How to deal with Dr. Behe?

[Silentknight]

I may have a rare opportunity, although I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

I found out that a school in my area is featuring a presentation by Dr. Michael Behe as part of their "Distinguished Speakers" series. The speech will take place on campus tomorrow, and it just so happens that this is the school where I'm picking up a few classes as a part-time student. You can read the event announcement here:

http://www.bergen.edu/pages/2852.asp?PageId=112

My question is, what should I do? This is definitely a topic of interest for me, since I've already heard Behe's arguments many many times, and am quite familiar with the logical flaws in them. The problem is that I don't know what level of participation students will be allowed, or even if we'll get to ask any questions. My concern is that Behe will just be up there spouting his lies, nobody will get a chance to refute him, and the less informed audience members will be suckered in by his woo.

The last thing I'd want is to attend a presentation where everyone is expected to sit down, shut up, and listen. On the other hand, I don't want to get myself in trouble by interrupting the lecture or overstepping my bounds. To put it one way, this does seem like a good chance to take a crack at a creationist, but at the same time, my expectations may be unrealistic. What would you do if you were in my situation?

[NoZed Avenger]

Perhaps a brief, written handout?

You could write up a short (under 1 pg) refutation or a list of sources that the people could check out?

[Jimbo07]

Go. Listen.

Don't assume you'll be able to score any points.

If someone else can phrase your objections more eloquently, let them.

You don't have anything to lose (except your precious time).

[Nogbad]

Find out the format of previous speaker presentations. Has there been a question and answer session at the end? It is unlikely you will be able to interrupt during his actual talk unless it is very informal indeed.

Also find out who invited him and why? If the person responsible is a pro ID then you may find he is ring fenced and there will be limited opportunity to discuss the issues raised. If the person responsible is not pro ID then there may be considerable time allotted to discussion afterwards.

Behe will have encountered refutation before so don't be surprised if he has some fairly pat answers up his sleeve and quickly moves on to the next question. It is best to think outside the box so that he has to actually consider the implication of the question and make some decisions on the hoof.

[~enigma~]

What would you do if you were in my situation?
Practice the phrase....DON'T TASE ME BRO :D

[Silentknight]

Practice the phrase....DON'T TASE ME BRO :D

Very funny.

I called the Office of Student Life and found out several things. First, Dr. Behe was invited by professors Kaye DeMetz of the Arts and Communications department, and George Cronk, who is head of the Philosophy department. I asked what their stance was regarding Dr. Behe's position, and from what I gathered, they invited him to provoke thought and discussion. In other words, they aren't for or against his position, which is good news.

There will be a question and answer session, and a reception afterwards during which attendees may speak to him if they want. The question session is open and will not be screened, and the lecture is open to the public.

Given the fact that Behe has encountered refutation before, he'll probably be ready for most of the common arguments, as Nogbad pointed out. Given that he also had his ass handed to him in the 2005 Dover trial, he may be reluctant to answer questions honestly or directly. I'm probably only going to get to ask one question during the lecture, and that's assuming I'm even called on. I know I won't get a chance to debate him the way I'd like to, so I don't want to waste the opportunity.


What kind of question should I ask him? It has to be one that he likely has never heard before and would be unprepared for. I want to catch him off guard, if possible, or at least give the other attendees something to think about.

[Alric]

Just bring up this paper:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700266104v1

And a cool youtube video (I forgot I still like Boston)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

Summarized in diagrammatic form here:

[jimbob]

I wouldn't be too optimistic: from your link (http://www.bergen.edu/pages/2852.asp?PageId=112):

The author of many prominent works on the topic, Dr. Behe’s discussion titled “Intelligent Design in Biology and the Limits of Darwinism” will focus on his work that has found many complex biochemical systems possess components inexplicable through evolution. He believes an intelligent agent remains responsible for these complex systems. Through his lecture, the professor aims to educate his audience on the topic of intelligent design but encourages individuals to come to their own conclusions.

My emphasis.

Looks as if it the publicity officer has made up their mind already...

[JJM]

{snip} What kind of question should I ask him? It has to be one that he likely has never heard before and would be unprepared for. I want to catch him off guard, if possible, or at least give the other attendees something to think about.You will have to check his book, "Darwin's Black Box" for this (sorry, can't do more on short notice). Late in the book, he claims (something on the order) that sometimes scientists have to accept supernatural explanations. Going further, he notes that he would be reluctant to accept "divine intervention" as an explanation from one of his students.

The question- how does he decide when to accept supernatural explanations? I e-mailed that question to him many years ago; so far, he has not replied.

ETA: Let us know your experience, whether or not you pose a question.

[Wowbagger]

Michael Behe is said to accept Common Descent, but not the mechanism of Darwinian Evolution, to carry it out. Can he describe his alternative mechanism in detail (aside from just calling it an "Intelligence"), and how would we test for its existence?


He may have been asked this next one, already, a bunch of times, so he may be prepared for it, but I would be inclinded to ask it, anyway, myself:
If certain structures in life are "too complex" to have been the product of evolution, how would you test for the negative hypothesis? In other words, how would you test to make sure they could not possibly be the product of evolution?

[Normal Dude]

I asked what their stance was regarding Dr. Behe's position, and from what I gathered, they invited him to provoke thought and discussion. In other words, they aren't for or against his position, which is good news.

That is what they often say.

[Dogdoctor]

I doubt that you can make headway although science professors at the school might be able to. Behe is not a dummy and has thought out most of the arguments to a point that if you are not well versed with the data available you would have a hard time responding in a meaningful way. People going to listen aren't likely to be open minded. I doubt it will stimulate meaningful debate.

[Silentknight]

Thanks. I printed out the PDF of that bacterial flagellum article, and I'm going to bring it with me tomorrow. :D

There are two questions I'm considering asking. These are questions that, as far as I know, have not been asked by very many skeptics, and that no creationist has ever given an honest answer to. Whenever I ask them, such as in the topics around here on JREF, it seems that the creationists would rather ignore them.

Question 1: How is design any different from an evolutionary process? All of the things humans have designed have been based on simple machines or concepts, and then worked their way up from there. We base new designs on existing designs, and a process of trial and error. If something works, we keep it, and if it doesn't work, we discard it or find another use for it. Just as different environmental conditions will result in different evolutionary paths, different engineer teams will design slightly different products. All things humans design are a product of our evolution regardless, so the only way design makes sense is if it piggy-backs on evolutionary theory!


Question 2: Is there a single shred of positive evidence for intelligent design? All of Behe's arguments seem to consist of attacking Darwinian evolution, as if that somehow proves something other than the fact that science doesn't yet have all the answers (never mind that most of his questions already have answers, which he ignores). We have yet to observe anything being consciously designed in nature. Analogizing living things to nonliving things does not work, because we have never seen man-made tools such as watches mating with each other and producing little watches on their own. This is another way of asking, "Assuming evolution is false, so what?"

[JoeEllison]

If you could find a sphere of metal, and a hunk of misshapen metal, you could hold them both up and ask him which was more obviously complex. Point out the the formulas to describe a sphere are taught to children, while it would be almost impossible to describe the hunk of metal mathematically. Clearly, since the misshapen piece of metal is more complex, it must have been designed, and the sphere is so simple is could have easily happened by accident.

[Alric]

What natural phenomena could be postulated to effect intelligent design? Can he think of a mechanism? And the classic: Who designed the designer?

[Lucky]

There are two questions I'm considering asking. These are questions that, as far as I know, have not been asked by very many skeptics, and that no creationist has ever given an honest answer to. Whenever I ask them, such as in the topics around here on JREF, it seems that the creationists would rather ignore them.

Question 1: How is design any different from an evolutionary process? All of the things humans have designed have been based on simple machines or concepts, and then worked their way up from there. We base new designs on existing designs, and a process of trial and error. If something works, we keep it, and if it doesn't work, we discard it or find another use for it. Just as different environmental conditions will result in different evolutionary paths, different engineer teams will design slightly different products. All things humans design are a product of our evolution regardless, so the only way design makes sense is if it piggy-backs on evolutionary theory!


Question 2: Is there a single shred of positive evidence for intelligent design? All of Behe's arguments seem to consist of attacking Darwinian evolution, as if that somehow proves something other than the fact that science doesn't yet have all the answers (never mind that most of his questions already have answers, which he ignores). We have yet to observe anything being consciously designed in nature. Analogizing living things to nonliving things does not work, because we have never seen man-made tools such as watches mating with each other and producing little watches on their own. This is another way of asking, "Assuming evolution is false, so what?"


I think you are underestimating him as an opponent (especially as the event is rigged in his favour). I'm quite sure he will have meaningless but polished and (to a naïve listener) erudite-sounding and impressive answers to these questions, and any other scientific ones we could think of.

I'd say it's hopeless to try and make an impact with a specific scientific point, because:
1) The audience won't understand it.
2) He'll have a prepared answer that will make him appear far more expert than you (that is always the case with cranks).

Instead, perhaps try to get across the dishonesty of his position? Ask why the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field (many of whom are religious) reject ID, based on their own studies. Point out that all IDers are religious fundamentalists, and are fiddling the evidence and the arguments to manufacture bogus support for their religious belief system (need to phrase it as a question). Obviously he will have a pat answer for this as well, but it will be new information for some of the audience, and may open their eyes.

The handout is a good idea (and could include some technical arguments), but get friends to do this – don't associate yourself with them else you probably won't be called to ask a question.

[Alric]

I would honestly would like to know how he explains present intermediate structures like pores and pilli. These are homologous in function and DNA sequence and for all intent and purposes "Halfway to a flagellum". Therefore his argument that half a flagellum would not work is untrue.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Just quote a choice piece of what the Judge said about him and his stupidites at the Dover Trial and ask him to comment.

I doubt rational discussion of a complex topic before an audience that does not know enough science to open a paper bag is going to be possible.

So you might as well go for ridicule!

[Dr Adequate]

Well, I hear that garlic wards him off.

[hammegk]

Just quote a choice piece of what the Judge said about him and his stupidites at the Dover Trial and ask him to comment.

I doubt rational discussion of a complex topic before an audience that does not know enough science to open a paper bag is going to be possible.

So you might as well go for ridicule!
I pie in the face should do it.

[Dogdoctor]

Thanks. I printed out the PDF of that bacterial flagellum article, and I'm going to bring it with me tomorrow. :D

There are two questions I'm considering asking. These are questions that, as far as I know, have not been asked by very many skeptics, and that no creationist has ever given an honest answer to. Whenever I ask them, such as in the topics around here on JREF, it seems that the creationists would rather ignore them.

Question 1: How is design any different from an evolutionary process? All of the things humans have designed have been based on simple machines or concepts, and then worked their way up from there. We base new designs on existing designs, and a process of trial and error. If something works, we keep it, and if it doesn't work, we discard it or find another use for it. Just as different environmental conditions will result in different evolutionary paths, different engineer teams will design slightly different products. All things humans design are a product of our evolution regardless, so the only way design makes sense is if it piggy-backs on evolutionary theory!
When humans create things there is a chain of events that lead to the creation. These are mostly documented in history. I doubt the invention of the wheel was documented but the various discoveries in science and technology that go into creating a car tire have been documented over the years. Science and technology build up over time much like evolution and not like creation according to Behe. Behe doesn't say evolution doesn't occur. He says that there are cases where science cannot explain how it evolved and therefore it was created.


Question 2: Is there a single shred of positive evidence for intelligent design? All of Behe's arguments seem to consist of attacking Darwinian evolution, as if that somehow proves something other than the fact that science doesn't yet have all the answers (never mind that most of his questions already have answers, which he ignores). We have yet to observe anything being consciously designed in nature. Analogizing living things to nonliving things does not work, because we have never seen man-made tools such as watches mating with each other and producing little watches on their own. This is another way of asking, "Assuming evolution is false, so what?"

Behe doesn't say evolution is false. There isn't really anything other than the cases that proponents of ID bring up which they can't understand how evolution created them although others can often.

[Olowkow]

Ask him if he still believes that astrology is a science, something he said in the Dover trial. Also, the question about why all proponents of ID are fundamentalists is a good honest question. No point in debating this guy any more than Hovind. He is not interested in learning anything.

What has always impressed me is when someone rises and eloquently praises the speaker and thanks him for coming to speak, and then politely asks a zinger. Very effective, if done without sarcasm.

One excellent example of this is Dr. Bob Price (the atheist Bible Geek) on the phone with Reggie Finley and Matt Slick, a very slick bible guy. Price very nicely ran rings around this guy, and he didn't even realize he was being pwned.

[Silentknight]

Michael Behe is said to accept Common Descent, but not the mechanism of Darwinian Evolution, to carry it out. Can he describe his alternative mechanism in detail (aside from just calling it an "Intelligence"), and how would we test for its existence?
I'm leaning towards this question, but I may have to rephrase it so that it's simple and short enough to ask quickly. Maybe I could ask him to describe how we could scientifically test for the existence of a mechanism for design? Would that be simple enough for the audience to understand?
He may have been asked this next one, already, a bunch of times, so he may be prepared for it, but I would be inclinded to ask it, anyway, myself:
If certain structures in life are "too complex" to have been the product of evolution, how would you test for the negative hypothesis? In other words, how would you test to make sure they could not possibly be the product of evolution?
He'll probably dismiss this with the same argument from incredulity that all of his claims are based on. He would say that the test is to remove a component, such as of a bacterial flagellum, and observe how it no longer functions. So I probably won't get anywhere with this.
If you could find a sphere of metal, and a hunk of misshapen metal, you could hold them both up and ask him which was more obviously complex. Point out the the formulas to describe a sphere are taught to children, while it would be almost impossible to describe the hunk of metal mathematically. Clearly, since the misshapen piece of metal is more complex, it must have been designed, and the sphere is so simple is could have easily happened by accident.
This makes a good point, but I don't think it would be taken seriously.
What natural phenomena could be postulated to effect intelligent design? Can he think of a mechanism? And the classic: Who designed the designer?
This ties into the first question, which I already commented on. As for the latter, he will likely respond the same way I've heard creationists respond whenever this is asked. They will pull the fallacy of special pleading and exempt the designer from needing a designer itself OR claim that infinite regression is "impossible." While I can refute both of these apologetics easily, I probably won't get the chance to do so.
I think you are underestimating him as an opponent (especially as the event is rigged in his favour). I'm quite sure he will have meaningless but polished and (to a naïve listener) erudite-sounding and impressive answers to these questions, and any other scientific ones we could think of.

I'd say it's hopeless to try and make an impact with a specific scientific point, because:
1) The audience won't understand it.
2) He'll have a prepared answer that will make him appear far more expert than you (that is always the case with cranks).
I know. That's why I'm trying to come up with an honest and simple question that he hopefully has not heard before.
Instead, perhaps try to get across the dishonesty of his position? Ask why the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field (many of whom are religious) reject ID, based on their own studies. Point out that all IDers are religious fundamentalists, and are fiddling the evidence and the arguments to manufacture bogus support for their religious belief system (need to phrase it as a question). Obviously he will have a pat answer for this as well, but it will be new information for some of the audience, and may open their eyes.

The handout is a good idea (and could include some technical arguments), but get friends to do this – don't associate yourself with them else you probably won't be called to ask a question.
This might come across as too hostile, because if he's anything like other religious fundamentalists, he'll probably view this as an ad hominem attack, and I don't want the "persecution" complex to work in his favor. I want my question to sound like honest curiosity, not a verbal attack.
Just quote a choice piece of what the Judge said about him and his stupidites at the Dover Trial and ask him to comment.

I doubt rational discussion of a complex topic before an audience that does not know enough science to open a paper bag is going to be possible.

So you might as well go for ridicule!
I could do this. Any suggestions?
Ask him if he still believes that astrology is a science, something he said in the Dover trial. Also, the question about why all proponents of ID are fundamentalists is a good honest question. No point in debating this guy any more than Hovind. He is not interested in learning anything.

What has always impressed me is when someone rises and eloquently praises the speaker and thanks him for coming to speak, and then politely asks a zinger. Very effective, if done without sarcasm.

One excellent example of this is Dr. Bob Price (the atheist Bible Geek) on the phone with Reggie Finley and Matt Slick, a very slick bible guy. Price very nicely ran rings around this guy, and he didn't even realize he was being pwned.
I would ask the astrology question, but I forget how it was phrased. I'll see if I can find that.

Wait, I found this:
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

I'll see if I can find the astrology comment or other embarrassing screwups on his part. :D

Edit: Well damnit, it looks like these transcripts are several hundred pages long each, and I forget where exactly in the trial these comments occurred. Would anyone happen to know off the top of their head?

[Brown]

My recommendation:

Read this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34604). It includes quotes and analysis of a column Behe submitted to the New York Times.

If a question and answer session is available, ask a short, pointed planned question. Don't wing it, and for the love of all that is holy, don't drone on and on making your own speech before getting to the question mark.

The question can be something simple, like:

"Do ALL designs imply the existence of a designer? The intricate design of a snowflake, for example."

"Are evolution and intelligent design opposites such that if evolution is wrong, intelligent design must be right? And in what other areas of science has this sort of logic held sway?"

"If we held to the view that we should teach intelligent design because it's 'obvious,' should we not also teach that the Sun goes around the Earth, which is even MORE obvious, since that how it appears to everyone?"

[Dogdoctor]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html

There's lots of info on Behe's arguments and the rebutal of them on the internet.

[Silentknight]

I've read over the other thread, and I've found some questions asked by other members that look like they might get through:
My questions for ID proponents would be:

Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"):
1. What does the present design tell you about the designer?
2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work.
3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs?
4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility.
5. Where is the designer now?
6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural?
Not 1 or 2, but 3-6 sound like they might work. I might get away with #6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural? If natural, then how is that any different from evolution? If supernatural, then how is ID different from a religious argument?
ID is just bizarre. How did stuff get designed in the first place? In a labratory of some sort? Where was this place? Why no physical evidence of this designer(s)? Did they stick around or keep coming back to add things? Are they still designing more stuff? If not why did they design anything in the first place? Are they going to come back and eat us or something? Are we emergency rations of some sort?
I could tie this into a question about how we could obtain observational evidence of a designer in the act of designing.

Do you think I'd get anywhere by bringing up the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" or would that only be relevant if he claims that ID is not a religiously motivated argument?

[Dogdoctor]

"If we held to the view that we should teach intelligent design because it's 'obvious,' should we not also teach that the Sun goes around the Earth, which is even MORE obvious, since that how it appears to everyone?"

I like this one. It's simple and deals with the problem of ID directly.

[Olowkow]

Here is is testimony on cross about astrology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?
A Yes.
Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."
That's the scientific theory of astrology?
A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.
Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.
And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

[politas]

I think the best question is simply how to test for supernatural causation and how to rule it out in experimental design. Behe and the Discovery Institute which presumably funds him (he is a senior fellow of the DI's "Center for Science & Culture") are going up against methodological naturalism. What do they propose as a replacement?

This is a necessary condition of being able to "consider supernatural explanations" as Behe claims should be done.

[Olowkow]

Just one more thing, his own university's disowning him:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
Q This is a statement that was issued by the Lehigh Department of Biological Sciences?
A Yes, it is.
Q And what it says is, "The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and the recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, that has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position" -- and I think they're just referring to your department at this point -- "Professor Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of intelligent design. While we respect Professor 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."
So you ve not even been able to convince your colleagues, any of them, Professor Behe?

[Olowkow]

Or simply:

"Other than 'irreducible complexity' what are the three discoveries that you are most proud of in intelligent design theory, and how have they benefitted mankind?"

[Silentknight]

"If we held to the view that we should teach intelligent design because it's 'obvious,' should we not also teach that the Sun goes around the Earth, which is even MORE obvious, since that how it appears to everyone?"I like this one. It's simple and deals with the problem of ID directly.
I'll try to keep that in mind, but I can't ask that one unless he uses the "obvious" line, otherwise it would be seen as a strawman.
Here is is testimony on cross about astrology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
I've decided against bringing up the Dover trial or the astrology claim, because first of all, he'll probably deny it and the audience won't know any better, and secondly, because the audience probably doesn't have the same familiarity with said trial as most JREF members.
I think the best question is simply how to test for supernatural causation and how to rule it out in experimental design. Behe and the Discovery Institute which presumably funds him (he is a senior fellow of the DI's "Center for Science & Culture") are going up against methodological naturalism. What do they propose as a replacement?

This is a necessary condition of being able to "consider supernatural explanations" as Behe claims should be done.
That's similar to the one I'm considering, although I'm not sure how to phrase it. If he isn't stupid enough to use the "consider supernatural explanations" line then I'm going to have to set it up first. I could try to compress that into a single question. Maybe I should just ask how to test for the existence of a design mechanism and how to rule out evolution. The problem is that whether I refer to it as a "design mechanism" or "design process" he may just fall back on equivocation and think that my question was about the designed object itself.
Just one more thing, his own university's disowning him:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
I don't know how to phrase this without it sounding confrontational.

I could ask him your other question though, which is to ask what scientific predictions, discoveries, and applications intelligent design has provided.


Right now, it seems like the best choice is to compile a list of potential questions I could ask, depending on what points he brings up. Then wait until several people have already gone, to see if someone else covers some of the questions for me.

[Gregoire]

I think you are underestimating him as an opponent (especially as the event is rigged in his favour). I'm quite sure he will have meaningless but polished and (to a naïve listener) erudite-sounding and impressive answers to these questions, and any other scientific ones we could think of.

I'd say it's hopeless to try and make an impact with a specific scientific point, because:
1) The audience won't understand it.
2) He'll have a prepared answer that will make him appear far more expert than you (that is always the case with cranks).

Instead, perhaps try to get across the dishonesty of his position? Ask why the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field (many of whom are religious) reject ID, based on their own studies. Point out that all IDers are religious fundamentalists, and are fiddling the evidence and the arguments to manufacture bogus support for their religious belief system (need to phrase it as a question). Obviously he will have a pat answer for this as well, but it will be new information for some of the audience, and may open their eyes.

The handout is a good idea (and could include some technical arguments), but get friends to do this – don't associate yourself with them else you probably won't be called to ask a question.

I agree with what Lucky has said.

I have read most of Behe's recent book which I suspect will be the topic of the talk. And I even saw him recently on CSPAN where he did take questions from the audience, most of which were very friendly. Oh, how I wish I had the time to go over these again to give you some help!

His argument is very technical and the data he discusses is not straight forward.

I found the best arguments against his position in a review of his book by Dr. Sean Carroll in the journal Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427

Of course, to answer a technical argument, you have to get technical yourself as Carroll does with numerous citations. I have collected some of these journal articles, and I think the best one is the one in PNAS (citation number 15) that has already been mentioned by Alric.

Ultimately, I agree that probably the best question would ask why he thinks his arguments have not been accepted by other protein biochemists. And I always wondered why he isn't troubled being associated with so many fundamentalists who reject common descent in the face of what even he believes is overwhelming scientific evidence.

Sorry, I don't have time to help you more. Let us know how this turns out.:)

[Olowkow]

I could ask him your other question though, which is to ask what scientific predictions, discoveries, and applications intelligent design has provided.


Yeah, I agree with all your comments. Confrontational doesn't work. Asking what he is most pleased with or proud of might work. The audience will know if they personally think these are in fact "discoveries to be proud of".

I am always amazed at Massimo Pigliucci when he debates these guys, even Hovind at least once. He is so pleasant and never gets rattled.

Good luck!;)

[Wowbagger]

I'm leaning towards this question, but I may have to rephrase it so that it's simple and short enough to ask quickly. Maybe I could ask him to describe how we could scientifically test for the existence of a mechanism for design? Would that be simple enough for the audience to understand? Yeah, that might suffice.

Though, my own taste would be a bit meaner. But, then again, I am no expert at asking questions from an audience.

[Asolepius]

Just ask him how much of the content of his lecture is verified by experimental evidence in the peer reviewed literature. Everything he says comes from his book, not from papers he has published.

[Darat]

Perhaps ask him how he has concluded that the "designer" is the god of the RCC?

[Pixel42]

You might try asking him for his response to this quote from Sir David Attenborough:"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". You could add that every single precedent in history, from thunder and lightening to plagues, confirms this is indeed the correct response.

[Mojo]

Michael Behe is said to accept Common Descent, but not the mechanism of Darwinian Evolution, to carry it out.


Is this actually his position? I thought his argument was that natural selection can't explain some of the systems present on the molecular level, but he doesn't really say anything about the evolution of one species to another.

[Mojo]

Perhaps ask him how he has concluded that the "designer" is the god of the RCC?


I thought the whole point of ID is that it doesn't conclude that the "designer" is God, so that it isn't religion and thus can be taught in American schools.

[Mojo]

Just ask him how much of the content of his lecture is verified by experimental evidence in the peer reviewed literature. Everything he says comes from his book, not from papers he has published.


According to his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm189) in the Dover trial, the section of Of Pandas and People he wrote about blood clotting was peer-reviewed: Q But you actually were a critical reviewer of Pandas, correct; that's what it says in the acknowledgments page of the book?

A That's what it lists there, but that does not mean that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on it in detail, yes.

Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?

A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally responsible for that section.

Q So you were reviewing your own work?

A I was helping review or helping edit or helping write the section on blood clotting.

Q Which was your own contribution?

A That's -- yes, that's correct.

Oh, and apparently (again from his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am225) in the Dover trial) Darwin's Black box was also peer-reviewed: Q. Okay. Now you stated on Monday that Darwin's Black Box was also peer reviewed, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

A. No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

Q. And one of the peer reviewers you mentioned yesterday was a gentleman named Michael Atchison?

A. Yes, I think that's correct.

Q. I think you described him as a biochemist at the Veterinary School at the University of Pennsylvania?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. He was not one of the names you suggested, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. In fact, he was selected because he was an instructor of your editor's wife?

A. That's correct. My editor knew one biochemistry professor, so he asked, through his wife, and so he asked him to take a look at it as well.

... [snip] ...

[Professor Atchison wrote:] "She advised her husband to give me a call. So unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript.

I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later."

[Meadmaker]

Is this actually his position? I thought his argument was that natural selection can't explain some of the systems present on the molecular level, but he doesn't really say anything about the evolution of one species to another.

Yes, that is actually his position.

[Darat]

I thought the whole point of ID is that it doesn't conclude that the "designer" is God, so that it isn't religion and thus can be taught in American schools.

Yep - but as usual they were wrong! :)

[Asolepius]

Is this actually his position? I thought his argument was that natural selection can't explain some of the systems present on the molecular level, but he doesn't really say anything about the evolution of one species to another.Even if that is his position, it doesn't hold water. Science does not pretend to know everything. If it did, there would be no need of it. There are obviously many biological phenomena for which we don't yet have a scientific explanation, but why invoke an imaginary one?

[Cuddles]

Personally, I'd just sit in the back pointing and giggling. Debate is all very well for some ideas that deserve it, but others deserve nothing more than ridicule.

I thought the whole point of ID is that it doesn't conclude that the "designer" is God, so that it isn't religion and thus can be taught in American schools.

Wasn't the whole point of the Dover trial that they ruled ID is religion?

[Asolepius]

According to his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm189) in the Dover trial, the section of Of Pandas and People he wrote about blood clotting was peer-reviewed:

Oh, and apparently (again from his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am225) in the Dover trial) Darwin's Black box was also peer-reviewed:Yes, exactly what I had in mind. This is not a case of controversial views held genuinely in good faith, it's one of deliberate obfuscation.

[Gregoire]

Michael Behe is said to accept Common Descent, but not the mechanism of Darwinian Evolution, to carry it out.


Is this actually his position? I thought his argument was that natural selection can't explain some of the systems present on the molecular level, but he doesn't really say anything about the evolution of one species to another.

Yes, it is. Dr. Behe is not your typical creationist. In the first chapter, he states he divides "Darwinian evolution" into three components:

1)Common Descent
2) Natural Selection
3) Random Mutation

He says he accepts #1 and #2, but feels the #3 cannot explain all of common descent.

He argues it can explain the evolution of a new species or even a new genus, but that it cannot explain beyond that. In other words, random mutation and natural selection can explain the evolution of bacteria confronted by antibiotics. But he states it cannot be the mechanism of the origin of the bacterial flagellum........enter god:rolleyes:

[Deetee]

Perhaps you could ask why the designer is so bad at his job (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58122).

[Asolepius]

Perhaps you could ask why the designer is so bad at his job (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58122).Oh yes, I forgot that. I used it at a dinner party with some Christians recently, and it totally stopped the discussion. Why do we choke so easily, have so many back problems, and keep banging our funny bones?

[Alric]

That's a good one. I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's take:

Why do we have the sewer system right next to the reproductive system? Thus increasing the chance of infection of arguably the most important system.

[Wowbagger]

Is this actually his position? I thought his argument was that natural selection can't explain some of the systems present on the molecular level, but he doesn't really say anything about the evolution of one species to another.
He argues it can explain the evolution of a new species or even a new genus, but that it cannot explain beyond that. In other words, random mutation and natural selection can explain the evolution of bacteria confronted by antibiotics. But he states it cannot be the mechanism of the origin of the bacterial flagellum........enter god:rolleyes:

I think Behe's position could best be sumamarized as Guided Evolution.

Though, he has yet to demonstrate a mechanism for such guidance.

I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's take:

Why do we have the sewer system right next to the reproductive system? Thus increasing the chance of infection of arguably the most important system. I think it might have been "recreation system", which refers to the reproductive system, as in: "Why would they build the sewer system, right next to the recreation system...?!"

[brodski]

Oh yes, I forgot that. I used it at a dinner party with some Christians recently, and it totally stopped the discussion. Why do we choke so easily, have so many back problems, and keep banging our funny bones?

because we're sinners.

[Alric]

I think it might have been "recreation system", which refers to the reproductive system, as in: "Why would they build the sewer system, right next to the recreation system...?!"

You are correct! Its even better that way. This is the original quote:

"And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?"

[Wowbagger]

This is the original quote:

"And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?"
I think the wording I used must have come from someone else, then.

[Silentknight]

Perhaps ask him how he has concluded that the "designer" is the god of the RCC?
He'll most likely dismiss that with a denial, which even though he would be lying, would force me to describe the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" in detail. I don't think I'll have a chance to bring that up.
You might try asking him for his response to this quote from Sir David Attenborough:"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". You could add that every single precedent in history, from thunder and lightening to plagues, confirms this is indeed the correct response.
That would work in a normal debate, but this is just one question I get to ask. Besides, I'm sure he believes that by positing intelligent design, he's not really jumping to conclusions as much as he is "questioning" the established evolutionary science. I could work this in to one of the questions I had in mind, but only if he specifically says "supernatural cause," otherwise it would sound like I'm using a strawman.
That's a good one. I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's take:

Why do we have the sewer system right next to the reproductive system? Thus increasing the chance of infection of arguably the most important system.
Sub-optimality arguments would work against any other cdesign proponentsist, but Behe seems to have found a way out of this by admitting that some evolution does occur. This would only work if he believed that everything was designed, which he'll say that he doesn't, even though all the fundy idiots who hang on his words certainly believe that.

I've come up with a list of some of the questions I think might have a viable chance. Keep in mind that these are for the sake of the audience, because obviously Dr. Behe isn't there to respond honestly to questioning, or to learn from an upstart like me, or to be made an ass out of like he was at the Dover trial. Suggestions are welcome, but I have to leave in an hour to make the lecture.

1. How can we scientifically test for the existence of a mechanism for design?
2. What scientific predictions, discoveries, and practical applications has intelligent design provided us with?
3. Why has intelligent design not been accepted by other protein biochemists, or the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University?
4. If we should be able to “consider supernatural explanations” then how would one test for supernatural causation, and how would it be falsified?
5. Assuming intelligent design is science, then how could we obtain observational evidence of an “intelligent designer” in the act of designing?
6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural? If natural, then how is that any different from evolution? If supernatural, then how is that any different from a religious claim?
7. Is there any positive evidence to support intelligent design, aside from claiming that complex systems are inexplicable through evolution?
8. Everything that tool-making species design is a product of their evolution, so how is design itself any different from an evolutionary process?

[Silentknight]

Well, I should get ready to head out now. Thanks for the suggestions, and for wishing me luck. I'll try not to get myself tasered.

Although the campus police aren't like that. :p


I'll let you know how it goes.

[Asolepius]

The best of luck - hope you get your day in court:)

[RecoveringYuppy]

Point out that all IDers are religious fundamentalists, and are fiddling the evidence and the arguments to manufacture bogus support for their religious belief system (need to phrase it as a question).
That will backfire as he will simply point out, correctly, that he is not a fundamentalist.

[Dogdoctor]

According to his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm189) in the Dover trial, the section of Of Pandas and People he wrote about blood clotting was peer-reviewed:

Oh, and apparently (again from his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am225) in the Dover trial) Darwin's Black box was also peer-reviewed:
Obviously this is not the same as scientific peer review.

[Silentknight]

I just got back from the lecture. First I'll tell you what he spoke about, then I'll tell you what happened during the Q&A session.

Dr. Behe's slideshow lecture was entitled "The Depth of Intelligent Design in Biology." I took extensive notes throughout, in case anyone wants to comment on his arguments. He started out with a quote from Richard Dawkins, taken out of context from "The Blind Watchmaker," where Dawkins describes how biological systems have the appearance of design for a purpose.

Behe then began discussing ID itself. He started off with 5 points:

1. Design is not mystical. It is deduced from physical structure of a system.
2. Everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear designed.
3. There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution.
4. Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination.
5. Bottom Line: Strong evidence for design, but not for Darwinian processes.

He defined design using the "purposeful arrangement" definition, which is not the definition most ID-ers use. He then drew an analogy using a screenshot of a pile of Legos, and then a shot of the Legos built into a catapult toy. Behe claimed that the strength of this inference is quantitative, and that the greater number of arranged parts, the greater our confidence that a system is designed. To illustrate this, he showed a picture of a mountain, followed by an image of Old Man in the Mountain, and then the monument of Mount Rushmore. The implication was that it would be silly to assume that Mt. Rushmore hadn't been designed.

He then took another Dawkins quote out of context, having to do with the "master watchmaker." Having read Dawkins' book myself, I know that Dawkins was talking about appearances and making a simile, not lending support to ID. He was, in fact, trying to debunk the notion of deliberate design.

Behe said that most biologists, like Dawkins, will look at whole organisms, like the way birds fly, or the way fish swim. But it's when you get down to the cellular molecular level that you find that microscopic structures are too complex to have evolved. He pointed to how the publication "Cell" (1998) compared cellular structures to "machines." He put up the famous Darwin quote that creationists love to use, again out of context, where Darwin says he can't think of any examples of progressive development. He left out the second part, which I think is important, where Darwin describes what we should expect to find if there were a stepwise evolution.

Behe went into his "Irreducible Complexity" argument. Predictably enough, he showed a diagram of a mousetrap, saying that if you remove any parts, you end up with a broken mousetrap. It couldn't have evolved piece by piece from something simpler. He said that you can't start with the wood base and hope the mouse trips on it, or then add the catch and hope the mouse impales itself when it trips. He then, predictably enough, put up a diagram of the bacterial flagellum, and said that removing any of the parts would result in a broken flagellum.

Next, Behe plugged his first book, "Darwin's Black Box." He included a quote from Franklin M. Harold, when in discussing Behe’s idea of Irreducible Complexity, Harold says, “We should reject it as a matter of principle.” (2001) Behe suggested that this point of view is arrogant and over-the-top, and implied that Darwinism is dogmatic.

He showed a diagram of the Ghostbusters logo, saying that people dismiss ID as being mystical. But then he said that when he was being trained as a scientist, he was taught to ignore philosophical or theological implications. He said that this is the wrong approach, and that these explanations should be considered as well.

Next came a quote from Dr. Griffin (2000) about how people supporting Darwinian evolution always resort to telling him that he's just read the wrong books. In other words, Behe was using this as an excuse to ignore the evidence. He said that such evidence does not exist when you look for it, and then equated Darwinism with urban legends.

Before plugging his new book "The Edge of Evolution" (2007) he claimed that even here in the year 2008, the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to design. He then said that he doesn't deny that some evolution happens, just that because people use evolution to refer to many different things, parts of it may be right while others are wrong. He said he accepts common descent and the process of natural selection, but that they're trivial points that don't prove anything, such as how life got here in the first place (which is a different theory entirely).

Next came a long explanation about how random mutation can't bring about the changes that Darwinian evolution claims it can. He summarized his main arguments as follows:

1. Life is too complex. He attacked the early work of Haeckel who said that cells could arise from ocean mud, saying that this is wrong because we now know that cells are like machines. He pulled out a quote from Watson (2006) regarding computer programming, saying that a hill-climbing model for development like we find in Darwinian evolution is too simplistic to be applied to computers. In other words, steady progression doesn't explain complexity.

Behe went on to claim that the best evidence of Darwinism is in studies of malaria, and went on to explain sickle cell disease and all the genes associated with malaria resistance. He argued that most mutations are harmful, and that the only way Darwinian evolution can work is by breaking old genes, as is the case with malaria resistance.

2. Darwinism works only by breaking what's already there. In other words, mutations can't add information, merely distort and rearrange old information.


That was the lecture. I'll tell you want happened afterwards in a minute. :D

[D'rok]

He's still beating that dead flagellum?

Crikey. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

[Alric]

Did you follow the pie in the face suggestion!?

[Meadmaker]

2. Darwinism works only by breaking what's already there. In other words, mutations can't add information, merely distort and rearrange old information.


That sounds un-Beheish. Are you sure he didn't say that selection can't add information, but only break what's there?

[supercorgi]

Still with the stupid mouse trap analogy! Everyone in the audience should have worn a tie and and used a partially dismantled mouse trap as a tie clip. That would have been amusing.

[godless dave]

He's like George W. Bush: no matter how many times you prove a point wrong, he just keeps repeating it.

[Dogdoctor]

Information about manufacturing things builds up in human societies like for the mousetrap. Some caveman did not sit down and make a mousetrap. Technology to work wood and metal came first then the concepts of the spring and latch and axel that are used to make the mouse trap. Then someone put them all together to make a mousetrap. Evolution works similarly, information builds up then (by accident which is not typical of humans but perhaps sometimes similar in that people who create things are sometimes trying to create something else) it's put together in a functional manner and that information is widely distributed.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sorry I'm late to the party but I find that the RealWorld® has a tendency to interfere with my time here.

If anyone ever gets another chance, an interesting question might be: "The Dover trial about teaching ID was an exhustive process taking 40 days with ID exponents such as you Dr. Behe being able to present the case for ID fully and completely. The judge said in his summation, 'The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. ', was the judge wrong?

This is on the page at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

[Mojo]

He's like George W. Bush: no matter how many times you prove a point wrong, he just keeps repeating it.


Or Dana Ullman (a homoeopath who posts here as "JamesGully").

[Silentknight]

That sounds un-Beheish. Are you sure he didn't say that selection can't add information, but only break what's there?

Yeah, I'd put it into my own words. Your phrasing sounds closer to what he said.

Anyway, here's what happened after his presentation. The questioning session actually went rather smoothly, and the people got in some very good questions.

The first question was from a student. When you refer to an intelligent designer, who or what does the designer refer to? He dodged this, probably wisely, and said that it could refer to any kind of intelligence, although he admitted that if you're a Christian like he is, then it could refer to the Christian God.

The second question was from Professor Dill of the biology department, and he covered one of the potential questions I had planned ahead of time. Where is the science? Where is the proof positive for intelligent design? Behe simply fell back on his earlier argument, that the evidence is in the observed complexity in the physical structures themselves. He brought up the fact that science is inductive, rather than deductive, although he wasn't willing to admit that the argument from design is a fairly huge inductive leap of logic.

The third question was from another biology teacher, Professor Smalley, who went back to what Behe had said about the hill-climbing model. The professor pointed out that, while Behe was talking about whole complex structures as if they had arisen as is, what about a progressive development where evolution works in steps and each successive step confers an advantage of its own? They actually had a little back-and-forth, where Behe said that the problem with stepwise evolution is that the environmental conditions would have to be just right for each change that occurs to be beneficial, while Professor Smalley asked if that necessarily makes it impossible for advantageous changes to build up. After all, the environment is always changing.

Then I got a chance to ask my question. I ended up combining two of the questions I had on the list I posted earlier. Assuming intelligent design is science, then how could we obtain experimental or observational evidence of an “intelligent designer” in the act of designing? In other words, what mechanism or process for design do you propose, and how can we scientifically test for its existence? Behe responded, "I don't know," and actually admitted that there's no known mechanism for design. It was almost as if the question had caught him off guard, which kind of surprised me.

Let me repeat that one more time. Dr. Michael Behe had to admit in front of everyone that he did not know of a way to test intelligent design, and that there is no proposed mechanism for design! :yahoo

However, to try and dig himself out, he compared intelligent design to the Big Bang theory back when it was first proposed. He said that it was based on the observations of galaxies moving farther apart, but as with ID, we can't experimentally test it, and we haven't observed anything like it. Many people opposed the Big Bang theory and called it ridiculous, yet nowadays it's widely accepted, and people have even built new theories off of it. The impression I got was that he has faith that intelligent design will eventually be vindicated by the evidence (even though this has yet to happen and the future looks quite bleak for it).

The next question was asked by another student. She said that Behe seems to be arguing that evolution and ID are necessarily in opposition to each other. But why can't they be part of the same thing? What if intelligent design is a part of evolution itself? Behe responded that they could very well be, and for the record, he has never said that they are mutually exclusive, and does not deny that some evolution can occur.

The last question had to do with whether concluding that intelligent design must have occurred is tantamount to throwing up your hands and giving up. Behe replied that as a scientist, he's just following the data where it goes. So he wouldn't call it "giving up."


After the session was over, I noticed that the biology and philosophy professors had congregated and were discussing the topics of the lecture, so I decided to join them. I spoke with my logic professor from last semester, and asked him if he was familiar with the argument from personal incredulity fallacy, or the argument from ignorance fallacy. He said he hadn't thought of it that way, and wasn't familiar with the incredulity one, but that it could very well be the case with intelligent design.

Then I got in on the discussion that the biology professors were having. They were bringing up all the questions and comments they didn't get to voice during the Q&A session, including practically all the questions that have appeared in this topic and others about Behe. For example, if life was designed, then who designed the designer? We talked about sub-optimality arguments, the flaws in analogizing living things to non-living objects, the evolution of the flagellum, and the role and purpose of skepticism and the scientific method. In other words, just about everything that regularly gets discussed around here. I ended up giving away my printout on the flagellum to one of them, figuring he would have more use for it than I do.

One professor said he's actually grateful for ID and people like Behe, because he believes science should be open to debate and questioning. I pointed out that the main problem I have with ID is that, even though Behe claims it's not a religious argument, the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute says otherwise. They said they'd heard about this. I brought up the 2005 Dover trial and told them about the transcripts, if they were interested.

Towards the end of the discussion, we were talking about how ID is often used as a placeholder, but once science does find the answers, ID has to be bumped further back. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know all the answers, but let's find out." It might have just been me, but the biology professors seemed somewhat impressed with my take on the subject.

In the end, I'm glad I attended the lecture, and I'm glad I got the chance to cast some doubt on intelligent design. I'll post pictures of my taser burns later...

Only kidding. :D

[Gravy]

Thanks for your interesting and well-written account, Silentknight.

[Wowbagger]

Then I got a chance to ask my question. I ended up combining two of the questions I had on the list I posted earlier. Assuming intelligent design is science, then how could we obtain experimental or observational evidence of an “intelligent designer” in the act of designing? In other words, what mechanism or process for design do you propose, and how can we scientifically test for its existence? Behe responded, "I don't know," and actually admitted that there's no known mechanism for design. It was almost as if the question had caught him off guard, which kind of surprised me.

Let me repeat that one more time. Dr. Michael Behe had to admit in front of everyone that he did not know of a way to test intelligent design, and that there is no proposed mechanism for design! :yahoo
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Yep, that made my day!!

I would love to see video of that! Was any taken?

[Silentknight]

Unfortunately, no. There were no cameras as far as I could tell, I didn't get to ask if it was recorded, and I don't think they record their lectures. It didn't occur to me to whip out my cell phone and use that, but then again that probably would have gotten me kicked out. :rolleyes:

On the plus side, a major weakness of ID has been exposed. Not that we didn't know about it beforehand.

[Alric]

Yes! Thank you Silentknight for your account.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Thanks for your interesting and well-written account, Silentknight.

Seconded!

[Olowkow]

Good job, SK. Surprising that your logic prof never heard of the common fallacies.

[Dogdoctor]

Great going SK. I'm glad you went too.

[DoubtingStephen]

Great work, Silentknight. Well done.

[Meadmaker]

Yeah, I'd put it into my own words. Your phrasing sounds closer to what he said.

OK. That's more Beheish.

Good job catching him off guard. I often discuss what the best way to fight ID is, and my opinions on the subject don't usually go over so well on JREF. I think the key is to catch people off guard. Very few questions do that, but yours was just sufficiently different from the "standard" questions and comments that it worked, at least a little bit, which is the best that could be hoped for.

The real target is the potential believers in the audience, and seeing him uncertain was probably more influential than any of the arguments inherent in the other questions

[fishbob]

Darn - I got here too late to suggest a question.

Mine would have been:
How many copies of your books have you sold and what is your cut?

Behe is an educated man, most certainly not stupid, and he has been embarassed in public more than once - how can you explain his dragging out those previously debunked arguments? Book sales.

[Asolepius]

Well done SilentKnight! In particular thanks for posting such a detailed account. I'm a bit surprised that nobody hit him with Occam's Razor. He pretty much admitted that he can't identify the mechanism of ID, or the designer, which is hardly a parsimonious position.

Surely the personal incredulity fallacy is at the heart of science? By that I mean, it's not possible to prove a negative, only to provide evidence for a positive. If something looks incredible, it doesn't mean it supports in any way an alternative view, unless evidence exists to support that view. Lack of evidence does not prove anything.

There are gaps in our knowledge, but that doesn't mean they will never be filled. This is why I'm always wary of using the implausibility argument against homeopathy, without qualifying it with evidence (or lack of it!).

[Mojo]

Towards the end of the discussion, we were talking about how ID is often used as a placeholder, but once science does find the answers, ID has to be bumped further back.


Did you explicitly mention the false dilemma fallacy at the heart of Behe's argument: "if Darwinian evolution cannot account for a particular feature of living things, it must have been designed"?

[SezMe]

Very interesting thread. Thanks, SK, for the opening and follow up. This is what the E in JREF is all about.

Here's one great big ATTA BOY you can take down to your local pub for a pint.

[Lucky]

Well done!

However, to try and dig himself out, he compared intelligent design to the Big Bang theory back when it was first proposed. He said that it was based on the observations of galaxies moving farther apart, but as with ID, we can't experimentally test it, and we haven't observed anything like it. Many people opposed the Big Bang theory and called it ridiculous, yet nowadays it's widely accepted, and people have even built new theories off of it. The impression I got was that he has faith that intelligent design will eventually be vindicated by the evidence (even though this has yet to happen and the future looks quite bleak for it).
That surprises me. I'd assumed that he's a fraud and that, whatever he once believed, he's now just in it for the public attention and money. So you think he genuinely believes his 'theory'? (Unfortunately, I guess the Big Bang argument sounded quite impressive to the non-scientific part of the audience.)


One professor said he's actually grateful for ID and people like Behe, because he believes science should be open to debate and questioning. I pointed out that the main problem I have with ID is that, even though Behe claims it's not a religious argument, the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute says otherwise.
I agree with the professor. As well as educating the public, defending our studies and theories against opposing views (even downright ridiculous ones) is the best way to improve them (though I'd qualify that by adding "up to a point" – evolutionary biologists have other important work to do than debating IDers). The fact that ID is based on religious wishful thinking isn't a reason not to debate it, it's just an important point to make in the debate.

[The Gnomon]

If you could find a sphere of metal, and a hunk of misshapen metal, you could hold them both up and ask him which was more obviously complex. Point out the the formulas to describe a sphere are taught to children, while it would be almost impossible to describe the hunk of metal mathematically. Clearly, since the misshapen piece of metal is more complex, it must have been designed, and the sphere is so simple is could have easily happened by accident.

This is the best, simplest, and most convincing counter-argument to the "complexity requires intellegent design" assertion I have yet encountered. Thank you.:)

[Lucky]

If you could find a sphere of metal, and a hunk of misshapen metal, you could hold them both up and ask him which was more obviously complex. Point out the the formulas to describe a sphere are taught to children, while it would be almost impossible to describe the hunk of metal mathematically. Clearly, since the misshapen piece of metal is more complex, it must have been designed, and the sphere is so simple is could have easily happened by accident.This is the best, simplest, and most convincing counter-argument to the "complexity requires intellegent design" assertion I have yet encountered. Thank you.:)


It's a good argument if you want to make the point that it's not at all obvious what 'complexity' is, and that it's related in a complicated way to both probability and a priori significance.

But it is very far from explaining how any complex system, biological or otherwise, actually arises. The point is that the mis-shapen metal is not complex in any interesting way (and the sphere presumably was manufactured). The argument therefore says nothing about biological systems (which we regard as genuinely complex in an a priori sense, and therefore corresponding neither to the sphere nor to the mis-shapen metal).

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I warned against the temptation to think you can come up with a simple killer argument that will expose ID (or some other crank theory) as a fallacy. Any competent crank could easily demolish this one.

[Meadmaker]

It's a good argument if you want to make the point that it's not at all obvious what 'complexity' is, and that it's related in a complicated way to both probability and a priori significance.

But it is very far from explaining how any complex system, biological or otherwise, actually arises. The point is that the mis-shapen metal is not complex in any interesting way (and the sphere presumably was manufactured). The argument therefore says nothing about biological systems (which we regard as genuinely complex in an a priori sense, and therefore corresponding neither to the sphere nor to the mis-shapen metal).

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I warned against the temptation to think you can come up with a simple killer argument that will expose ID (or some other crank theory) as a fallacy. Any competent crank could easily demolish this one.

Well said.

[Asolepius]

If you could find a sphere of metal, and a hunk of misshapen metal, you could hold them both up and ask him which was more obviously complex. Point out the the formulas to describe a sphere are taught to children, while it would be almost impossible to describe the hunk of metal mathematically. Clearly, since the misshapen piece of metal is more complex, it must have been designed, and the sphere is so simple is could have easily happened by accident.He will just say the misshapen hunk was made by God :) Just kidding.

[Lucky]

He will just say the misshapen hunk was made by God :) Just kidding.


He wouldn't need to. He could say what I just said ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3437161#post3437161).
The point is that the mis-shapen metal is not complex in any interesting way (and the sphere presumably was manufactured). The argument therefore says nothing about biological systems (which we regard as genuinely complex in an a priori sense, and therefore corresponding neither to the sphere nor to the mis-shapen metal).

[Silentknight]

Did you explicitly mention the false dilemma fallacy at the heart of Behe's argument: "if Darwinian evolution cannot account for a particular feature of living things, it must have been designed"?

Someone else did bring up that particular question, or at least one form of it. It was one of the last questions (keep in mind I can't remember the exact order of the questions) in which a student mentioned how Behe seems to be attacking Darwinian evolution in order to justify ID, but why can't they be part of the same thing? Why can't ID be part of evolution itself? Behe's response was to remind everyone that he doesn't disagree that some evolution has occurred, and he said that they could be.

In other words, he sort of avoided the false dilemma fallacy. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped other cdesign proponentsists from doing it.

[CFLarsen]

The point is that the mis-shapen metal is not complex in any interesting way.

Gee, where have we heard that "argument" before....?

[jimbob]

Let me repeat that one more time. Dr. Michael Behe had to admit in front of everyone that he did not know of a way to test intelligent design, and that there is no proposed mechanism for design!

as Detee has said, there are ways to determine whether something was competently designed.

Unlike Behe I can think of several features that are highly indicitive of either an evolved system or one that has been competently designed.

1) Designers can correct their mistakes
Given that Behe accepts common descent of humans and chimps, why would the designer not fix the appendix so it didn't burst, once this " obviously not-so omniscient" designer noticed the first hominid case of appendicitis?

2) Designers can reuse aspects of their designs
There are several animals that have additional eyes (e.g Notostraca). Their "third-eye" is different to their two compound-eyes, which is perfectly consistent with an evolved system, where there is no "defined function" the system just does what it does. However most competent designers, particularly those competent enough to desing one type of eye, would simply reuse that eye design for any additional ones.

Similarly, convergent evolution, where many organisms in similar environments demonstrate similar traits, is further evidence against a designer acting like this. Why are there so many diffferent plants that produce fruit? Why are there so many different parts of the flower that turn into fruit (either true-fruit, or false fruit)? This is easy to explain if they evolved seperately, but hard if you posit a designer attempting different solutions, to the same problem.

3) Competent designers don't get something right, then get it wrong later without correcting it
The octopus-retina lacks many of the drawbacks of the mammalian retina, which came later (or the same time if you are a YEC, which Behe isn't). Any human with the intelligence to design an eye would also spot the flaw in the mammalian "design".

4)Evolved systems can only get "information" from their ancestors
If a traits evolved seperately in different orgainsms, the genes that express these traits should have different sequences, whilst if they were designed, they could be quite likely to have the same genetic sequence. Should anyone find this, when there hasn't been lateral gene transfer, then this would require some explaination. But (as the world's entire news media hasn't trumpeted this discovery) this hasn't been found.

5) Evolved systems are quite likely to "throw away" traits that are no longer advantageous
Why are vestigal organs vestigal, and neither fully working nor non-existant, which would look more elegant. For example either Basilosaurus, or modern whales have the more aesthetic rear leg "solution". Why did Basilosaurus have vestigal legs?

I am sure there are more but that should show why I disagree with Behe's admission...ETA that one couldn't test for ID.

[SimpleIrony]

The question I would love to ask him is:

Could you give an example of a system that was definitely not designed, so we know what we are comparing?

[Meadmaker]

The question I would love to ask him is:

Could you give an example of a system that was definitely not designed, so we know what we are comparing?

I think he would respond with a picture of a mountain, and compare it to Mount Rushmore. When it comes to biological systems, he would say that there are no such systems.

[Complexity]

Stay home and read a good book.

Don't give him any attention or one more moment of your time.

[SimpleIrony]

I think he would respond with a picture of a mountain, and compare it to Mount Rushmore. When it comes to biological systems, he would say that there are no such systems.

Sigh... you are probably right.

[Gregoire]

The question I would love to ask him is:

Could you give an example of a system that was definitely not designed, so we know what we are comparing?

He actually does discuss this in his book The Edge of Evolution (2007).

Specifically, he discussed malaria resistance in humans caused by a single point mutation in the gene that codes for hemoglobin. He agrees that the mutation was random and that natural selection has lead to a large population of those who have this gene (aka sickle cell trait) in areas where malaria is endemic.

He points out that while those who have one copy (the heterozygous) of this gene gain resistance to malaria, those who have two copies (the homozygous) suffer from Sickle Cell anemia. Therefore, he opines, evolution does occur through "Darwinian mechanisms", but only through the destruction of a gene which was already there.

At first glance, it is refreshing to see a person who believes in ID to use actual science as evidence. But as has been pointed out, he is ignoring a lot of evidence that he clearly should have known about by now. For example, Alaric's article (of which I started a thread on a while back http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98746) clearly contradicts what he is saying.

[Gregoire]

One professor said he's actually grateful for ID and people like Behe, because he believes science should be open to debate and questioning.




So then it would be OK to discuss astrology "theories" at the next academic astronomy meeting...
/sarcasm]

[Gregoire]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Yep, that made my day!!

I would love to see video of that! Was any taken?

I am nominating SilentKnight's first post about the description of Behe's talk.

Awesome job!


For what it is worth, I actually TIVO'd Dr. Behe's lecture about his new book on CSPAN which he gave last summer, I think. And it still might be possible to get it from the CSPAN site.

Otherwise, I could always put it on a video tape if others were interested. The questioning, however, was not nearly as critical. And I seem to remember a Biology student claiming that a lot of Biology students from his university were sympathetic to ID....god... heaven ....science help us!;)

[articulett]

I'm glad your post was nominated Silentknight... so I got a chance to read this thread.

I think I would have asked... "so, your evidence supports an intelligent designer-- like Xenu?"

(Whose to say the nature of the designer, eh? Allah? Zeus?).

[Brown]

Perhaps you could ask why the designer is so bad at his job (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58122).A similar discussion appears in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1361370#post1361370), inlcuding an argument to the effect that, if there was a designer, the designer was not merely a bumbler but wicked and malicious.

[Brown]

I was very impressed by SilentKnight's account. Time was, not all that long ago, that issues of this type were addressed by brute force: hitting, stabbing, torturing... but rhetoric is far superior.

The impression I get from the account is that Behe's position is untenable, and he knows it. But he's trapped. He can't recant his previous public positions, for he would lose everything: his income, his credibility, his publicity.

[Lucky]

The point is that the mis-shapen metal is not complex in any interesting way.
Gee, where have we heard that "argument" before....?


There are many places you might have seen this argument, or something similar – I don't claim to have originated it.

For example, Richard Dawkins makes the same point at much greater length in The Blind Watchmaker. I recommend you read this brilliant book. In particular, study Chapter 1 Explaining the very improbable, and especially the section on what complexity means with reference to watches, airliners, living things, blancmanges and Mont Blanc.

"I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems [our existence] but, incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place!
The problem is that of complex design."

"The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up."

"We animals are the most complicated things in the known universe. ... Complicated things everywhere deserve a very special kind of explanation."

"When it comes to feeling awe over living 'watches' I yield to nobody. I feel much more in common with the Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published. 'What about Hume?', replied the philosopher. 'How did Hume explain the organised complexity of the living world?', I asked. 'He didn't', said the philosopher. 'Why does it need any special explanation?'
Paley knew that it needed a special explanation. Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too."

"There are billions of ways of throwing together the bits of Mont Blanc, it might be said, and only one of them is Mont Blanc. So what is it that makes the airliner and the human complicated, if Mont Blanc is simple? Any old jumbled collection of parts is unique and with hindsight, is as improbable as any other. ... Now, if you consider all the possible ways in which the rocks of Mont Blanc could have been thrown together, it is true that only one of them would make Mont Blanc as we know it. But Mont Blanc as we know it is defined with hindsight. Any one of a very large number of ways of throwing rocks together would be labelled a mountain, and might have been named Mont Blanc."

"The minimum requirement for us to recognise an object as an animal or plant is that it should succeed in making a living of some sort. It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living – flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive."

As you are not a biologist, or any kind of scientist, all of that may be over your head, so I'll summarise the argument for you:

Living things are complex in a special and interesting way, both highly improbable and definable (in general terms) in advance.
The existence of these complex (biological) objects requires a special explanation, very different from the explanation for simple (physical) objects.
Creationists (past and present) are correct in pointing this out. However, their favoured explanation is false.
Anyone denying the problem of biological complexity, and the necessity to explain its existence, is making a more serious error.

Now, would you care to explain why you think Dawkins and I are wrong? I look forward to your valuable contribution to this interesting and important scientific topic.

[Silentknight]

The thing is, I don't necessarily think Dr. Behe is a bad guy. I think he just took the concept of scientific skepticism and went way too far with it, jumping to the wrong conclusions altogether. As you probably gathered from my synopsis of the lecture, and the discussion that went on before it, he doesn't use the same weak arguments as other ID-ers, and thus can't be approached assuming that he does. Consciously or not though, he's being used as a tool by the people who truly are trying to push a purely religious agenda by way of intelligent design.

I also now understand that intelligent design can serve a purpose. Whether intentionally or not, by pushing for a debate / controversy with evolutionary theory, intelligent design is practically a way to ensure that evolution is taught. After all, in order to counter the faulty claims and reasoning of ID, one must learn about evolution to a sufficient extent. I know this was the case with me, where I found myself relearning all the stuff we did in AP Biology.

ID is not the threat it tries to make itself out to be. Good science involves constant questioning and the challenging of currently established theories. Even if they don't realize it, all the cdesign proponentsists out there are actually serving to temper and strengthen evolutionary science and our understanding thereof.

[articulett]

Behe has a blog at Amazon... I think he is an incredible example of cognitive dissonance. He has a weird way of not actually saying anything while implying that "intelligent design" explains something. It seems that most creationists don't really understand that he accepts "common descent"... I don't know if they know what that even means... creationists have a way of listening for the words they want... the idea that science doesn't have the answers and their god is a likely explanation...

I think these debates just make Behe more delusional in his idea that his views have merit. Or does he know he's full of crap? It's hard to pin down a creationist on exactly what they are saying and what they are denying about the scientific position because of the way the use words. And they move the goal posts as they go and infer meaning from bits and pieces of scientific dialogue as has been illustrated.

Do you think they KNOW they are being dishonest?

[JJM]

The thing is, I don't necessarily think Dr. Behe is a bad guy. I think he just took the concept of scientific skepticism and went way too far with it, jumping to the wrong conclusions altogether. {snip}I used to think that; but we learned, during the Dover Trial, that he was working with Young Earth Creationists (YEC) shortly after getting his PhD.

{snip} It seems that most creationists don't really understand that he accepts "common descent"... {snip}I am not sure that he accepts common descent. I think it is just something he says in order to sound a bit sane. For one thing, in Darwin's Black Box he suggests that all the DNA for every type of animal was deposited in the original life-form. Also, when he first worked with the YEC group, he wrote a pamphlet claiming that there were no transitional fossils from land mammals to whales (such fossils were found after he wrote the pamphlet); thus, he argued against common descent.

SK, thanks for the interesting report.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Let me belatedly thank you for your report Silentknight. :thumbsup:

I agree with the professor. As well as educating the public, defending our studies and theories against opposing views (even downright ridiculous ones) is the best way to improve them (though I'd qualify that by adding "up to a point" – evolutionary biologists have other important work to do than debating IDers). The fact that ID is based on religious wishful thinking isn't a reason not to debate it, it's just an important point to make in the debate.

Agreed too, and I think that's one of the few, if only benefits of ID. By pointing out gaps in either our knowledge of biology (or at least in how that knowledge is being communicated) they help encourage further study to close the gap or to communicate the actual facts more accurately.

[Lucky]

One professor said he's actually grateful for ID and people like Behe, because he believes science should be open to debate and questioning.




So then it would be OK to discuss astrology "theories" at the next academic astronomy meeting...
/sarcasm]
That analogy doesn't work very well, primarily because (unlike for natural selection and ID) the subject matter of astronomy and astrology isn't the same. Astronomy is the observational and theoretical study of celestial bodies and the universe, whilst astrology deals with the purported influence of these celestial bodies on human affairs. Astrology is therefore in principle incapable of pointing to supposed gaps or flaws in the observations and theories of astronomy. Also, of course, ID hasn't been historically superseded by natural selection – it arose in response and is a live adversary to be combated.


The thing is, I don't necessarily think Dr. Behe is a bad guy. I think he just took the concept of scientific skepticism and went way too far with it, jumping to the wrong conclusions altogether. As you probably gathered from my synopsis of the lecture, and the discussion that went on before it, he doesn't use the same weak arguments as other ID-ers, and thus can't be approached assuming that he does. Consciously or not though, he's being used as a tool by the people who truly are trying to push a purely religious agenda by way of intelligent design.

It's reminiscent of Philip Gosse and Omphalos (http://www.strangescience.net/gosse.htm). Behe's (startlingly arrogant!) belief that he's the man to reconcile fundamentalist religious belief with current science was no doubt genuine to begin with. Both Gosse and Behe were ridiculed and rejected by scientists, but the difference is that Gosse was also rebuffed by the religious establishment whilst Behe has got a following of religious activists to bolster his delusions and errors (and, I would say, intellectual dishonesty).

Perhaps religious folk were more honest or discerning in 19th century Britain than 21st century USA.


I also now understand that intelligent design can serve a purpose. Whether intentionally or not, by pushing for a debate / controversy with evolutionary theory, intelligent design is practically a way to ensure that evolution is taught. After all, in order to counter the faulty claims and reasoning of ID, one must learn about evolution to a sufficient extent. I know this was the case with me, where I found myself relearning all the stuff we did in AP Biology.

ID is not the threat it tries to make itself out to be. Good science involves constant questioning and the challenging of currently established theories. Even if they don't realize it, all the cdesign proponentsists out there are actually serving to temper and strengthen evolutionary science and our understanding thereof.

Agreed too, and I think that's one of the few, if only benefits of ID. By pointing out gaps in either our knowledge of biology (or at least in how that knowledge is being communicated) they help encourage further study to close the gap or to communicate the actual facts more accurately.
I think there are several benefits. We sharpen our intellectual faculties by confronting rival ideas, even if these ideas have no merit. I have found this from some of my attempts on this forum to dislodge firmly-held misconceptions, especially in the topics of evolution and genetics, from the understanding of non-scientists. As we develop better ways of arguing, these often translate into better ways of thinking.

Also, as Silentknight says, the constant attacks from IDers have had an effect in raising the profile of evolution with the public.

[Meadmaker]

I think there are several benefits. We sharpen our intellectual faculties by confronting rival ideas, even if these ideas have no merit.

That's basically what keeps me on forums. I long ago realized that my opinions weren't all that important in the grand scheme of things, but I try to find ways of discussing them with others in an attempt to find a way to break through their defenses, and figure out arguments that actually work, as opposed to saying, "You're stupid!"

That's what I found impressive about SilentKnight's question. By twisting it just a little bit from the conventional argument, he apparently threw Behe off guard, just a tiny bit. Behe could have come back with some variation of, "We can't see the designer in action, because his work is done," but that would have forced him to make a conjecture about the designer, which would have made him inch a bit closer to acknowledging that, all pretense aside, his designer is really God.

[Gregoire]

Originally Posted by Silentknight
One professor said he's actually grateful for ID and people like Behe, because he believes science should be open to debate and questioning.

Gregoire responds to what this professor said
So then it would be OK to discuss astrology "theories" at the next academic astronomy meeting...
/sarcasm]




That analogy doesn't work very well, primarily because (unlike for natural selection and ID) the subject matter of astronomy and astrology isn't the same. Astronomy is the observational and theoretical study of celestial bodies and the universe, whilst astrology deals with the purported influence of these celestial bodies on human affairs. Astrology is therefore in principle incapable of pointing to supposed gaps or flaws in the observations and theories of astronomy. Also, of course, ID hasn't been historically superseded by natural selection – it arose in response and is a live adversary to be combated.

Maybe I was being too obscure. I was referring to his testimony at Dover where he admitted under cross examination that his concept of what Science is includes Astrology. :)




...... the constant attacks from IDers have had an effect in raising the profile of evolution with the public.

I agree with this and in fact I, like many others on the forum, have taken the time to read a great deal about the ID controversy. I have learned a lot and am now much more secure in the reasons why I accept evolution.

I am not against controversy. I just think we need to distinguish between questions of Science and questions of Philosophy.

To say random mutation and natural selection cannot explain all of evolution is a scientific statement which can be tested. To say the actions of a god must be the alternative "explanation" is a philosophical statement insofar as we cannot empirically test for this god entity.

[Gregoire]

Quoting from The Blind Watchmaker, one of my favorite books:


"When it comes to feeling awe over living 'watches' I yield to nobody. I feel much more in common with the Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published. 'What about Hume?', replied the philosopher. 'How did Hume explain the organised complexity of the living world?', I asked. 'He didn't', said the philosopher. 'Why does it need any special explanation?'
Paley knew that it needed a special explanation. Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too."


"The minimum requirement for us to recognise an object as an animal or plant is that it should succeed in making a living of some sort. It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living – flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive."



Thanks for the time you have put into giving us an excerpt of what I feel is a very important book.

Interestingly, when Behe was recently on the podcast Point of Inquiry, he referred to this very passage from Dawkin's book, using it in a very different way than it was intended.

Dr. Behe claimed that even professor Dawkins admits that nature "looks" designed, and so design is really the default hypothesis. He states that it is only Darwin's theory which leads us to a naturalistic explaination of evolution. Therefore, he argues, any claim against Darwin must be an argument to go back again to the default design hyposthesis.

Again, I think this is blurring the line between Science and Philosophy ( not to mention it ignores all the advances we have made since 1859.)

[Lucky]

That's basically what keeps me on forums. I long ago realized that my opinions weren't all that important in the grand scheme of things, but I try to find ways of discussing them with others in an attempt to find a way to break through their defenses, and figure out arguments that actually work, as opposed to saying, "You're stupid!"

That's what I found impressive about SilentKnight's question. By twisting it just a little bit from the conventional argument, he apparently threw Behe off guard, just a tiny bit. Behe could have come back with some variation of, "We can't see the designer in action, because his work is done," but that would have forced him to make a conjecture about the designer, which would have made him inch a bit closer to acknowledging that, all pretense aside, his designer is really God.
Hmm ... not sure what keeps me here. I tend to post in topics that have at least something a bit new for me. I'm interested in refining my own understanding and, as you say, working out new ways to communicate and (hopefully) educate - not in showing off my erudition through a lecture (or bludgeoning my opponent into submission).

I agree about Silentknight's question – would be hard to think of a better one.


I am not against controversy. I just think we need to distinguish between questions of Science and questions of Philosophy.

To say random mutation and natural selection cannot explain all of evolution is a scientific statement which can be tested. To say the actions of a god must be the alternative "explanation" is a philosophical statement insofar as we cannot empirically test for this god entity.
I don't think there's a clear distinction. Or, rather, the distinction is between technology and philosophy. Science contains (and supports) aspects of both. Where science attempts to provide a mental model of how the universe works (as it should), it verges on philosophy. It's evident, though, that many people don't understand that they have to grasp the basics before they can (fruitfully) venture into the philosophy.

As for the 'god entity', I'd say that any postulated 'fact' about the universe falls within the province of science, and can, in principle, be tested. That includes ID's 'designer' - it's up to the proponents to devise suitable tests.


Interestingly, when Behe was recently on the podcast Point of Inquiry, he referred to this very passage from Dawkin's book, using it in a very different way than it was intended.

Dr. Behe claimed that even professor Dawkins admits that nature "looks" designed, and so design is really the default hypothesis. He states that it is only Darwin's theory which leads us to a naturalistic explaination of evolution. Therefore, he argues, any claim against Darwin must be an argument to go back again to the default design hyposthesis.

Again, I think this is blurring the line between Science and Philosophy ( not to mention it ignores all the advances we have made since 1859.)

Well, Dawkins did say that design was the default hypothesis – and went on to show that it was superseded 150 years ago! The Blind Watchmaker makes the point better than anything else I've read that there are two major errors in thinking about biological complexity – thinking that the explanation must be conscious design, and thinking that it doesn't need a special explanation. Since The Origin of Species there's no excuse for perpetuating either of these errors.

The problem with the IDers' so-called 'evidence against Darwinism' is that they are inconsistent (i.e. dishonest) about how widely they interpret 'Darwinism'. It's obvious to us (and doubtless to them, though they won't admit it) that 'Darwinism' contains a lot of subsidiary theories and hypotheses about mechanisms and specifics. Evidence against any one of these (which evolutionary biologists deal with all the time) is evidence against 'Darwinism' only if you temporarily re-define 'Darwinism' to mean just that specific theory or hypothesis. They might argue that the modified overall theory, having accommodated the new evidence or objection, is no longer 'Darwinism', but that's just pointless playing with words (whatever it is, it ain't ID).