Behe Jumps the Shark [response to Michael Behe's NYTimes op-ed, "Design for Living"]

Butterflies and Wheels (reprinted from pharyngula.org) ^ | February 7, 2005 | P. Z. Myers

[snarks_when_bored]

Behe Jumps the Shark

By P Z Myers

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.

• It's obvious.
• It's obvious!
• Evolutionary explanations are no good.
• There aren't any good evolutionary explanations.

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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Hmmm ... methinks I spoke too soon. I just compared your post at 611 to betty boop to your post at 608 to me.

It seems you do recognize there is something going on in biological systems which is more than the physical laws can address but that you are also confident that whatever it is must be corporeal, i.e. exist in space/time.

That is somewhat different from my view.

Whereas I can see an as yet undiscovered field-like host for the will to live which is common among all living things (amoeba, bacteria, whales, viruses, man, etc.) --- I also see that something more than that is required to explain the unique willfulness of man, in particular individual man. (my post 582)

For Lurkers - in Physics, a "field" exists at all points of space/time.

That unique willfulness of man is the non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal - spirit or soul. In Scripture it would be ruach and neshama - a sense of good and evil, right and wrong, altruism and selfishness, etc. as well as a yearning or sense of belonging "beyond" space/time. In Scriptural parlance, "ears to hear".

The field-like host to consciousness would be nephesh in Scriptural parlance.

[js1138]

Since clearly a computer is capable of thinking about itself thinking about itself thinking, in what way does this recursion prove you are different from a computer? And computers mostly pay attention, unless some unthinking boor has run a huge processor-hogging job in the background.

I like to think of the mind as a multitude of signals riding on a carrier wave, the action of the neurons. Neurons fire in isolation at a nearly steady rate. In the brain their firing rate and timing is affected by the signals of connected neurons. The connections are electrochemical rather than electronic. There is an incredible amount of slop in the determination of when and whether to fire. I personally don't think it will ever be possible to record or reproduce the personality of a living person. Just my opinion, but I think the sloppiness of the brain is similar to the sloppiness of evolution. It looks bizarre to a computer engineer, but it probably makes the system better than it would be if the tolerances were tight.

[betty boop]

Right now you cannot tell me why there is a 100 percent correlation between brain damage and mental deficit.

I can tell you that when my car is totaled in a collision, it probably won't run anymore, and it may not be "fixable." Even though it still has a driver (me), it still wouldn't be able to take me anywhere.

If the brain is a "machine" or tool of consciousness (which is my argument), if it is "totaled in a collision, it probably won't run anymore. And it may not be 'fixable.'"

This seemingly was the case with my late Aunt Ann, whose Lou Gehrig's disease eventually impaired brain function as regards speech. The loss of function did not cause her to lose the ability and desire to keep on communicating. She was sharp as a tack and lively to communicate still and always, right up to her death. But she had to write notes on paper, which aggravated her to no end. R.I.P. dear Ann.

[js1138]

Neuroscience is doing quite well without assuming extra dimensions. It will, in due time, offer hypotheses for many things that are now speculation.

Again, I think any hypothesis that assumes new and unmeasurable attributes of matter will have to have some predictive power that is superior to hypotheses that work with measurable phenomena.

The first thing they need to do is explain things we already have explanations for, such as the physical basis for mental deficits.

[js1138]

I am sorry to hear about your aunt. I had an uncle with the syndrome that was the basis of the movie, "Memento." He could remember things for about ten or fifteen minutes, and if you kept up a conversation, he could keep track of it longer. But every morning he started out with the assumption that it was the day of his "stroke." He lived like this for 25 years, and his wife never deserted him.

[snarks_when_bored]

Behe jumped the shark, perhaps. Big deal. Darwin is worm food.

Patience, MEGoody—the worms await us one and all.

Golden lads and girls all must,
As chimney sweepers come to dust.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Nothing in physics can be contradicted by biology. But physics, the academic enterprise, is a subset of the study of matter. At some level, chemistry, geology, biology, psychology, all have to conform to physics, but are not limited to the properties of matter studied by physicists.

The study of matter is in the domain of Physics – ordinary matter (Higgs field/boson), dark matter, dark energy.

I have been trying to say this in various ways for months, but the phrase emergent properties seems to be widely accepted by biologists. But emergent properties do not conflict with physics, and do not require extra dimensions.

Emergence is in the domain of mathematics – an element of complex systems. It would be presumptive to exclude dimensionality and/or geometry as a factor in emergence. As we have seen by Strominger and Vafa’s string theory proof of Hawking-Bekenstein – dimensionality cannot be thought a non-issue to space/time. It is a property of space/time.

You and Betty are manufacturing a need for phenomena that hve not been observed and which are unnecessary for conduction research. Before your extra-dimensional hypotheses become mainstream they will have to explain everything that is known and add something new to the pot.

We are not making this up. Cancer and pharmaceutical research continues based on information theory (Shannon) applied to molecular biology.

It is only logical. Every successful communication must have an inception, a beginning, an origination. This is where we are focused. When you willfully decide to move your finger, a cascade of successful communications continues through your molecular machinery until that will is made manifest.

This does not require a physical field hosted in extra dimensions (beyond the three spatial, one time we are able to sense with our mind and vision) – but neither does it preclude such a field. If it were a field in our 4D block or even if it existed in extra-dimensions it would still be in space/time of a different geometry and therefore corporeal.

The only reference on this thread to the supernatural is my own and that applies to the unique willfulness of man - especially, individual man - as compared to all other life.

Right now you cannot tell me why there is a 100 percent correlation between brain damage and mental deficit. Or why there is a 100 percent correlation between the brain features and functions that humans share with animals, assuming animals have no souls.

Assuming what you say is true then all it establishes is that the space/time coordinate point of the inception of a successful communication (such as willing to move a finger) – is located inside the physical brain. It does not at all address the location of the will itself.

Nor could the will be located in the physical brain when we know of creatures who act willfully but have no brain (amoeba, etc.) - and other collectives of creatures (such as ants and bees) which act together with a single will.

It suggests that the will is non-local and real which is why we believe it is "field-like" if not an actual field, like gravity, electro/magnetism, strong and weak atomic.

[snarks_when_bored]

Sorry to be crashing into the middle of your on-going sub-thread, folks. I just wanted to ask Alamo-Girl a question about the following sentence from her post #621:

That unique willfulness of man is the non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal - spirit or soul.

If there is a plurality of souls, each being "non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal", how would one soul be distinguished from another?

[grey_whiskers]

Golden lads and girls all must, As chimney sweepers come to dust.

Sounds like Shakespeare's Cymbeline.

Or are you perchance a Loreena McKennitt fan?

Cheers!

[betty boop]

But just because pain is "subjective" and cannot be quantized in the way beloved by scientists does not make it "unreal"--it just means their instruments cannot differentiate it; whether because the instruments are not yet suited, or not powerful enough, or whether there is a "ghost in the machine" is yet unknown...

Hi grey-whiskers! Granted, and granted. But can you grant me something in return -- could there possibly be real things in the universe that are not amenable to falsification using the methods of science, in principle (e.g., subjective elements like feelings, "qualia," pain, et al. -- you do seem already to grant this)? If there is a "ghost in the machine" of living systems -- and there are reputable scientists working today who suggest the entire universe is alive in some fashion, and so hypothetically has a universe-size "ghost in the machine," as it were -- how are you gonna take this into a laboratory to test it? How does one isolate the ghost? Is it possible that the philosophers, theologians, and mathematicians might have a better method than science for problems of this nature?

Perhaps folks who want to reduce the universe entirely to the categories and competence of science both shrink and falsify the universe as the price paid for what they do. If this is so, would we not lose some part of reality in the process?

[snarks_when_bored]

Yep, Cymbeline.

I've not heard Loreena McKennitt's music, but I've heard the name. Perhaps I should try to find some of it? Any suggestions?

[betty boop]

Nor could the will be located in the physical brain when we know of creatures who act willfully but have no brain (amoeba, etc.) - and other collectives of creatures (such as ants and bees) which act together with a single will....

Our correspondents seem to want to ignore this evidence, Alamo-Girl. Either that or they have not yet appreciated its full significance.

It suggests that the will is non-local and real which is why we believe it is "field-like" if not an actual field, like gravity, electro/magnetism, strong and weak atomic.

Perhaps there are biofields at work, extending both to life and consciousness. (The "ghost in the machine" may be facilitated by such.) There is much interesting work going on today along these lines!

Thank you so much for writing!

[Tulsa]

we really care professor, forgive me for drawing you out, thats so i could take time to be more helpful now..you know logic
:
the 29+arguments error in 4.1-2 is hidden assumption (p & p&q>r & p>r .: r, invalid if 3rd premiss false). stated simply p='only heredity is observed to copy full proteins', q='only observed mechanisms can copy full proteins', r=common descent..

they assume q that design can't copy full proteins needed, but evidence is !q that it can..human design has copied many long proteins which evos regard as sufficient proof human design will someday copy the whole cell

SINCE design can copy full proteins needed (even if not observed to yet), common descent dnf (doesnt follow)..admit please
:
your error, by contrast, was affirming the consequent (q & p>q .: p, invalid). p = common descent, q = 'a reconstructible tree of sim/diff dna exists'..can convert to hidden assumption (q & p>q & !p>!q .: p, invalid if 3rd premiss false)..

you said p>q: the DNA sequences were found experimentally to be consistent with a common ancestor.
you said q: I guarantee the DNA sequences, with no assumptions.., will allow the biologist reconstruct the evolutionary tree. (sic)
you didn't say !p>!q which would be: if not all have common descent, the tree cannot exist
!p>!q is false because: if not all have common descent, design can produce a similar tree, proven above

THUS common descent dnf..say maybe you missed 306 earlier??
:
your other post was beautiful science, incisive, compellingly put, & yes fun, except this invalid assumption vision thing..please lets answer why you think design is not a valid mechanism
:
..i have 2 mechanisms for copying comments: cut&paste or retype..comment mutations can either arise by edit after cut&paste, or transcript error/edit during retype

if i copy and mutate comments many times, you can lay out a tree of sim/diff comments based on fewer/more mutations..it proves 00 about which means i used at any unobserved time even if all the time you observed me i used cut&paste..

in a nutshell you say the tree is evolutionary like all evolutionary trees (circular argument, p>p .: p, invalid, details left as exercise to reader)..in re ff: 2 pet 3

[RightWhale]

"I" did.

'I' is also objectified. Putting it in language as the first person does not automatically make it subjective.

[Tulsa]

you ask: Can you give me an example of something not currently known but which is under study, that might produce evidence against design?

essay on my homepage lists a few..for most of them the evidence is already in but not accepted by all yet..

[betty boop]

Putting it in language as the first person does not automatically make it subjective.

"I" is the subject of the sentence, "I did." Did is the verb, past tense of "to do." Plus as I'm sure you're aware RightWhale, the first-person pronoun is often taken to be synonymous with the idea of a "self," ego, or soul....

[RightWhale]

'I' is an object, another 'other'. We might let an accident of language distract us from objective truth. Does the structure of the language dictate how we perceive the world?

[Tulsa]

lots of folks think evolution contradicts design, you don`t..if more thot like you then they`d let design be taught with evolution..

but you say design not falsifiable..please see the essay on my homepage..

is universe orderly?? this is measurable..it is.
did it originate orderly?? this is testable..it did.
did life come from nonlife because of order?? this is testable..it did.

design permits common descent in fact behe believes in common descent it might surprise you..so what remains to require design be banned??

[bvw]

The structure of a language does dictate the world.

[Tulsa]

you`re right about empiricism but so often we counterfeit it with circular assumptions..

good science: evolution predicts 1 2 3 4, design predicts not1 not2, we see not1 not2, thus design likely but still adjustable..

bad science: evolution predicts 1 2 3 4, who cares what design predicts, we see 3 4 and sorta 1 2, thus evolution shall not be challenged,,

we've already demolished 4.1-2 of mr theobald by this method, pls suggest other good arguments thx