Mightily_Oats

How do you guys respond to the claims made by Michael J Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box"?

tgamble

By showing that he's wrong.
<a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.htm" target="_blank">http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.htm</a> <a href="http://bostonreview.mit.edu/evolution.html" target="_blank">http://bostonreview.mit.edu/evolution.html</a>

Enjoy! there are quite a few biologists, biochemists, molecular biologists etc. around here so if you have any further questions, I'm sure they'll be happy to answer.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Any chance do you have access to RealPlayer? If so, click here and listen to this talk by Kenneth Miller. His critique of Behe is really quite compelling:

<a href="http://www.meta-library.net/perspevo/preskm-sm.ram" target="_blank">Paley in a test tube - by Kenneth Miller</a>

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

Mightily_Oats

I've had a look around the Dawkins site there (I couldn't listen to the realplayer clip because I've actually deleted realplayer from my PC. Few people could understand the loathing of one man for a software program that I have for Realplayer. Grr.)

I must say I'm not terribly impressed (although what was I excpecting from a Richard Dawkins site, really? The whole creationist movement together couldn't foster more doubt in the accuracy of darwinian theory as this man. "Methinksitlikeaweasel". For crying out loud. He may be a fantastic scientist but as a popular author he's sooo far behind Behe it's not funny.)

On the other hand, I'm a total biological layman, so it's quite possible that some of the clarity of these refutations are lost on me. In any case, here are the objections to Behe that I could extract from these papers. If I've missed something vital somebody post it at me.

Objection 1: "Intelligent Design" theory has been mainly published in books for the public, not for the professional scientific community.

Objection 2: "Never say, and never take seriously anyone who says, 'I cannot believe that so-and-so could have evolved by gradual selection.' I have dubbed this kind of fallacy 'the Argument from Personal Incredulity.' Time and again, it has proven the prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience." Richard Dawkins - River out of Eden

Objection 3: Other areas (palentology, embryology, biogeography, vestigal organs) provide powerful evidence for evolution.

Objection 4: Behe says he believes in common descent of all organisms. How can he then deny macroevolution?

Objection 5: Other "Evolutionary Obstacles" have been overcome. So will this one.

Objection 6: In some animals similar ends are achieved through simpler means. The chemistry of sight in one animal might be very complicated, but less so in another animal.

Also, There might be simpler ways do things than the way things happen in the cell. For instance, Behe cites the biosynthesis of Adenine. But might there not be a simpler way to synthesise adonine that we don't know about?

Objection 7: No matter how "far-fetched" an evolutionary "story" might be, a "Designer" story is even moreso.


I'm not sure I understand what objection 1 is actually objecting to. Surely other scientists can critque works published in books as they can critique works published in journals?

Remember that similar criticisms were made against Galileo.

Objection 2 seems to be one for people who have already been convinced of Darwinism, essentially "Don't feel you have to question everything all over again because somebody presents something you can't explain at that particular point in time. Explanations will come eventually."

Great for someone who believes the theory but not really an argument to believe it in the first place.

Objections three and four seem to miss Behe's point. Behe (as far as I can tell) is saying that evolution happens, but that this is a process of design and not chance.

Objections five and six are certainly the weightiest but raise some questions about the philosophy of science. Consider the arguments put forward to defend phlogiston combustion, or heliocentricity, or a flat earth (there's a wonderful video you can get by a bunch of scientists who wanted to see how well they could defend flat earth theory. It's astonishing how convincing they can be.) A person commited enough to any of the above theories can twist and turn evidence to fit their beliefs. The question then, is "at what point is a theory so convuluted as to be untenable?"

The answer is probably "When another simpler and better theory is proposed." Which leads me to objection 7. Essentially saying "Yes, we can't answer these objections at this point in time. We may never be able to. But to propose, as an alternative, a theory which is blatantly supernatural is not science but mysticism. Come back to me with a _scientific_ alternative, and then we'll talk."

Which makes perfect sense if there _is_ no designer. But if there is, why would we value a false theory over a true one because it is "scientific"? And if we don't know, must we assume that the answer is "no" for the sake of scientific progress?

As I said, I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, so I don't claim to understand the intricacies of either Behe's arguments or the refutations of it. But I do know that Behe does a great job of writing for the scientific laity.

Any thoughts, critiques, abuse?

Arch Stanton

[OT][RANT]
Does it come close to my loathing for Apple QuickTime? I freakin' hate it when a piece of software screws up your registered file types. QuickTime fucked up ALL my media filetypes without even asking me about file associations. JPGs, BMPs, GIFs, AVIs, MPGs, MOVs, MP3s, MIDs and WAVs all got the generic filetype "Quicktime file". Fuckers! I couldn't tell MPGs from MP3s from JPGs by looking at a folder's contents. I had to reedit all my file associations by hand and reassociate them with the software I wanted them to open with!
[/RANT]

BLoggins02

No farking shiat! And another thing... Why is it that, even though it takes over those filetypes, it won't (or can't) actually play most of them? What good is half a feature? That damn program must have been created through evilution, because it damn sure wasn't intelligently designed!

scigirl

Well that may be true. But. . . the last time I checked, science is not a popularity contest.

scigirl

scigirl

Hello Mightily_Oats:

Disclaimer: I have not read anything by Behe in full, but I've read some of his articles, and many critiques of the articles.

Yeah that isn't a very good objection.

It's just that we all accept descent with modification (we being evolutionists and Behe both). Perhaps natural selection is not the only mechanism that fuels this descent, but until someone comes up with a better one that is testable, falsifiable and makes predictions, then we are stuck with boring old darwinism.

This is true, but only to a point.

Perhaps given enough time, and good science, the human biases work themselves out. I'm sure there are things we believe are true today that will be proven wrong tomorrow. Creationists love to point that out. But it seems the YECS point out the flaws in science in order to abandon it in favor of ancient mythological explanations! I know Behe isn't a YEC . . . I have digressed.

Also consider that scientists who have been developing and refining the theories surrounding evolution have come from all different countries, cultures, religious, etc. However, anti-evolutionists are a much more narrow group--in the USA, nearly all are fundamentalist Christians. Which group is more likely to twist and turn evidence for 'their side?'

Do you wonder why creationists focus on evolutionary biology, and maybe astronomy?
It seems that no other field of science is treated this way! [Hint - i think the answer has to do with the creationists not caring a whit about the science, but just making sure their narrow interpretation of the Bible is not in danger].

Creationists don't criticize medical researchers for constantly looking for (and assuming a priori) that there are naturalistic, non-supernatural causes of disease. Our good ole President Bush and his lovely sidekick Ashcroft, true fundies at heart, feel that dumping billions of dollars into the NIH to study naturalistic NOT supernatural causes of disease is the best way to fight the war on bioterror and disease. Why? Why didn't they give a billion dollars to the Baptist Church? Because, they recognize the value of science in answering questions and making discoveries that lead to improving the human condition.

But yet evolutionary biologists are criticized for doing what every other scientist does -- I don't get it??
Yes, but how do you define, study, analyze and predict this 'designer'? Obviously most people assume it's the God of the Bible, who is completely unpredictable, and His experiments are done, and can't be repeated. So why bother - miracles (whether real or not) cannot be studied scientifically.

See my previous post!

scigirl

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Daydreamer

*left eyebrow starts to twitch violently*

Care to explain what you find wrong with Doc Dawk's writing? Don't like his overabundance of analogy?

tgamble

real player does the same thing. What's more, you change it in windows explorer and real player CHANGES IT BACK! No asking it just does it. The only way to get to stop is to go into the program and change the associations. It's a shame that real player seems to be a standard because it's a piece of shit.