AbbyNormal

Greetings.
I am currently involved in a debate with a friend over intelligent design. This started when my friend offered that Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" had several "good" criticism of Evolution. I offered him several links to criticisms of Behe. He responds with:


I'm a fairly amateur debater, my friend is not, and I feel like I'm going to quickly go in over my head. But I don't want to back down because I feel these points need to be addressed. So I'm looking to many resources to form a response and this board is just one.

My first thoughts are:
1) Behe's critics (as I understand them) really take issue with the fact that Behe seems fairly ignorant of current research, esp since he is a supposed biochemist himself. He makes claims about what isn't known...yet a little digging around turns up the exact opposite. I haven't read Behe myself, only snippits from various critiques. How bad is it?

2) What misconstrued data?

3) I don't know the origin of the quotes from Dawkins or Gould. Nor am I well read on current research on similar constructs in fetal development. Can anyone point me to resources on these?

4) On the notion that biologists are "commited to naturalism"....well, duh. So is all of science, I would think. Science concerns itself with the physical world so naturalism, to me, seems a necessary foundation. Science can only cover what is falsifiable...adding supernatural forces goes against that. I don't think this is a bias, but necessary.

Any additional thoughts, insights, criticisms....bring 'em on.

Regards,
AbbyNormal

Dr.GH

Here are some articles to read. It also helps to have read Behe's book which is available used from Amazon.com. In most debates, you will need to present an argument rather than just links (although, I too am guilty of argument by reference).

<a href="http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html" target="_blank">http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html</a>

<a href="http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/coyne.html" target="_blank">http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/coyne.html</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html</a>

<a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/pennock_behe.html" target="_blank">http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/pennock_behe.html</a>

<a href="http://www.amsci.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwin97-09.html" target="_blank">http://www.amsci.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwin97-09.html</a>

Principia

Dr. GH gave you the great must-reads on the Internet. I just want to caution against:
There is a committment to what is known as methodological naturalism, which is not quite the same as Naturalism, the philosophy. I would add:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html</a>
to your reading list, and pay special attention to the fact that:
I tend to find that those who seek to debate what is or is not science, especially with the goal to broaden science to include their own pet-peeve ideologies, are doing so for ad hoc reasons of a cultural/political bent. If 'what is science' is a definitional matter, then, imo, like so many entries in your dictionary, it rests on the majority viewpoint and especially on those in the majority who practice the discipline. Fortunately, for us at least, extending 'science' to include the concept of an undefinable, intangible, unknowable, unobservable Designer would require such a stretch of what is typically known as 'science' that the IDiots won't be convincing many of us anytime soon. The best that they can do is work around scientists through political whining, which is no doubt where you hear most about ID.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

Peregrine

Your friend's
What he is refering to is Haekle's ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Heakle theorized that embryos went through all of the evolutionary stages (single cell, fish, reptilian...). This was shown to be incorrect over 100 years ago, though his drawings (faked) lived on well into the 80's. Gould in his science texts (and his book Ontogeny and Phylogeny) show that embryos of all animals go through similar stages (which they do) and that it is later in fetal development where common tissue is differentiated, such as gills on fish, jaws in reptiles, and inner ears in mammals. This homology is what scientists say is evidence of common descent.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Peregrine ]</p>

Undercurrent

My big problem with Behe is that he creates a specific definition of "Irreducable Complexity" and declares, without proof, or even argument, that no system having this property can evolve. Having attended a lecture given by him on the topic a few years back, he seems to think that his non-argument must be countered by the scientific community.

But specifically, his IC-implies-non-evolvability concept denies the possibility that a structure originally evolved for one purpose may be co-opted for another purpose. There are a great number of examples of such things in nature (digestive enzymes being coopted for snake venom, for example) that an accomplished biochemist ought to know about. This gets pointed out to Behe, and, by all appearences, he ignores it.

You know, the data that is misconstrued as being evidence of evolution, when it's really glaringly obvious that it's really evidence for creationism.

Don't worry, your opponent probably isn't either, beyond what is printed in chick tracts.

Your opponent seems to think that "committed to naturalism" means "wouldn't be able to see the hand of God if it was right there in front of them" or "Going out of their way to deny my religion." While this would be true for a god who interacts randomly or not at all with the natural world, this is not true for the gods of any religions seriously proposed.

If the world was created 6000 years ago, a purely naturalist scientist would be able to see it. If people going to Lourdes were really being healed, a naturalist scientist would see it. If the genome of chimps was unrelated to the genome of humans, a naturalist scientist would be able to see it.

It is ironic that this person would cite Behe. After all, Behe (or his creationist name-droppers) proposes that we can detect the hand of God through purely naturalistic observations of protein structure. Behe's thesis denies point 4.

m.

KC

One of the biggest problem with Behe's IC argument is his assumption that because an IC system cannot function if a component is taken away, that it could not have been built up component by component. A simpler, ancestral system could have a totally different function, and addition of new components could give rise to the current function.

One wonders if he truly thought this thing through.

Cheers,

KC

theyeti

Pretty bad, and it's only gotten worse. Several of the systems that Behe mentions in DBB have highly plausible evolutionary scenarios worked out for them, based on research that was available then and now. This includes for example blood clotting and especially the <a href="http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html" target="_blank">immune system</a>. That article on the immune system is already out of date, as there has been a flurry of recent research which destroys most of Behe's claims in DBB. Of course Behe can't be blamed for not having known about this research, since he wrote DBB in 1996, but this should point out that IC is an argument from ignorance. It should also demonstrate that IC cannot be relied on as an indicator of design (or more accurately, an indicator of non-evolvability), if future research can overturn his claims. Simply put, the IC argument has been refuted, and it's the only one the poor buggers had.

theyeti

Doubting Didymus

The one that I like is the quote where behe admitted that he had the 'irreducible' part of IC around the wrong way. Behe said that things that can not be taken away from and still work can not be built in small steps. He once admitted that this is backwards, and he should have been looking for things that can not be built up from the other direction all the time. He also promised to come up with some, but he never has.

Albion

If you can get hold of a copy of "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller, it'll give you a lot of information and ammunition.He's a Christian and an outspoken opponent of intelligent design, and he does a pretty good demolition job of Behe's points. And your friend can't argue that he's advocating philosophical naturalism, because he isn't (being a Christian).

Also try these essays, by Christians who reject ID and accept evolution:

<a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html</a>
<a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html</a>
<a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/PhilJohnson.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/PhilJohnson.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/EvolutionaryCreation.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/EvolutionaryCreation.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.html</a>

AbbyNormal

Many thanks to everyone for their insight. These reading lists are great, and I've already gone through a few of these articles. Loading up with lots of ammunition!
[/begin rant]
I find it frustrating as Behe (and others) come across to the layperson as having completely legit claims. To anyone who doesn't have the time or the care to check into these claims, he would appear to have come upon an amazing insight. I think it very telling, though, that the only means Behe has of getting these "insights" published is through the pop media (who has brought such greats as Fox's "Apollo Moon-Landing Hoax") and *not* through peer-reviewed journals. Sigh....
[/end rant]

Regards,
AbbyNormal