ID Guru Michael Behe Faces Challengers
I learned a lot about intelligent design after hearing Michael Behe speak at Villanova. I still think it's pseudoscience, but now I have a new reason to discount it.
ID Guru Michael Behe Faces Challengers
I learned something new about intelligent design on Thursday night after listening to one of the movement's most visible proponents. Biochemistry professor Michael Behe was the star witness for the anti-evolution school board in the 2005 Dover trial. He's written several influential books on the idea that life was at least partly cobbled together by a non-human intelligent designer.
The event was held at Villanova University. It started with a screening of the intelligent design documentary, “A Flock of Dodos” and finished with a panel discussion.
Not surprisingly, the audience directed most of the questions toward Behe. Some wanted to know how he and his cohorts could possibly test the principles of ID. Others tried to pin him down on the details of this so-called theory. He wiggled and slipped around the questions, none of the answers quite satisfying. After some 25 minutes of interchange, the audience was still struggling to get a grasp on the man and his strange view of science.
One of the most interesting questions came from the filmmaker, Randy Olson. He wanted to know how Behe could justify what seemed clearly to be a “god-of-the-gaps” position, in which a supernatural designer makes for an easy answer to hard scientific questions.
Behe’s answer here was interesting. He said ID is more like archeology or forensics, in which scientists find positive evidence for human influence in artifacts or scenes.
Olson addressed this claim nicely in the film, explaining that scientists have a large number of documented human-created artifacts, so we know what to look for. There’s a way to do this scientifically. But we don’t have any definitive god-created objects or artifacts so there’s no basis for comparison. We don’t really know what a god-created artifact is supposed to look like.
The only trait ID proponents seem to attribute to the designer is that he/she/it is intelligent. We know intelligence because we see it in ourselves – or some of ourselves anyway.
Then someone asked about the blind spot in the eye. Why would an intelligent designer make it with a flaw? Behe’s answer: We can’t presume to know how God would want to design something.
But wait! Does that mean their God might not appear intelligent to us? That would seem to undermine any claim that they can detect designed structures in nature. Now there's no criteria for assessing design - it doesn't even have to look intelligent.
I noticed in the comments following an earlier blog post that someone questioned my understanding of ID because I’d quoted Olson’s use of the rabbit digestive system as an example of poor design. The commenter thought surely the ID people didn’t use that as an example of good design, so Olson and I were revealing our ignorance. This reader may be making assumptions that ID is more organized and specific than it really is.
ID is vague about the nature of the designer, what’s been designed, how much of life is designed, and why God would design some aspects of nature and leave others like the poor rabbit’s digestive system up to evolution.
"Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. They were found in 1953.
Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap.
Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness."
So if you want to put together evidence for common descent, those are great things to point to. And Behe and several other ID proponents would agree with you. Care to point to anything that would show that random mutation can actually drive evolution?— geoffrobinson- Not random mutation alone, but random mutation and differential reproductive success. You can easily look up the mathematics of mutation frequencies, as well as mathematical models for natural selection and genetic drift. You will find that adequately describe what is observed in nature in terms of gene frequencies and evolution, — GaryAllan
- geoffrobinson,
I'm relieved to hear that you accept all the thousands of experiments which verify the ToE.
What?! You don't? You deny them?
Is there anything to show that random mutation can NOT actually "drive" evolution?
If not, it's just more denial. You must present an ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION, not just bull-headed, religiously obsessed denial. That is
NOT ENOUGH.— phhht - The question to ask is how the evidence for observed evolutionary mechanisms accepted by creationists/IDists can possibly be distinguished from the rest of the genetic data. As, how can Behe assume that chloroquine resistance evolved "on its own" without divine intervention, while similar evidence for mutation and positive selection seen in organisms is somehow evidence for design? How could it possibly be?
To deny that similar evidence has similar causes is absurd in the extreme. It's as if we understood that the Germanic languages clearly have common descent based on the evidence of their similarities, while denying that the evidence points to the Indo-European languages having evolved "naturally" like the Germanic languages, but must instead have been divinely changed at the tower of Babel, or some similar fiction.
Behe also is in the awkward position of accepting the evidence for evolution--which is predicated upon the limits of known evolutionary mechanisms--while denying that the limits of evolutionary mechanism actually limit evolution. It's simply a contradiction to say that the evidence indicates common descent, while claiming that supernaturalism obviates the limits that determine what evolutionary evidence is.— Glen Davidson - Interesting tennis match here -- both sides fighting not only over interpretation of the evidence but on the very grounds of the debate. I really don't have a (sea)horse in this debate, but I am curious why the IDers have to provide alternative explanations for the problematic areas they identify. Perhaps they ultimately will try, but isn't it separate from evaluating whether their disagreements hold water? I mean, this is the essence of science, isn't it? A model is proposed in a falsifiable form, and it is then challenged and revised as it is tested. If evolution is as mature as its proponents claim, it should have ready answers -- so why not say them or cite a definitive commentary? Close the gaps where a designer might purportedly live, instead of sharpening your swords over debating the nature of design in a scientific setting.— nerdyseahorse
- It is clear that you do have dog in this fight, nerdyseahorse ... IDers do propose an explanation ... a designer ... but the explanation proves superfluous in all the cases brought forth (for example flagella, the blood cascade, the eye). Evolutionary scientists don't claim completeness, but you will not ongoing discoveries, each of which splits a gap, you might say, leaving 2 gaps behind, but together both are smaller than the gap which was.
Actually ID serves a useful function in that it does encourage researchers to "sharpen ... swords" which is vital.— GaryAllan - Agreed that IDers typically propose a designer, but Gammaburster hasn't done that, from what I've seen. He's just been giving some real-world cases and daring the Darwinians here to explain them. And the response seems to be, well, what would you substitute in for a mechanism? Which seems like a dodge, at least as far as what Gammaburster's actually said. If he's identified true holes (or, to paraphrase you, a lack of completeness), let's be honest about it. It in no way rhetorically entails a designer, simply a weakness in the model that ought to be addressed. For the record, and speaking truthfully, I don't know biology to the technical level that is being argued here, but it seems like this would be a prime opportunity for qualified debaters on both sides to address these specific technical issues and resolve them one way or the other in front of everyone. It just isn't happening, which is a bit unfortunate given that this is a forum devoted to this debate.
The only dog I have in this fight is for a fair debate that examines the science. I've asked questions here before about certain cases that I can't explain with Darwinism -- and have not had them addressed plausibly -- so I'd like the model better explained for these complicated situations. And as I said elsewhere on this thread, I don't think ID is ultimately going to convince the very people it ought to be convincing, so I can't get behind it. What dog did you think I was backing?— nerdyseahorse - I would say you are on the ID side, but that is not too important, really. This is a forum devoted to a newspaper column, so you are unlikely to get much real expertise, just interested amateurs. The experts actually have resolved the issues, as Dover illustrated, and the consensus of evolutionary biologists also illustrate, but one has to follow the debate in the academic forum then, not on a newspaper; now I know that you or someone else is going to point out pedantically, that it is not consensus but fact which establish science, but the consensus agree here because fact points in that direction, rather as the consensus of us all will agree the sky is blue at noon. — GaryAllan
- I think there is still no-one yet on this blog who actually read something of Behe (accept for me) so this whole discussion is useless so far. You still don't know what he wrote in his books accept for the needlepicking misquoted tiny parts of his opponents.
@GaryAllan,
you keep talking about models. There is data now. Empirical data. How can you still hold on the models while the data debunked them? You can throw in all the nice words that you want but I still didn't see 1 single example. I asked for one and all I get is some names and some shouting. Please give me 1 example with data and tell me what the evidence points at. That must be very easy with all the thousands of concinving examples, right?
@phhht,
The above question was meant for you. You still didn't give me an example. I already explained to you what the data of Lenski, tells us. Not much. All they come up with is a view pointmutations in an excisting mechanism. Evolution needs trillions of individuals to just do that. No come on, you are so convinced. Give me an example to show that it's possible to build new mechanisms, new proteincomplexes, new organs or even organisms.
@Glen Davidson,
I can only conclude that you to never read a book of Behe.
What a funny blog is this. Lots of people attacking Behe but it appears non of them have actually read it books. Just searching for some misquotes of his opponents on google is enough?? Wow, a bit narrow minded don't you agree?— Gammaburster - Actually, I didn't say a word about models, you should read more carefully. But theories are models, that is what science is all about, generating better theories (models) to explain a body of data in a consistent manner. So General Relativity is an excellent theory (model) because it explains a large body of observations and when it has been used to predict phenomena it has not failed. Likewise, the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory is an excellent model which explains a large body of existing data and makes predictions which are borne out by observation. For example, Darwin predicted there would be random variation between generations - and there is, the mechanism being mutation and recombination of the genome, discovered long after Darwin. And modern evolutionary theory predicts connections in the DNA across a large range of organisms - and there is, for example the homeobox genes which control embryonic development.
As for examples I point you to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ which lists several lines of evidence for macroevolution and the evidence that would be needed to refute them - get to work.
And FYI, I have read Behe, for what that is worth, which is little. Read instead Coyne, Shubin, Nick Lane, Dawkins or go back to Darwin— GaryAllan - "I can only conclude that you to never read a book of Behe."
You're as competent at that judgment as you are at science in general.
By the way, I criticized Behe's nonsense prior to reading his books, and I don't feel even slightly bad about doing so. Pseudoscientists aren't that profound.
I blogged a good deal about Behe's failures at http://behefails.wordpress.com/
You are very smug about having read some ignorant tripe, and not at all disturbed at your thoroughgoing ignorance. Your false ad hominem attacks reinforce your prejudices, but get you nowhere with respect to what those of us who know science understand.— Glen Davidson - @Glen Davidson,
you can shout all you want. Lots of people will fall for a big mouth and think you must be right when you should this loud. I stick with the data. You stick with just stories. Its obvious nobody read behe's books and nobody had come up with just 1 example of mutation/selection being able to build something fancy. Keep believing in your little fixed pointmutations as a creator of every living organism all your life but please don't call it science. There's no data to support your dream. Behe is never debunked.— Gammaburster - Deal with the issues, if ever you can, Gammaburster.
Your disrespect for truth and knowledge is egregious.
And I've really had enough of your pathetic attacks. You can answer nothing that I have brought up, hence you only attempt to smear. You deserve no further response from anyone who values knowledge.— Glen Davidson - @Glen Davidson,
you didn't come with a single thing. I am the only one who came up with data, examples and explanations. You and people like phhht came with nothing but shouting. Not even one single example of all your so called thousands of examples. Every visitor can read it for it self. The data still stands and you have nothing in return.
— Gammaburster - I have actually now reviewed all your comment; you have not actually provided any data at all. You have simply implied that the odds of random variation and selection developing new traits in an organism are too low to be effective and thus evolution must be inadequate - since you generally accept evolution in certain posts here, you must think that so-called macro-evolution is thus not possible. But you have provided no data yourself at all; nor have you done any probability based argument to support your contention - see this site to see where the probability argument of IDers against evolution fails,http://www.talkreason.org/articles/chanceprob.cfm — GaryAllan
In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs here and in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at fflam@phillynews.com.
Reach Planet of the at fflam@phillynews.com.
