Behe backs off 'mechanisms' [Cross exam in Dover Evolution trial, 19 October]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 19 October 2005 | LAURI LEBO

[PatrickHenry]

One of intelligent design's leading experts could not identify the driving force behind the concept.

In his writings supporting intelligent design, Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author of "Darwin's Black Box," said that "intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on proposed mechanisms of how complex biological structures arose."

But during cross examination Tuesday, when plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild asked Behe to identify those mechanisms, he couldn't.

When pressed, Behe said intelligent design does not propose a step-by-step mechanism, but one can still infer intelligent cause was involved by the "purposeful arrangement of parts."

Behe is the leading expert in the Dover Area School District's defense of its biology curriculum, which requires students to be made aware of intelligent design.

The First Amendment trial in U.S. Middle District Court is the first legal challenge to the inclusion of intelligent design in science class. At issue is whether it belongs in public school along with evolutionary theory.

In his work, "On the Origin of Species," Charles Darwin identified natural selection as the force driving evolutionary change in living organisms.

But Behe argued that natural selection alone cannot account for the complexity of life.

After Behe could not identify intelligent design's mechanism for change, Rothschild asked him if intelligent design then isn't just a negative argument against natural selection.

Behe disagreed, reiterating his statement that intelligent design is the purposeful arrangement of parts.

The bulk of Behe's testimony Monday and Tuesday had been on his concept of "irreducible complexity," 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 said, this is a mathematical impossibility.

He compared intelligent design to the Big Bang theory, in that when it was first proposed, some scientists dismissed it for its potential implications that God triggered the explosion.

He also said he is aware that the Big Bang theory was eventually accepted and has been peer-reviewed in scientific journals, and that intelligent design has been panned as revamped creationism by almost every mainstream scientific organization.

Rothschild asked Behe if he was aware that the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both oppose its teaching in public school science classes, and even that Behe's colleagues have taken a position against it.

Behe knew of the academies' positions and said they misunderstand and mischaracterize intelligent design.

Behe also said he was aware that Lehigh University's Department of Biology faculty has posted a statement on its Web site that says, "While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Earlier in the day, Behe had said under direct testimony that a creationist doesn't need any physical evidence to understand life's origins.

So creationism is "vastly 180 degrees different from intelligent design," he said.

Still, Behe said he believes that the intelligent designer is God.

In his article, "A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box," Behe wrote that intelligent design is "less plausible to those for whom God's existence is in question and is much less plausible for those who deny God's existence."

After referring to the article, Rothschild asked, "That's a God-friendly theory, Mr. Behe. Isn't it?"

Behe argued he was speaking from a philosophical view, much as Oxford University scientist Richard Dawkins was when he said Darwin's theory made it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

"Arguing from the scientific data only takes you so far," Behe said.

[connectthedots]

The recent change at the root of the tree of life, from 3 kingdoms to 5 domains, is a response to the examination of the mutational distance between the ribosomes of unicellulars.

How many 'do overs' do evolutionists get? Change in the theory of evolution seems to be its only constant.

[connectthedots]

The cross examination of Miller was very effective, as well.

As I have said on a number of occasions, it is the cross examinations that reveal the the best information. Direct examination is nothing more than the lobbing of softballs over the middle of the plate.

The June 2005, Dover school board modification of its statement and the inclusion of books critical of ID in the school library is very helpful to the defense.

I am very much looking forward to the direct and cross examinations of Behe. Quite frankly, he would be hard pressed to do worse than Miller and Forrest.

Still not going to predict the outcome, because you can never tell what a judge will do.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It's Intelligence-centric where the Intelligence is left as an open question. This Intelligence could be the result of a bumbling of nature outside of our present ken. Or it could be a deity. ID formally does not care.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It would be a significant secular purpose if it was to encourage scientists to dig for better recognition of the nature of the Intelligence -- which for all a secularist knows could be a natural phenomenon into which science currently has no insight.

[Ichneumon]

["While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."]

Could someone help me out here? What experimental testing has proven evolution?

Note that they didn't say "proven". Nothing in science is ever "proven". Science does not deal in proofs, for the simple reason that outside of artificial self-contained realms like mathematics, there is no such thing as "proof" in the real world.

I am aware of experiments with fruit flies, etc. but as I understand it this just yeilds the same old micro/macro debate (round and round we go... when we stop flaming nobody knows). Any additional info? Thanks

Here's my infamous Tip-of-the-Iceberg Evidence of Evolution post... One note before you dive into it -- I've since realized that the "table of contents" near the start of that post may look as if it indexes the rest of the material in the post -- it doesn't, it's an index-by-category to many external links which outline individual lines of evidence supporting evolution, each of which contains many links and research citations which can be followed for even more information.

[Ichneumon]

Could you point me towards an article or two on some specific experimentation that supports evolution

See the link in my previous post to you.

to the exclusion of a creator?

What kind of "creator"? And why bother? I can't demonstrate that gravity works to the exclusion of unicorns, either, but is that really a flaw in the evidence for gravity?

Other articles I have read point out various theories about genetic similarities across species, but that logic has seemed every bit as good as saying cars and motorcycles evolved from a common ancestor w/ no designer because of common design elements.

It may appear that way superficially if you're not familiar with the field, but that's not how the DNA analysis is actually done, nor is it based on anything as trivially incidental as mere "similarity". There are very specific kinds and patterns of similarities, *and* differences, along multiple independent and cross-confirming lines of evidence, which overwhelmingly support evolutionary origins. Again, see the link I provided if you want to start delving into the details, but the short form is that evolutionary processes would produce *very* specific kinds of similarities across lineages, and *very* specific kinds of differences -- patterns which would *not* be produced by "design" processes, unless the designer was being intentionally deceitful and purposely mimicking the byproducts of evolution. And those evolutionary patterns are exactly what we find when we analyze DNA, at every level, in every genome, in every way we've thought to test so far, hundreds of thousands of times over.

This is not some mere coincidence or loose "similarity". This is a rich, deep, detailed history of evolutionary "tradcers" which are embedded in every genome in hundreds of conceivable ways.

It's no overstatement to say that to any objective observer who has taken the time to actually view and understand the DNA evidence, the debate over whether life on Earth evolved through common ancestry is *over*. The evidence is just vastly overwhelming that it did.

[Ichneumon]

[I bet it's tough to teach a science when you can't identify its mechanisms...]

But they teach evolution anyway, don't they?

Sure, because the mechanisms of evolution are well known and have been demonstrated countless times.

Now, did you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?

[Ichneumon]

Seems that Behe has a rational response to his critics.

You misspelled "rationalization".

Forgive me for being blunt, but did you actually read and understand the flaws that have been pointed out in Behe's argument, then actually read and understand Behe's response, and *actually* swallow it as a "rational response"? It's hand-waving, and fails to salvage his argument from the refutations.

[connectthedots]

Read the cross examinations of Miller and Forrest. The Thomas More attorneys did very well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

[connectthedots]

Have you read the transcripts of the cross examinations of Miller and Forrest? Forrest's performance was pathetic and Miller did not seem to hold up all that well, either.

[Ichneumon]

I had a number of discussions many years ago with a physics professor from Princeton on the theories of the Origins of the Universe. After many hours discussing this stuff, I asked him how certain he was about it. He laughed and said, "I can't be certain of any of this stuff. But I'm still convinced it happened the way that I described. If I find out differently in the future then I will believe differently."

Yes. Exactly.

He was convinced of what he was saying but he agreed that since we couldn't test and verify the hypothesis there was no way he could draw an absolute conclusion.

No, you're misunderstanding him. He was saying that he *could* "test and verify the hypothesis", which is *why* he believes it, is convinced of it, and is confident in it.

HOWEVER, at the same time it is impossible even in principle to *prove* it beyond all doubt and beyond even any remote possibility that it could be discovered to be incomplete or in error in any small or large way. Real "certainty" is an impossibility, since nothing in this world can be "proven" -- ironclad "proof" is only possible in artificial realms like mathematics, where you define the terms yourself any way you choose.

What your acquaintance was saying was that he had good reasons (i.e. evidence, successful validations, passed falsification tests, etc.) supporting his belief, but that like anything in this reality, there's never going to be any way to achieve *total* certainty on the matter.

Science does not deal in proof, because there *is* no such thing as "proof" when it comes to the real world. However, even if *total* certainty is forever beyond reach (aside from the false "certainty" that comes through simply adopting a belief and then refusing to entertain any notions that one might possibly be mistaken), the good news is that there remains a way to achieve knowledge of things beyond any reasonable doubt, and that is the scientific method. And a second essay on the finer points of the scientific method.

I think you guys are overselling Evolution.

I think you misunderstood the point he was making, *and* I think you're extremely unfamiliar with just how vast and overwhelming the evidence for evolution actually is. If anything, we're *underselling* it compared to the strength of the evidence which makes the truth of evolution incredibly well-established.

[Ichneumon]

Have you read the transcripts of the cross examinations of Miller and Forrest?

Yes.

Forrest's performance was pathetic and Miller did not seem to hold up all that well, either.

I am always amused by your fantasies.

Miller did an excellent job, and so did Forrest. The attorney cross-examining Forrest kept pounding on the same idiotic creationist misconceptions, and Forrest kept pointing out the obvious to him.

If you think otherwise, I invite you to provide a few specific examples, so that I can once again demonstrate that you have the uncanny ability to "see" things in text which aren't there, either through wishful thinking or basic misunderstanding.

[Ichneumon]

[The recent change at the root of the tree of life, from 3 kingdoms to 5 domains, is a response to the examination of the mutational distance between the ribosomes of unicellulars.]

How many 'do overs' do evolutionists get? Change in the theory of evolution seems to be its only constant.

This is not a change to the theory. I'm sorry if you misunderstand the field so much that you keep saying ridiculous and false things about it.

Why not go learn something about it first before making any further "declarations" about it?

[MHalblaub]

- Seems that Behe has a rational response to his critics. -

From your Link:
Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics

Behe:
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)

What kind of logic is this?
He tries to show an ID's work with IC:
- Flagellum is IC -

Some years later 'real' scientists discover an evolutionary way to produce a flagellum (His argument).
- I'm disproven -
Yes, but just in his statement - Flagellum is IC -

To falsify ID scientist would have to show that for every possible biological aspect IC can be excluded (even for the future). So this is impossible. Therefore it is impossible to disprove ID.


By the way. In my humble opinion the latest definition of IC lacks the possibility to exclude an evolutionary path to an IC system. If you want an answer to this, please give first your complete definition of IC.

[Physicist]

This Intelligence could be the result of a bumbling of nature outside of our present ken.

Ever heard of the "homunculus fallacy"?

[bvw]

evolution = Holy Church of Rome, pre-Reformation: "'Sun revolves around the Earth' is undenialble doctrine, non-believers subject to banishment and capital punishment"

intelligent design = Gallileo: "Earth revolves around the Sun"

[PatrickHenry]

This could all be solved by eliminating government Schools. ... This will certainly smoke out those who rely upon the government to enforce their particular views.

Agreed. However, I doubt that the gov't schools exist for the purpose of ramming "Darwinism" down the throats of the kiddies. The gov't schools exist because the teachers unions couldn't get jobs without them.

[PatrickHenry]

The Discovery Institute seems to be blogging the trial. Here's their view of Behe's performance:
Backer of Theory Never Contradicted Self, Truth Shows.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Wrong, that is EXACTLY the issue; whether an alternate point of view can be allowed to be taught in a public classroom.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I am comfortable with him promoting ID. Now are YOU going to answer my question or are you just going to play assanine games like "are you comfortable having him represent ID even if...."