HARRISBURG — Among scientists, it's an unresolved debate: Which came first, the bacterial flagellum or the type III protein secretion system?Scientist: Design is science
One is an argument for evolutionary theory.
The other supports intelligent design, a science expert said Monday.
For the first time since the trial began in a U.S. Middle District courtroom three weeks ago, a scientist testified that intelligent design is science, one based on a fully testable, falsifiable theory.
Attorneys for Dover Area School District started presenting their case with Michael Behe, the Lehigh University biochemistry professor who came up with the term "irreducible complexity."
In the first nine days of testimony, science experts for the plaintiffs argued that intelligent design was just revamped creationism based on an old premise that life is so complex, it couldn't have evolved without a guiding hand.
But Behe, one of the intelligent design movement's most prominent voices, said they're wrong.
Just as a mouse trap's working parts reveal a designer, design can also be determined in nature by the "purposeful arrangement of parts," Behe said.
"Not being able to explain something is not design," he said.
Behe pointed to the writings of numerous scientists supporting the appearance of design in the universe.
As an example, he referred to Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, who wrote in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker," that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But Dawkins was writing about what he considers to be a fallacy in the intelligent design argument. While living creatures may appear designed, most scientists agree they are actually the products of evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation.
Behe spent much of the day trying to refute previous testimony of Brown University biology professor Ken Miller, leadoff hitter for plaintiffs' attorneys on the first day of the trial Sept. 26.
Miller and Behe have debated each other numerous times in public forums. And in his book, "Finding Darwin's God," Miller takes Behe to task for his idea of irreducible complexity.
Behe coined the term for the idea that in order for many organisms to evolve at the cellular level, multiple systems would have had to arise simultaneously. In many cases, he argues, this is a mathematical impossibility.
He uses the bacterial flagellum as an example, arguing that for the propeller-like appendage to move, between 30 and 40 protein parts are needed. Removal of any one of those parts causes the system to stop working — just as a mousetrap depends on all its pieces to operate.
Darwinism's theory of intermediate and incremental evolutionary steps can't explain this, Behe said.
Miller had testified that if 10 of the protein parts were removed, the flagellum would take on a different function, one allowing bacteria to inject poisons into other cells.
Behe disputed Miller's assertion Monday, saying it mischaracterizes his idea.
Essentially, Dover's attorney Richard Muise asked, Miller takes irreducible complexity, applies a different definition, "then claims your concept is incorrect?"
Behe agreed and said that the protein group's different function — in this case a "type III secretion system" — does not discount irreducible complexity.
Miller says the separate purpose is an explanation for how a complex system might have evolved through genetic mutation and natural selection. To illustrate his side of the argument, Miller showed up the first day of the trial wearing a partially disassembled mousetrap as a tie clip. He took it off before taking the stand.
Behe also testified that some scientists question which came first — the bacterial flagellum or the type III secretion system. Behe pointed to references in which some scientists wrote that they believe the flagellum evolved first — which would still leave open the argument that the flagellum needed all its working parts in order before it could function.
"Darwinian theory can live with any results," Behe said. "Then it goes back and tries to rationalize the results post hoc."
Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events, U. Gophna et al. / Gene 312 (2003) 151–163Abstract: Type III secretion systems (TTSS) are unique bacterial mechanisms that mediate elaborate interactions with their hosts. The fact that several of the TTSS proteins are closely related to flagellar export proteins has led to the suggestion that TTSS had evolved from flagella. Here we reconstruct the evolutionary history of four conserved type III secretion proteins and their phylogenetic relationships with flagellar paralogs. Our analysis indicates that the TTSS and the flagellar export mechanism share a common ancestor, but have evolved independently from one another. The suggestion that TTSS genes have evolved from genes encoding flagellar proteins is effectively refuted. A comparison of the species tree, as deduced from 16S rDNA sequences, to the protein phylogenetic trees has led to the identification of several major lateral transfer events involving clusters of TTSS genes. It is hypothesized that horizontal gene transfer has occurred much earlier and more frequently than previously inferred for TTSS genes and is, consequently, a major force shaping the evolution of species that harbor type III secretion systems.
One is an argument for evolutionary theory.
No, one is an investigation into what the evidence best supports.
The other supports intelligent design, a science expert said Monday.
ERRRNNNTT!! Yet again, we have the childishly simply (and simplistically fallacious) implication of "if not evolution, then ID". Wrong again. Even if the flagellum was discovered to have arisen earlier than the TTTS, that *still* wouldn't be "support for ID".
For the first time since the trial began in a U.S. Middle District courtroom three weeks ago, a scientist testified that intelligent design is science, one based on a fully testable, falsifiable theory.
...and yet, no one has ever managed to actually present this mythical "theory of ID".
Attorneys for Dover Area School District started presenting their case with Michael Behe, the Lehigh University biochemistry professor who came up with the term "irreducible complexity."
...by stealing the idea from Darwin.
In the first nine days of testimony, science experts for the plaintiffs argued that intelligent design was just revamped creationism based on an old premise that life is so complex, it couldn't have evolved without a guiding hand.
Bingo!
But Behe, one of the intelligent design movement's most prominent voices, said they're wrong.
Of course he does, that's how he sells his books.
Just as a mouse trap's working parts reveal a designer, design can also be determined in nature by the "purposeful arrangement of parts," Behe said.
This is a gross misrepresentation of even Behe's own arguments. Fascinating.
"Not being able to explain something is not design," he said.
Bingo again.
Behe pointed to the writings of numerous scientists supporting the appearance of design in the universe.
I can point to the writings of numerous scientists supporting Cold Fusion, too.
As an example, he referred to Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, who wrote in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker," that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But Dawkins was writing about what he considers to be a fallacy in the intelligent design argument. While living creatures may appear designed, most scientists agree they are actually the products of evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation.
...because that's what the evidence and research results indicate.
He uses the bacterial flagellum as an example, arguing that for the propeller-like appendage to move, between 30 and 40 protein parts are needed. Removal of any one of those parts causes the system to stop working — just as a mousetrap depends on all its pieces to operate.
Behe can assert that all he wants, but it just isn't true -- many simpler flagella continue to work just fine. Nor has Behe actually experimented with flagella to demonstrate the truth of his mere presumption.
Darwinism's theory of intermediate and incremental evolutionary steps can't explain this, Behe said.
Behe's argument in support of this conclusion is fatally flawed.
Miller had testified that if 10 of the protein parts were removed, the flagellum would take on a different function, one allowing bacteria to inject poisons into other cells.
Behe disputed Miller's assertion Monday, saying it mischaracterizes his idea.
Miller's identification of the flaws in Behe's argument is 100% accurate.
Essentially, Dover's attorney Richard Muise asked, Miller takes irreducible complexity, applies a different definition, "then claims your concept is incorrect?" Behe agreed and said that the protein group's different function — in this case a "type III secretion system" — does not discount irreducible complexity.
Behe is either lying, or stupid. The fact that Behe's narrow definition of "irreducible complexity" fails to take into account alternative functionality completely torpedos Behe's argument. It is the most serious (but hardly only) flaw in Behe's "proof".
Miller says the separate purpose is an explanation for how a complex system might have evolved through genetic mutation and natural selection.
Exactly.
To illustrate his side of the argument, Miller showed up the first day of the trial wearing a partially disassembled mousetrap as a tie clip. He took it off before taking the stand.
ROFL! Furthermore, even *as* a mousecatcher, a mousetrap (which Behe repeatedly keeps using as a familiar example of an "IC" object, is not actually irreducible, even by Behe's most narrow definition of the term. OOPS! If Behe can't even get something *that* simple right, how can we trust him with the hard stuff?
Behe also testified that some scientists question which came first — the bacterial flagellum or the type III secretion system. Behe pointed to references in which some scientists wrote that they believe the flagellum evolved first — which would still leave open the argument that the flagellum needed all its working parts in order before it could function.
Behe sort of "forgets" to mention that those references have been superseded by subsequent research. But even if it hadn't, that still wouldn't rescue Behe's "IC" or "ID" arguments.
"Darwinian theory can live with any results," Behe said. "Then it goes back and tries to rationalize the results post hoc."
Wow -- is Behe really *that* ignorant, or is he just a vicious liar? No, "Darwinian theory" examines results based on the evidence. This is not "rationalization". This is science. Further evidence or research *could* easily falsify evolutionary biology if indeed it happens to be incorrect. But Behe is out of line when he gets petulant and dishonest and insulting just because to date the evidence *has* been supportive of evolution, and that evolution *has* passed all falsification tests that have been done to date.
HARRISBURG — At one point during Michael Behe's interminable testimony about Lord knows what on Day 10 of the Dover Panda Trial, he finally got to the good part.Scientists, sex mark Day 10 - Mike Argento Commentary
We're talking sex.
One of the things Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and one of the grand poobahs of the intelligent design movement, pointed out to show that scientists still debate the idea of evolution is that scientists don't know anything about sex.
He had a slide that referenced an article from the science journal "Nature" titled "Why Sex?"
You know, if you have to ask...
Seriously, I guess, he quoted the article as saying, "Scientists come with a profusion of theories."
Interpret that any way you wish.
He said the article reported that "major factors of the evolution of reproduction are still obscure." The article said, "After decades of theorizing about the evolution of sex, biologists are at last beginning to test their ideas in the field."
It's really kind of sad because a lot of these guys are middle-aged and if they're just getting around to it...
The article says, "How sex began and how it thrived remain a mystery."
It usually begins with a few drinks and maybe dinner and then...
OK, scientists, pay attention now. When a man loves a woman, or another man, or, in the world of creationists and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., a dog...
Oh, never mind.
It's just that I've met a lot of scientists and while they might have some limited social skills, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand sex.
Take Behe. He testified that he has nine kids and his claim to fame is being one of the few scientists on the planet who supports intelligent design, which he says isn't creationism, despite all of the scientists who don't understand sex saying it is.
He did not — I repeat, did not — offer any evidence of the stork theory of spontaneous human reproduction. So the guy probably knows something about sex and therefore, should be the envy of scientists who don't get it, so to speak.
Seriously, though, he was giving an overview of a debate within the science community over how sexual reproduction overtook asexual reproduction as a means of propagating species. The idea being that asexual reproduction is more efficient and therefore should be the preferred means of reproduction. But from a natural selection point of view, asexual reproduction is not very efficient at mixing up genetic material and furthering the cause of evolution.
And while it's true that asexual reproduction is more efficient — you don't have to go out to dinner and have drinks and remember birthdays and stuff like that — sexual reproduction is a lot more fun.
Of course, I'm not a scientist...
Behe testified at length that we're full of little machines that process all of the stuff that goes into making us human. He repeatedly said that scientists don't use machines as metaphors, that they mean it literally.
He didn't get it quite right. In the examples he gave, scientists didn't use the word "machine" as a metaphor. They were using it as a simile. (If you don't know, you didn't pay attention in English class.)
Actually, he was saying the cells that make up our bodies are full of little molecular machines and they do a lot of things, such as process chemicals, create proteins, digest cheeseburgers. I guess since our bodies run on a bunch of little machines, we are kin to Terminator, Robbie Robot and R2-D2. Just think, we're all full of the same stuff as the governor of California.
Well, some of us are.
Moving on, Behe's main argument seems to be that scientists don't know a lot of things — something scientists freely admit, except for the embarrassing not-knowing-anything-about-sex thing — so stuff must have come from somewhere.
That's the crux of intelligent design, that if something looks designed and if scientists can't explain it, then it was designed.
He said his idea doesn't require a creator, which raises the question, who designed whatever it is that was supposed to have been designed? Is it God, or space aliens, or some guy who forgot about some leftover Chinese food in the back of a great cosmic refrigerator?
At least that's what I think he's getting at.
It's kind of hard to tell. He spent a lot of time Monday saying that other scientists didn't understand him and pointing out that Darwin's theory of evolution is full of the same stuff the governor of California is.
As court wound down for the day, he spent, oh, I don't know, about eight or nine years explaining something or other to do with an experiment involving E. coli and galactosidase or something like that.
At one point, quoting a journal article about it, he said, "Neither the constitutive nor the inducible evolved strains grew on lactose in the absence of IPTG."
I guess that settles the whole thing.
Shortly after 4 p.m. — right about the time that nearly everyone in the courtroom was wondering just what Behe's lengthy description of E. coli and how it digests lactose had to do with anything — Robert Muise, the defense attorney guiding Behe through his dissertation, said it would be a good time to break for the day because "we're about to move into the blood-clotting system."
Federal Judge John E. Jones III retorted, "Oh, really?"
He sounded kind of disappointed. Maybe he was hoping for more about how scientists don't get sex, so to speak.