Richard Dawkins' review of Michael Behe's book

[Questioninggeller]

Randi pointed readers to Dawkins' review of (http://randi.org/jr/2007-06/062907.html#i1) Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution. The Discovery Institute wasted no time and issued a press release attacking Dawkins (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/dawkins_attacks_behe_in_new_yo.html) on June 27, 2007 (Dawkins' article will be published July 1, 2007) claiming the article is "patchwork of fallacies devoid of science." Also speaking of patchwork, Behe's treatment of quotes in his new book is discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85800).

Behe reviews Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_ancestorstalereview_0506.htm) in The American Spectator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Spectator) (April 1, 2005) in which Behe writes "The second major defect of the book is that, other than a dust jacket photo of the author, it has no high quality, color photographs". A "major defect" of a science book is its lack of quality pictures?

ETA, this from 2002:

RI: Have you heard from Richard Dawkins?

Michael Behe: No, I haven't heard directly from Dawkins, but I have heard indirectly about what he thinks about my book. A public TV show named "Think Tank" was interested in setting up a debate between Dawkins and myself. They asked if I would be willing to participate, and I happily said yes. And they approached Richard Dawkins, but he refused to appear with me, saying he was insufficiently versed in biochemistry to address the issue. But then the TV show asked Dawkins to appear by himself on the show, which he did. During the interview, which I had an opportunity to see recently, the show host asked him about my book. He seemed to grasp the idea of irreducible complexity pretty well. However, he said it was cowardly and lazy of me to come to a conclusion of intelligent design, and he said that if I thought for myself I would realize that there must be a Darwinian explanation out there somewhere, and I should get off my duff and go out and find it.

Certainly Richard Dawkins is entitled to his strongly held opinions. But, in fact, from the evidence, I think intelligent design is the best explanation. And it's not a matter of whether I like the idea or not, or whether I like to sleep late and am lazy, rather it's that Darwinism is barking up the wrong tree and I think a better scientific explanation is design.

I hope to meet with Richard Dawkins in the future, though.


Link (http://www.origins.org/articles/behe_evolutionofaskeptic.html)

[Puppycow]

Another review of Behe's book (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807) by Jerry Coyne in TNR.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Amazon.com page (http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7140940-0460900?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183095764&sr=8-1) has some interesting commentary from Behe, Ken Miller and some intelligent reviewers.

[Questioninggeller]

The NY Times link is available: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html?ref=review&pagewanted=all

This stuck out:

Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as “trivial” the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?

And this:

The best way to find out is for Behe to submit a mathematical paper to The Journal of Theoretical Biology, say, or The American Naturalist, whose editors would send it to qualified referees.

[Wowbagger]

And they approached Richard Dawkins, but he refused to appear with me, saying he was insufficiently versed in biochemistry to address the issue.This seems like an oddly B.S. answer, to me. Richard Dawkins probably knows sufficient biochemistry to establish the facts necessary to demonstrate a convergence of evidence pointing to evolution as a solution, even if he doesn't know all the nitty-gritty details. (He does this in the Ancestor's Tale, a little bit, afterall.)

I'll bet the real reasons he doesn't want to debate Behe are:
1. It won't be a real scientific debate. It will be science vs. a philosophy, and you can't "prove wrong" a philosophy.
2. He is still afraid Behe will unfairly declare "victory", even though Behe will have no emperically measurable evidence behind his ideas. (It could be deemed a "victory" by his followers, simply because the debate took place.)
3. He just doesn't like debating the intellectually insane and dishonest.

[The Mad Hatter]

And they approached Richard Dawkins, but he refused to appear with me, saying he was insufficiently versed in biochemistry to address the issue.Does anyone know if this is correct? I thought Dawkins refused to debate creationists/IDers no matter what.

Edit: whoops, I see Wowbagger just beat me to it.

[BillyJoe]

Richard Dawkins did not publically debate Michael Behe over his book "Darwin's Black Box" because, as he says, biochemistry is not his field of expertise. He should have no hesitation debating Behe over his most recent book "The Edge of Evolution" because, here, Behe is speaking outside his area of expertise and right in Dawkins' area of expertise. In fact, he should issue a challenge.

[Questioninggeller]

Another review of Behe's book (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807) by Jerry Coyne in TNR.

Here's that article listed at Dawkins' website: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic

[arthwollipot]

Behe reviews Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_ancestorstalereview_0506.htm) in The American Spectator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Spectator) (April 1, 2005) in which Behe writes "The second major defect of the book is that, other than a dust jacket photo of the author, it has no high quality, color photographs". A "major defect" of a science book is its lack of quality pictures?

Interesting. My copy (which I am re-reading at the moment) has five sets of high-quality colour plates (each set has five pages and containing two or three colour pictures per page) spaced throughout the book. And the dust jacket photo is in black-and-white. These plates are referred to by number in the text.

I wonder whether Behe has been reading the same book?

[rustytunes]

This seems like an oddly B.S. answer, to me. Richard Dawkins probably knows sufficient biochemistry to establish the facts necessary to demonstrate a convergence of evidence pointing to evolution as a solution, even if he doesn't know all the nitty-gritty details. (He does this in the Ancestor's Tale, a little bit, afterall.)

I'll bet the real reasons he doesn't want to debate Behe are:
1. It won't be a real scientific debate. It will be science vs. a philosophy, and you can't "prove wrong" a philosophy.
2. He is still afraid Behe will unfairly declare "victory", even though Behe will have no emperically measurable evidence behind his ideas. (It could be deemed a "victory" by his followers, simply because the debate took place.)
3. He just doesn't like debating the intellectually insane and dishonest.
I have heard Dawkins say that he avoids such debates because it can unduely give the opponent's position the perception of credibility, or shows that there is a controversy where there is in fact none, or should be none.

[BillyJoe]

It's a conundrum all right. Don't debate them and let them get away with their nonsense. Debate them and give them unwarranted publicity. I think the odds falls in favour of debate. For the fence sitters.

[ChristineR]

Most of the serious debating now is being done by people like Richard Spencer and Massimo Pigluicci, who know their stuff but engage these guys on their own level. Here's my paraphrase of an exchange between Pigliucci and Richard Allen.

Allen: Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics--
Pigliucci: How many laws of thermodynamics are there?
Allen: Uh, four, I think.
Pigliucci: There are four. Name them.
Allen: Well, the second law states--
Pigliucci: You don't know them. Why should I listen to you when you talk about thermodynamics when you don't know anything about it? I don't claim to be an expert on thermodynamics. The experts say evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Allen: Well, I don't know about that.
Pigliucci: Who says evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics? What respectable textbook, written by scientists says that? Which peer reviewed papers say that?

And this sort of thing goes on for a while....

[Soapy Sam]

This seems like an oddly B.S. answer, to me. Richard Dawkins probably knows sufficient biochemistry to establish the facts necessary to demonstrate a convergence of evidence pointing to evolution as a solution, even if he doesn't know all the nitty-gritty details. (He does this in the Ancestor's Tale, a little bit, afterall.)

I'll bet the real reasons he doesn't want to debate Behe are:
1. It won't be a real scientific debate. It will be science vs. a philosophy, and you can't "prove wrong" a philosophy.
2. He is still afraid Behe will unfairly declare "victory", even though Behe will have no emperically measurable evidence behind his ideas. (It could be deemed a "victory" by his followers, simply because the debate took place.)
3. He just doesn't like debating the intellectually insane and dishonest.

Dawkins and the late Stephen J Gould agreed that appearing in public debate with creationists merely leant their silliness a degree of "scientific" cachet in the popular press, since it seemed to lay people that real scientists felt there was a case to answer.

[Questioninggeller]

Most of the serious debating now is being done by people like Richard Spencer and Massimo Pigluicci, who know their stuff but engage these guys on their own level. Here's my paraphrase of an exchange between Pigliucci and Richard Allen.

Allen: Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics--
Pigliucci: How many laws of thermodynamics are there?
Allen: Uh, four, I think.
Pigliucci: There are four. Name them.
Allen: Well, the second law states--
Pigliucci: You don't know them. Why should I listen to you when you talk about thermodynamics when you don't know anything about it? I don't claim to be an expert on thermodynamics. The experts say evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Allen: Well, I don't know about that.
Pigliucci: Who says evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics? What respectable textbook, written by scientists says that? Which peer reviewed papers say that?

And this sort of thing goes on for a while....

I'll have to find the audio for that. Listen to Pigliucci debate Hovind: http://richarddawkins.net/article,606,Evolution-Debate---Pigliucci-vs-Hovind,Infidel-Guy

[ChristineR]

I'll have to find the audio for that. Listen to Pigliucci debate Hovind: http://richarddawkins.net/article,606,Evolution-Debate---Pigliucci-vs-Hovind,Infidel-Guy

It's from Infidel Guy iTunes. I'm not sure if there's a way to link to it or not.

[BillyJoe]

Dawkins and the late Stephen J Gould agreed that appearing in public debate with creationists merely leant their silliness a degree of "scientific" cachet in the popular press, since it seemed to lay people that real scientists felt there was a case to answer.


But they are wrong aren't they?
The biggest publicity they ever got was the Dover trial. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

A "major defect" of a science book is its lack of quality pictures?


I'd categorize it more in popular reading than a science book, which is why it is has "tale" in the title.

[Questioninggeller]

I'd categorize it more in popular reading than a science book, which is why it is has "tale" in the title.

You mean "popular science"? It isn't fiction and its not a text book, but it is science. Behe didn't criticize what section of the book store its in (its under "science").

[BillyJoe]

Personally, I can't stand reading books without big glossy pictures. :rolleyes:

[Juustin]

Ha. No pictures, I like that. How many pictures are there in the bible again?

Is it odd to anyone else that all the sudden Behe has God (I'm sorry, some yet unnamed 'designor') contained to simply causing mutations? It seems like without actually saying "I admit it, I was wrong" he seems like he's backed off a lot of his old rhetoric and hoped no one would notice. I should note, I'm going by the review in TNR, not by the book itself; although I'm curious to read it now. How long until the fundies start turning on him?

[dakotajudo]

Interesting. My copy (which I am re-reading at the moment) has five sets of high-quality colour plates (each set has five pages and containing two or three colour pictures per page) spaced throughout the book. And the dust jacket photo is in black-and-white. These plates are referred to by number in the text.

I wonder whether Behe has been reading the same book?

It might be useful to include the full quote from Behe's review:

Even the driest biology textbook these days includes plenty of spectacular photos and illustrations, which often can entice reluctant students into reading the text. Yet The Ancestor’s Tale grudges only the occasional, tiny, black and white photo or graph to accompany the discussion. This really is unforgivable, because it works against the whole purpose of Dawkins’ book — to evoke wonder at life. One figure legend touting “rustling rivers of green” refers to a black and white photo of leaf cutter ants. It’s hard to even puzzle out what’s going on in some pictures, such as those of the upside-down catfish (looked at from any angle) or Heron Island (what is that thing? a cell? a kidney?). The poor photos make it impossible to share Dawkins’ rapture over Venus’s girdle or the leafy sea dragon — they’re splotches of ink. Although Dawkins’ prose beats textbook writing by a mile, the texts win hands down on illustrations. All in all, then, I’d recommend a high school biology textbook over The Ancestor’s Tale, because great pictures of life can more than compensate for stodgy prose.


Maybe Behe is stuck at a high school reading level? Or he thought he was asked to write at textbook review? I don't know, perhaps Dawkin's intended audience doesn't include the "reluctant student"?

I dunno; "The Ancestor's Tale" is on my front bookshelf (where I put the books I hope to reread); I've got a pretty good general biology text (from when I taught a general biology course) - it's in the back room. It's got a lot of pretty pictures, but it's not something I'd sit and read for pleasure.

And, for what it's worth, my copy of TAT doesn't have color plates.

[thaiboxerken]

Public debate on these issues only serve the creationists because most people don't understand logic. They don't understand a logical fallacy even when it's explained to them. Pascal's Wager, irreducible complexity and other nonsense makes perfect sense to a majority of people when presented to them, even when the fallacies of logic are pointed out. That's why I think Dawkins doesn't even entertain the notion of a public debate.

[fuelair]

I am guessing (because Amazon doesn't, on quick look, say) that there are editions (probably paperback) that have the pics in b&w and ones (assumably hardback) that have them in color. Otherwise, someone is wrong.

[CFLarsen]

I'd categorize it more in popular reading than a science book, which is why it is has "tale" in the title.

So, you've read it, huh?

[Jon.]

It might be useful to include the full quote from Behe's review:



Maybe Behe is stuck at a high school reading level? Or he thought he was asked to write at textbook review? I don't know, perhaps Dawkin's intended audience doesn't include the "reluctant student"?

I dunno; "The Ancestor's Tale" is on my front bookshelf (where I put the books I hope to reread); I've got a pretty good general biology text (from when I taught a general biology course) - it's in the back room. It's got a lot of pretty pictures, but it's not something I'd sit and read for pleasure.

And, for what it's worth, my copy of TAT doesn't have color plates.

I don't remember colour plates from the copy of TAT I got from the library, and it was definitely hardcover. I may have skipped them, though, because I was really more interested in the text.

And I think that's a big point here. Creationists like pictures of pretty plants and animals, because they can point and say "Ooh, beautiful! Our God truly is a wondrous God!". Leaving out the pictures makes that kind of approach impossible. I don't think for a moment that Behe would ever use a Dawkins book for that purpose, but he's probably so used to that kind of approach that he misses it when it's not there.

[arthwollipot]

I am guessing (because Amazon doesn't, on quick look, say) that there are editions (probably paperback) that have the pics in b&w and ones (assumably hardback) that have them in color. Otherwise, someone is wrong.

My edition is paperback. And I got it wrong before. There are four sets of colour plates (not five), 50 plates in all. It also says "This paperback edition published in 2005" on the title page. I can't find any of Behe's "ink splotches". The colour plate of the Leafy Sea Dragon is utterly beautiful, appearing right underneath the coelocanth. On page 478 there is a black and white drawing of a cnidarian harpoon, and it is marvellously detailed.

So yeah. I think Behe's reading a completely different book.

[ChristineR]

Hovind vs Piglicci on video for three hours!

http://www.3bible.com/video.php

The site is actually the motherlode of all things Hovind. If you happen to watch some and you become a creationist as a result, be sure to let Kent know.

[Questioninggeller]

Thanks for the link.

[Questioninggeller]

Hovind vs Piglicci on video for three hours!

http://www.3bible.com/video.php

The site is actually the motherlode of all things Hovind. If you happen to watch some and you become a creationist as a result, be sure to let Kent know.

Frustrating to watch for three reasons:

1) Hovind's speech. Hovind can't define evolution (much less science), he misleads, he straight out lies, and brings up completely unrelated material. He keeps telling an evolutionist biologist that the scientist doesn't understand science.

2) Hovind's slides. Using outdated science from 100+ years ago, out of context quotes, creationist material (from Walt Brown, Ron Wyatt, Carl Baugh, material from the ICR, and so on), claims from Reader's Digest, using the wrong images, and using fraudulent quotes.

3) Moderator. The moderator refers to Hovind as a "Dr."; Hovind is not a "Dr."

Piglicci is a very tolerant person since he did not talk back the many times Hovind calls him ignorant.

[JoeEllison]

Behe is, from any perspective, a complete joke, a worthless scientist, and a discredit to any cause he undertakes to support. We could quote creationist crybabies all day, and yet the fact remains that Behe has made a mockery of science, and the least-educated among us can cut his arguments to ribbons. A judge managed to do it pretty easily, after all.

[BillyJoe]

Not only that, but his name is pronounced "beehee" :D

[articulett]

The review is available hear:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1360,Inferior-Design,Richard-Dawkins

Behe says this in his book:
"By far the most critical aspect of Darwin's multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept."

And Dawkins responds:

What a bizarre thing to say! Leave aside the history: unacquainted with genetics, Darwin set no store by randomness. New variants might arise at random, or they might be acquired characteristics induced by food, for all Darwin knew. Far more important for Darwin was the nonrandom process whereby some survived but others perished. Natural selection is arguably the most momentous idea ever to occur to a human mind, because it — alone as far as we know — explains the elegant illusion of design that pervades the living kingdoms and explains, in passing, us. Whatever else it is, natural selection is not a "modest" idea, nor is descent with modification.

It's a great review...especially the part about the dogs. Behe does everything possible to make sure people don't understand natural selection and he seems to succeed on occasion. He uses so many words to say so little and has that special blend of arrogance and ignorance that are so readily apparent in the faithful.

[Quakeulf]

Not only that, but his name is pronounced "beehee" :D

Not as in behemoth? Oh well, you learn something every day(tm).

[Mojo]

I have heard Dawkins say that he avoids such debates because it can unduely give the opponent's position the perception of credibility, or shows that there is a controversy where there is in fact none, or should be none.


Another problem is that a public debate is not really an appropriate forum for arriving at the truth. Participants can make claims that appear impressive, and their opponents may be unable to properly examine these claims. It will tend to come down to whoever can make the more impressive speech.

[JoeEllison]

Not only that, but his name is pronounced "beehee" :D
Oh, yes, and he has a funny-sounding name. How could I have left that out?:)

[BillyJoe]

We all sincerely apologise to, and commiserate with, anyone on the forum with the same name. :cool:

[Curnir]

Interesting. My copy (which I am re-reading at the moment) has five sets of high-quality colour plates (each set has five pages and containing two or three colour pictures per page) spaced throughout the book. And the dust jacket photo is in black-and-white. These plates are referred to by number in the text.

I wonder whether Behe has been reading the same book?

Maybe he "read" the audio book?

[homer]

Where do you stop with debate with loonies ? Does a chemist have to debate an alchemist or a doctor debate the merits of leaches ? I don't think so and creationism is about as valid as belief in a flat earth and not worthy of debate .

[articulett]

Oh, yes, and he has a funny-sounding name. How could I have left that out?:)

It rhymes with "tee-hee" (denotes a giggle).

I think this illustrates why mockery is better then letting them think science gives a damn about their unsupported hypothesis and endless words that say nothing at all. Shall we publicly debate the plausibility of Xenu or the Muslim creationist story. I say let all creationists slug it out and debate each other, and when they have one story about creation they can all agree on and a modicum of evidence other than "I can't understand how it could happen the way scientists say"--then maybe debating them might be worthwhile. Until that moment, I think they should only be engaged for amusement purposes. No amount of evidence will convince them, they cannot understand the information presented, and the truth isn't won via appeals to ignorance and emotionalism. Facts just go on being the facts whether people understand them or not.

Creationists spend so much time proving evolution wrong that they get hung up on some little area and they fritter away all their energy there. And then they show a complete and utter lack of curiosity at all the new discoveries that genome decoding is bringing us every day. The rest of the scientific world is excited by this stuff. But creationists never seem to care. Their "intelligent designer" doesn't like them biting from "the tree of knowledge".

[JoeEllison]

It rhymes with "tee-hee" (denotes a giggle).

I think this illustrates why mockery is better then letting them think science gives a damn about their unsupported hypothesis and endless words that say nothing at all.

Or, you know... turn the debate to a discussion of the psychology behind the rejection of reality, and what sort of mental states are required to do so.

[articulett]

Or, you know... turn the debate to a discussion of the psychology behind the rejection of reality, and what sort of mental states are required to do so.

There was this great book on the subject called When Prophesy Fails...

http://www.whenprophecyfails.org/

You'd think that doomsday cults would disband after the end of the world fails to happen, but believers will often believe more. The more ridicule and so forth you suffer for a belief, the more your brain invents reasons why it must be true. Kind of like hazing makes allegiance to a group--

It is a very interesting phenomena. I think. Michael Behe's Amazon Blog is a nice case study... http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKMTTP938HTSPI

It's just very severe confirmation bias I imagine...they've been propping up a certain notion so long, that it stays propped up even when no evidence is available. In some ways it reminds me of talking to a shizophrenic...they sound like they should be making sense, and yet what they actually say makes them sound like they are participating in a conversation very different than anyone else. You have this notion that you can correct their error with a simple fact, but you can't...because they have no curiosity for anything that means their delusion might need some work. They put all their energy into rejecting reality, and there's nothing left for learning all the cool things that science is uncovering.

[JoeEllison]

There was this great book on the subject called When Prophesy Fails...

http://www.whenprophecyfails.org/

You'd think that doomsday cults would disband after the end of the world fails to happen, but believers will often believe more. The more ridicule and so forth you suffer for a belief, the more your brain invents reasons why it must be true. Kind of like hazing makes allegiance to a group--

It is a very interesting phenomena. I think. Michael Behe's Amazon Blog is a nice case study... http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKMTTP938HTSPI

It's just very severe confirmation bias I imagine...they've been propping up a certain notion so long, that it stays propped up even when no evidence is available. In some ways it reminds me of talking to a shizophrenic...they sound like they should be making sense, and yet what they actually say makes them sound like they are participating in a conversation very different than anyone else. You have this notion that you can correct their error with a simple fact, but you can't...because they have no curiosity for anything that means their delusion might need some work. They put all their energy into rejecting reality, and there's nothing left for learning all the cool things that science is uncovering.
That's why I think that there's little use in providing evidence of whatever foolish belief they have latched onto, and it is much more interesting to examine the way the beliefs spread and reinforce themselves.

Of course, it is important and informative to note that part of all of these foolish beliefs is the idea that there's a huge conspiracy of people trying to cover up the "truth", or attack those who speak the "truth" because of evil motives. So, every attempt to correct their mistaken beliefs is seen as proof of their beliefs, which always include a persecution complex.

[arthwollipot]

Where do you stop with debate with loonies ? Does a chemist have to debate an alchemist or a doctor debate the merits of leaches ? I don't think so and creationism is about as valid as belief in a flat earth and not worthy of debate .

That's a nice theory, but it runs down in practice. First, creationists are incredibly passionate people. They truly believe that evolution is leading their children straight to hell and that they have a moral obligation - nay, a commandment to stop it. Second, they have a lot of political power in the US, and have many times tried to get evolution banned from public schools. Their passion has the potential to set American science education back a hundred years. I for one do not much like that idea.

Sure, ignore them if you want, but that only gives them the authority and opportunity to hobble the education of your children. It's what Phillip Zimbardo calls "the evil of inaction".

Speak up and be heard. Or they win.

[BillyJoe]

Nicely put.

[arthwollipot]

Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

That's a nice theory, but it runs down in practice. First, creationists are incredibly passionate people. They truly believe that evolution is leading their children straight to hell and that they have a moral obligation - nay, a commandment to stop it. Second, they have a lot of political power in the US, and have many times tried to get evolution banned from public schools. Their passion has the potential to set American science education back a hundred two thousand years. I for one do not much like that idea.

Sure, ignore them if you want, but that only gives them the authority and opportunity to hobble the education of your children. It's what Phillip Zimbardo calls "the evil of inaction".

Speak up and be heard. Or they win.

Fixed it for you.

[articulett]

That's a nice theory, but it runs down in practice. First, creationists are incredibly passionate people. They truly believe that evolution is leading their children straight to hell and that they have a moral obligation - nay, a commandment to stop it. Second, they have a lot of political power in the US, and have many times tried to get evolution banned from public schools. Their passion has the potential to set American science education back a hundred years. I for one do not much like that idea.

Sure, ignore them if you want, but that only gives them the authority and opportunity to hobble the education of your children. It's what Phillip Zimbardo calls "the evil of inaction".

Speak up and be heard. Or they win.

And the irony is--creationism and religiosity is directly related to societal dysfunction, while acceptance of evolution is strongly correlated with societal
health: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

But I worry that debating them gives them the look of credibility. I think mockery might be more useful. And kids take to it better. Of course, all efforts at battling the ignorance spread by those who claim to speak for the creator of the universe is an effort well spent. I hope we don't have to wait as long as Galileo did for their stranglehold on science to wither away.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But they are wrong aren't they?
The biggest publicity they ever got was the Dover trial.
Except that a trial is not a debate. The judge got to declare ID a load of crap without having to debate it.

~~ Paul

[egslim]

But I worry that debating them gives them the look of credibility. I think mockery might be more useful.
I agree. Part of the issue is that many people don't appreciate the power of logical arguments. Instead they are swayed by a forceful presentaton, appeals to emotion or their deity of choice.

For example, I can logically prove homosexuality is a common natural phenomenon by pointing out a long list of species observed of engaging in it. But my fundamentalist opponent would merely state the bible's claim that it's wrong.
So most people here would say I won the debate by using logical arguments, while most fundamentalists would say my opponent won by citing a reference to the bible. And many fence sitters would agree with whoever of us gave the most confident and forceful interpretation.

I think there are two ways to convince people that ID is BS: Either teach everyone the power of logic and evidence based science (too hard or unpleasent for many) or use their own kind of arguments - appeals to emotion, forceful presentation, religious references, etc.

[T'ai Chi]

Part of the issue is that many people don't appreciate the power of logical arguments. Instead they are swayed by a forceful presentaton, appeals to emotion or their deity of choice.


The downside of this, is that by the same reasoning, you are demanding illogical emotion-filled arguments from people holding opposite opinions, which is rather an odd way to proceed.


I think there are two ways to convince people that ID is BS:


But how can you possibly hope to do that?

ID itself asks if something was designed by an intelligence. This doesn't necessarily bring in anything god-related, although, like evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist", ID can have religious implications. But like the implications of evolution, these implications are aside from the theory itself.

In fact, the logic of ID applies to everyday objects quite well. Is that stone an arrowhead carved out by hunters long ago, or was it created by water and erosion over time?

[CFLarsen]

ID itself asks if something was designed by an intelligence. This doesn't necessarily bring in anything god-related, although, like evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist", ID can have religious implications.

It doesn't really.

Behe himself states that the designer is God.

But like the implications of evolution, these implications are aside from the theory itself.

That's why ID isn't science: Like a religious dogma, it is forbidden to investigate the implications of ID - namely, who the designer is.

In fact, the logic of ID applies to everyday objects quite well. Is that stone an arrowhead carved out by hunters long ago, or was it created by water and erosion over time?

As a Young Earth Creationist, you must take the position that arrowheads are not carved by hunters long ago. They must all be created by water and erosion over time.

[Mojo]

In fact, the logic of ID applies to everyday objects quite well. Is that stone an arrowhead carved out by hunters long ago, or was it created by water and erosion over time?


This is at least a little better than suggesting that it was made by God an unnamed nonhuman designer for which there is no evidence.

[BillyJoe]

Except that a trial is not a debate. The judge got to declare ID a load of crap without having to debate it.


Fair enough.

[egslim]

The downside of this, is that by the same reasoning, you are demanding illogical emotion-filled arguments from people holding opposite opinions, which is rather an odd way to proceed.
I'm not demanding illogical arguments, my claim is that one needs either illogical arguments for some people or just don't bother with them. The second is a valid option too.

But how can you possibly hope to do that?
There are loads of threads where people have logically explained why ID is BS, and judging from your number of posts you've probably read them. So if they didn't convince you, I won't bother.

[Diamond]

Can I interject that without the debate between creationists and evolutionary biologists we would not have had the Internet motherlode of information known as talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org) ?

I can understand why not debating every kook would be a good idea, but in general, debating well-known creationist proponents and taking their premises head-on has produced more light than heat. The "Scopes Monkey trial" for instance, was seminal in establishing how a bad law can undo the First Amendment and curtail freedom of speech, all the name of religious dogma. (And it made for a great film).

It was debates on creation/evolution lead by Huxley against the religious cranks of his time, that made visible the real travesty of the truth that creationism encapsulates and precipitated the decline of religious thought that continues to this day. Evolutionary theory became all the stronger because of those debates and the religious hostility of the creationists.

[tsg]

That's a nice theory, but it runs down in practice. First, creationists are incredibly passionate people. They truly believe that evolution is leading their children straight to hell and that they have a moral obligation - nay, a commandment to stop it. Second, they have a lot of political power in the US, and have many times tried to get evolution banned from public schools. Their passion has the potential to set American science education back a hundred years. I for one do not much like that idea.

Sure, ignore them if you want, but that only gives them the authority and opportunity to hobble the education of your children. It's what Phillip Zimbardo calls "the evil of inaction".

Speak up and be heard. Or they win.

I don't disagree with this, but there are other ways of speaking up than engaging in a public debate with the intellectually dishonest. Publicly criticizing their publications based on the science (or lack thereof) is one.

The chief argument against debating creationists is that scientific validity isn't decided by how well one person can convince an audience of laymen. Public debates have as much place in deciding the truth of evolution as an arm-wrestling contest has in choosing who should be President.

[tsg]

In fact, the logic of ID applies to everyday objects quite well. Is that stone an arrowhead carved out by hunters long ago, or was it created by water and erosion over time?

The Watchmaker argument was debunked long ago, TC.

First, stone arrowheads are inorganic. They don't reproduce. There is nothing for natural selection to work on. Comparing them to organic life is a false analogy.

Second, we understand the design of a stone arrowhead because we already know about arrowheads without finding one made of stone.

Third, we know the people who made stone arrowheads existed without finding the stone arrowhead. That is, the arrowhead is evidence of a particular arrowhead maker, but not the sole evidence for arrowhead makers (ie people) in general. As opposed to the "designer" of life whom we've never seen and can only infer his existence from this supposed design.

Fourth, the evidence that the arrowhead was made rather than formed naturally isn't confined to the arrowhead itself. Archeologists have also found the tools used to make them, the sites where they made them (including the chipped off bits), and have successfully reproduced the techniques used to make them.

Lastly, the whole argument is inherently flawed in that it devolves into the statement "this couldn't have formed naturally, therefore neither could the stuff that did."

[arthwollipot]

Bored now. Can we return to talking about Richard Dawkins' review of Michael Behe's book instead of talking about T'ai Chi? There are other threads for that.

Did anyone see Behe on The Colbert Report?

[articulett]

Bored now. Can we return to talking about Richard Dawkins' review of Michael Behe's book instead of talking about T'ai Chi? There are other threads for that.

Did anyone see Behe on The Colbert Report?

He's here on the August 3rd link... http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/

same ol' Behe... dodgy about the designer... lots of pedantry... very little info... ICE redux...

On the other hand... I am madly in love with Stephen Colbert...

[arthwollipot]

Colbert rocks.

[BillyJoe]

All the objects used to support ID, such as watches and arrowheads, are already part of the theory of evolution.

Read Dawkins' "The Extended Phenotype".

That was written a few decades ago.

[Darat]

Split the er... whatever it is was... to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2752479#post2752479 - get back on topic folks.

[tracer]

I don't think so and creationism is about as valid as belief in a flat earth and not worthy of debate .

Not only is the Earth flat, it's square (http://www.rogermwilcox.name/square_earth.html).

[Mojo]

Not only is the Earth flat, it's square (http://www.rogermwilcox.name/square_earth.html).


The lack of coloured text and differently sized fonts is a bit of a giveaway.

[BillyJoe]

...then why don't the people on the other side fall off.

[tsg]

...then why don't the people on the other side fall off.

There is no other side.

[BillyJoe]

....you flip it over and it disappears :eek:

[JJM]

Randi pointed readers to Dawkins' review of (http://randi.org/jr/2007-06/062907.html#i1) Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution. The Discovery Institute wasted no time and issued a press release attacking Dawkins (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/dawkins_attacks_behe_in_new_yo.html) on June 27, 2007 (Dawkins' article will be published July 1, 2007) claiming the article is "patchwork of fallacies devoid of science." Also speaking of patchwork, Behe's treatment of quotes in his new book is discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85800). {snip}More recent reviews of Behe's opus minum (did I just invent a new word?) can be found here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/US/645_gross_drubs_behe_in_emthe_ne_10_10_2007.asp

[BillyJoe]

More recent reviews of Behe's opus minum (did I just invent a new word?) can be found here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/US/645_gross_drubs_behe_in_emthe_ne_10_10_2007.asp


A memorable image (from Sean Carroll):

"The continuing futile attacks by evolution's opponents reminds me of another legendary confrontation, that between Arthur and the Black Knight in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The Black Knight, like evolution's challengers, continues to fight even as each of his limbs is hacked off, one by one..."


But beware! (from Jerry Coyne):

"The general reader, at whom The Edge of Evolution is aimed, is unlikely to find the scientific holes in its arguments. Behe writes clearly and engagingly, and someone lacking formal training in biochemistry and evolutionary biology may be easily snowed by his rhetoric."

[tsg]

But beware! (from Jerry Coyne):

Which would be the entire point. They are lying, and they know it.

[BillyJoe]

It could be cognitive dissonance.

In fact, Behe has actually relaxed his view a fair bit.
So much so that the fundamentalists must now be holding him in cognitive dissonance.

[CFLarsen]

It could be cognitive dissonance.

In fact, Behe has actually relaxed his view a fair bit.
So much so that the fundamentalists must now be holding him in cognitive dissonance.

"Slow design"..... :D

[tsg]

It could be cognitive dissonance.

In fact, Behe has actually relaxed his view a fair bit.
So much so that the fundamentalists must now be holding him in cognitive dissonance.

It's all part of the Discovery Institute's "Big Tent" strategy.

The two biggest criticisms of Intelligent Design are that it is bad science and bad creationism.

[arthwollipot]

It could be cognitive dissonance.

In fact, Behe has actually relaxed his view a fair bit.
So much so that the fundamentalists must now be holding him in cognitive dissonance.

That could be because he was totally pwned by Kevin Padian in the Dover trial...

[articulett]

To me, Behe's strategy is to sound sciency and official without really saying anything at all. He just makes it sound like he knows what he's talking about and like evolution is so damn complex, that some god must have done it. His whole strategy seems to be to take the focus of the key point behind Darwin's original theory--natural selection. Because once you understand natural selection--the seeming complexity and design make sense--and god not so necessary... in fact, a little bumbling.

Lots of words used to confuse rather than clarify--to infer god into the gaps.

That's the best strategy they've evolved-- but it's as much a dead end as the rest of them.

ID is always trying to rush in and tell scientists what they can't understand or why they are arrogant to think they do. I can't wait for the lot of them to become relics.

[Ralfy]

The second major defect of the book is that, other than a dust jacket photo of the author, it has no high quality, color photographs". A "major defect" of a science book is its lack of quality pictures?

The UK hardback copy of The Ancestor’s Tale, which I own, is a beautifully illustrated book with many colour plates and photos every few pages. Here is a link to it on the Amazon UK site where you can look inside at a few of the pages…

http://tinyurl.com/2qnbdu

[BillyJoe]

The UK hardback copy of The Ancestor’s Tale, which I own, is a beautifully illustrated book with many colour plates and photos every few pages. Here is a link to it on the Amazon UK site where you can look inside at a few of the pages…


I have the paperback copy.
It has a few line drawings and black and white illustrations. :mad: