Michael Behe wasn’t too happy yesterday.
One man who says he isn’t planning to join in the fun on Darwin Day is Michael Behe, the 54-year-old author of “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,” a critique whose 10th anniversary edition will be published in March by Simon & Schuster’s Free Press division. Molecular biology is “irreducibly complex,” confounding Darwinism, according to the author.
Of course, the author is wrong. IC is no problem for evolution at all.
“I probably won’t attend” any Darwin Day event anywhere, says Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. “It’s not simply meant to celebrate science or Darwin. It’s an in-your-face exhibition, saying, ‘Look what we have on our side, and you guys who aren’t with us are a bunch of dopes.'”
One more thing he got wrong: it was a celebration of science and Darwin. The one I attended was all about the science.
He was right, though, that the ID crowd is “a bunch of dopes.” I’ve got to give him credit for that.
Credit where credit is due………
Further confirmation that he has a profound lack of respect for science; any theory of ID must incorporate the findings of evolution, not ignore them the way Behe ignores Darwin Day.
It’s an in-your-face exhibition, saying, ‘Look what we have on our side, and you guys who aren’t with us are a bunch of dopes.'”
As always, Behe misleads.
I think Behe meant to say was, “It’s an in-your-face exhibition, saying, ‘Look what we have on our side, and you guys who aren’t with us are microscopically tiny collection of dopes and professional liars.'”
Molecular biology is “irreducibly complex,” confounding Darwinism, according to the author.
Wow doesn’t that guy ever read anything? Holy Jesus H. Christ, FCD.
Further confirmation that he has a profound lack of respect for science;
I think you might be right about that.
“It’s an in-your-face exhibition, saying, `Look what we have on our side, and you guys who aren’t with us are a bunch of dopes.'”
If that is Behe’s view on the public celebration of famous figures such as Darwin, then perhaps he will be consistent and stay away from that Christmas thing too. Surely he’d have to apply the same statement there.
Wow doesn’t that guy ever read anything? Holy Jesus H. Christ, FCD.
No. No, he doesn’t. He said as much about those papers he was confronted with in Dover; he “doesn’t have time”.
I’m trying to figure out how he gets away with that in academia; dog knows if I could channel that cheerful insouciance about not reading the background literature into a tenured position, I wouldn’t be drowning in reading/writing right now.
He seems to assume that he doesn’t need to incorporate the findings of evolution, so perhaps he assumes that he doesn’t need to read the litterature? I think – after all, ID is IC inside.
Fortunately it’s RS (reducible simple) from the outside – it’s trivially reduced to zero factual content.
Uh, I think I got the analogy inside out. Ouch, now I have this mental picture of ID dragging it’s innards all over science and getting crap all over it.
Wait a minute… it _is_!
Behe, Cardinal Propeller Head of the Church of the Propeller Butt.
Speaking of complexity, isn’t genetics complicated? For example, here’s the lead-in to a Seed article about prions on their site:
These tiny, eccentric proteins are challenging a central paradigm in molecular biology: that genes are the sole unit of inheritance.
I’m a big fan of prions in general and Susan Lindquist, whose work they discuss, in particular, but: Huh? I beat up on the Seed subsription department before, but this is just stupid. Who did they ask, a genetics textbook from the 60s? Is there a single biologist on earth who would say “genes are the sole unit of inheritance?”
I hate it when gee-whiz science journalism sets something up as overly simplistic or dogmatic just to create a breathless dramatic tone. It’s so freaking interesting as it is! It doesn’t need to be tarted up as some kind of scientific version of a John Stossel report.
Harper’s had a similarly infuriating story a few years ago, where Barry Commoner broke the hot news that DNA–> RNA–> protein isn’t the whole story.
I don’t know what this post has to do with this blog entry, sorry.
I think Darwin Day had rather broad appeal, I mean, there was probably a church in Bethlehem, PA, that was putting on an event.
While being a flat wrong but generally congenial guy, Behe seems to have turned a little sour since KvD. I would be interested to see if the tenth edition of his book means an update on the discoveries since then and therefore a reduction in the number of parts for his “irreducible” systems. (29 for the flagellum, and I think 4 for the blood-clotting cascade!) But I don’t expect it.
‘Look what we have on our side, and you guys who aren’t with us are a bunch of dopes.’
Behe’s attitude about Darwin demonstrates to me that there is more in play that just the ideas. The ID folks seem to loathe Darwin in a more personal way. Newton’s theory of gravity was inadequate, but would Einstein say the same thing with regards to celebrations of Newton’s achievements? So if there was ever anything to, or will every be anything to the ID concept, it wouldn’t make Darwin’s insights contemptible or not worthy of praise.
I might post about Matzke’s fine presentation in the next couple days.
At least the truth will weed out the ID “biologists” and other “scientists” who would’ve better spent their education dollars by just joining a monastery.
We should all prepare for the coming onslaught of painful “shunned ID scientist” memoirs sure to crop up in the next few years.
I hate it when gee-whiz science journalism sets something up as overly simplistic or dogmatic just to create a breathless dramatic tone.
So do I.
But it’s not just journalists who are guilty of this. Many scientists “sex up” their own research by engaging in the same practice. It’s a silly habit and it makes it easy for creationists to quote mine but I don’t see the practice to coming to a halt anytime soon.
Every scientist has the potential to become a great one. I do not understand how, someone like Behe chose to give up his career in order to serve a belief.
WHINE! Flagella ARE irreducibly complex! Irreducible complexity DOES disprove evolution! I don’t CARE if you say otherwise! I won’t listen! I’m right and you’re wrong and no proof can change that! WHAA! CRY! WHINE!
To me, even if this were true it would be far less “in your face” than certain IDC exibitions which preport “Look at all this old stuff we found that somehow insinuates a literal interpretation of genesis, while not giving any actual evidence for such claims, and we will attack anyone who doesn’t bow before our dogmatic ‘science’.”
Yes, scientists are trully crazy, egolomatic beings who show no respect for human courtesy or kindness, while these ID’ers are wonderful, respecful, humble beings who only wish to bring truth to the world. I mean, whats not believeable about that?
“Irreducibly Complex”
Translation …..
We’re too stupid to figure it out, and too idle to try.
{ And too arrogant to check up on other possible sources of information – because we DONT WANT to believe it … (Ooops!) }
“Look what we have on our side, and you guys who aren’t with us are a bunch of dopes.”
That actually pretty nicely sums up evolution. It’s got the bulk of evidence on its side, so claiming it’s wrong is stupid behaviour.
Along the lines of your criticism of liberal Christianity, it’s been pointed out that intelligent design makes much less sense than traditional creationism. If God was determined to achieve a particular outcome, then why monkey around (no pun intended) with billions of years of evolution? Why not just create humans the way you want them?
The only way that something like ID makes any sense is as a science fiction story in which it is aliens tinkering with evolution (ala 2001, a Space Odyssey) rather than an omnipotent, omniscient being.
The only way that something like ID makes any sense is as a science fiction story in which it is aliens tinkering with evolution (ala 2001, a Space Odyssey) rather than an omnipotent, omniscient being.
Good thing L.Ron isn’t still around, he and DI could get quite a cross-exploit going.
Behe has accepted the scientific validity of natural selection, speciation and common descent. (He just claims that other things happen instead when no one is looking) So he should have no problem with an event celebrating the scinetific contributions of Charles Darwin.
Awww. What, no Mikey Behe Day? But he’s Newton! He’s Einstein! How could the world be so cruel? (Sob.) It just breaks your heart…[suppressed laughter erupts]
Insert shameless self-promotion.
Wait just a gosh-darn, cotton-pickin’ minute, there. I thought Behe was supposed to be Galileo, not Newton or Einstein!
What happened? Did the IDers move the goal-posts again?
We herebye declare melior to be a Supressive Person.
“Smithers, release the Office of Special Affairs agents!”
The Roots of Darwin Day
by MikeGene
Paul Myers was recently ridiculing Michael Behe for not attending a Darwin Day celebration. In response to Behes assertion that Darwin Day is not simply meant to celebrate science or Darwin, Myers asserts, One more thing he got wrong: it was a celebration of science and Darwin. The one I attended was all about the science. This disagreement may be more interesting than many realize, as it suggests the Darwin Day Enthusiasts are invested in the public image of merely celebrating science and Darwin. Yet Behe is closer to the truth than Myers...
MikeGene over at TelicThoughts has a very insightful post regarding this topic. I think PZ, you confirm Behe’s concerns by your “pre-meditated” attack. Of course, most of your readers won’t detect the bias because they are a product of the dogmatic teaching style that evolution requires. Your biggest fear, of course, is that people will learn to think critically and think for themselves, rather than up to authority figures with an agenda.
Evolution explains IC features? What a croc.
Funny. Evolution has been repeatedly modified whenever new evidence requires it, and it’s “Dogmatic”. A theory that is routinely tested requires a “dogmatic teaching style.” Take your head out of the propaganda, Dave. The “dogmatic teaching style” we’re endorsing is no different than “dogmatic” lessons on chemistry or astronomy: If you can prove what we know is wrong, please do so. All ID can do is offer millenia old canards in modern vocabulary. If we did a decent job of teaching our children critical thinking, they’d be able to see though them, just like I did.
Of course evolution explains IC features. Try growing an imagination. It’s so jaw-droppingly simple, it continues to amaze me that some people can’t envision it.
BD – You missed the point, but you did a nice job of supporting mine. You even threw in some ad-hominem attacks to bolster your argument.
Genetic algorithms require a target provided by their designer(s). Try them out for yourself and decide for yourself. The history in this space (neural networks, artificial intelligence, expert systems, and GA) is similar to that of abiogenesis. Lots of hand-waving and hype, but little real progress. If anything, the results support the design hypothesis.
The other examples you provide are speculative “just-so” stories. Interesting, but not sufficient to support your assertion.
Design is a possible explanation for many of the biological systems and features that appear to be IC. And we can use concepts and principles of engineering design to predict the likely elements and their interactions of these systems as we work to understand them.
Funny. I only see you missing the point: The mechanisms of evolution can make IC features. All it needs is an environment where those IC features are encouraged. It doesn’t matter to the experiment if the environment was designed or not.
When you shift to the subject of abiogenesis, you’re moving the designer outside of evolution, and outside the scope of the experiment. You’re just moving god into another gap. One gap that looks rather easy to fill.
As for the speculation, even if they weren’t supported by evidence, the mere ability to speculate using known mechanisms strongly suggests non-design reasons. Given that there is zero evidence of design, I’ll go with a plausible explanation, rather than a tale of magic. It’s better to say “We’ve observed A leading to B, B leading to C, and C leading to D in the lab and the outside world. It seems reasonable to suggest that A could lead to D, given enough time.” than “A -> Magic -> D.”
Yes, design is a possible explanation. So is magic. But until you can come up with some evidence, it’s nothing but speculation. At least evolution collects evidence that builds up confidence.
It seems to me your design “predictions” are already falsified: If giraffes were designed, why would they have a nerve that goes all the way down their neck and then all the way back up to their larnyx? Note that if you say something like “You can’t understand the designer!”, you’re rendering your predictions unfalsifiable, since that can be used to “explain” anything.
BD – You said “The mechanisms of evolution can make IC features. All it needs is an environment where those IC features are encouraged. It doesn’t matter to the experiment if the environment was designed or not.”
Again if you are referring to GA’s – the environment applies selection criteria that have direction and purpose. Those aren’t the mechanisms of selection that most PZ’ers would admit to.
Gaps – You want to have it both ways. Re-read your comments. Gaps are OK for evolutionism, but not for ID? ID is not science, but then you falsify it as if it was? BTW – I like your giraffe example, but that’s just the “gap” problem in reverse. Did you also know that giraffes have complex systems in their necks that regulate blood pressure so that their heads don’t explode when drinking water at ground level?
There’s a lot of evidence for design. How about DNA and associated mechanisms for protein synthesis? The real challenge is to develop scientifically acceptable methods for inferring design.
Finally, you seem to be concerned about imperfect design. That’s a problem if you can detect imperfection and if you want to assert that the designer is perfect. ID makes no such claims. (Biblical creationists do, and have shown on many occasions that perhaps there is a logical reason for these seemingly imperfect features) OTOH, we live in a world of imperfectly designed objects – cars, houses, etc… so I don’t think design if it happened (or is unfolding before us) has to meet some arbitrary standard of perfection.
I’m short on my abbreviations at the moment. What do you mean, “GAs.” Also, where’s your evidence of this direction and purpose in our environment?
The “gaps” in evolution aren’t a problem because they tend to be small, and reasonable to fill. Analogy: A murderer travels to the scene of the crime within a certain time frame. We don’t need to know his exact path, but if there’s a reasonable path, it’s usually safe to presume that path was the one taken until there’s evidence to the contrary.
ID has no gaps: It’s a giant, empty hole.
I fail to see your argument.
I don’t see how that is evidence for design.
Okay. How about you define for us the capabilities of the designer?
You know, you’d think Mikey would write a new book instead of just reprinting the old one over and over again. It’s almost as if he hasn’t been doing any work for the last ten years, perish the thought.
Look him up in PubMed or any other scientific publications database. He’s been too busy giving talks to church groups and counting his money.