rise to all the diversity of modern life. It says nothing about design or lack thereof, because, as I stated earlier, questions of design are not falsifiable and hence not scientific. Please don't confuse the science with the scientists, many of whom I will admit push an agenda that seeks to eliminate the possibility of design. Many scientists and others do indeed use evolution to argue that design is not possible WRT life, but that's not what the theory of evolution actually says.
If you restrict the question to just what the theory of evolution actually says, then it is indeed falsifiable and hence is a scientific theory. There are all kinds of observations that would either completely falsify evolution or lead to major modifications in the theory. Just a few examples: find a new species of life which doesn't utilize polynucleotides as its genetic material, find a fossil of a modern mammal that can be reliably dated to an age of 1 billion years or find a fossil that is a transitional species having characteristics of birds and mammals (both of which all other evidence indicates are branched off from reptiles.)
snarks and cornelis, it seems you read my statement that Plato and Aristotle "weren't working the same problems" as intending something much stronger than I meant to say. As Voegelin noted (and I don't have the source before me to quote from it, so this goes by memory), Aristotle's supposed "disagreement" with Plato was actually a shift of attention to problems that were not in the forefront of Plato's attention. Aristotle remained a lifelong "student" of Plato all the same, an idea captured in Whitehead's remark.
I mentioned this because it has become fashionable (thanks to Ayn Rand and Dr. Piekoff) to believe that the two men had a falling out of some kind, and that Aristotle "corrected" the failings of Platonic thought (which they feel leads to socialism, etc., among other pernicious things). And I was writing to a person who apparently is in the grip of this view.
Thanks for writing!
Stop! You're making me blush.
Sorry, can't resist this quote from a Keith Laumer novel:
"I didn't know you read Kant."
"Kan't read, you mean."
Cheers!
This makes no sense. Central planning doesn't regulate, it dictates. Laissez-faire economic theory eschews regulation of any type. American capitalism embraces neither theory and works pretty well even with too much regulation and taxation.
But happily, because of people like Hayek, Friedman, Rand, & Reagan, the idea of regulating outcomes is intellecutally discredited, and only survives on inertia & because it's more likely to help well-defined interest groups.
OK, so why should I read Hayek? I take your statement to mean that you find regulation a not inherently undesirable feature so long as it doesn't direct outcomes. So why don't you give me some examples of regulation that you find acceptable.
(And because of all the tenured leftists still in academia who still believe in economic "intelligent design".)
The market place incorporates design and selection. You deny that?
How faddish a word! So heavy a burden you import to it, you should melt it down and cast it into scuba-belt weights. That entrepreneurial idea, friend, is as silly as the usage you make of it.
Ummm, yeah.
Some of the articles further within the page look pretty explicitly anti-Christian, reminiscent of say, The Passover Plot or whatever it was called from the mid-1970's.
Careful who you direct there, or they will use the page as ammunition that all evolutionists are atheistic etc. (TM) Patent Pending (copyright) etc.
Cheers!
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.