Behe Responds
by MikeGeneI hope Eric doesn't mind me forcing him to be a guest contributor, but I thought his announcement shouldn't be buried:
Eric:
FYI to all regarding The Edge of Evolution, Behe has begun to post some responses to reviews by prominent academic Darwinists at his Amazon blog.
He is starting with responses to the reviews by
Jerry Coyne (professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago);
Sean Carroll (professor of developmental biology, University of Wisconsin); and
Michael Ruse (professor of philosophy at Florida State University).
After several other expected major reviews are published in the coming month, he plans to post a comprehensive response.
The blog also includes an early post that provides an interview style series of "Question & Answer With Michael J. Behe".
June 29th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Isn't the post-Wedge world great!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 29, 2007 @ 1:08 am
June 29th, 2007 at 1:33 am
And yet he was given honorary PhD's….
Comment by onething — June 29, 2007 @ 1:33 am
June 29th, 2007 at 1:54 am
I have two interesting interviews (well 25 interesting interviews, but 2 interesting and relevant interviews to the specific topic) coming up in "Darwin or Design ?" and audio book that is soon to be release.
I have an interview with Sean Carroll and it is interesting listening to his choice of language when talking about how EvoDevo works. Specifically in the way "toolkit" is used so easily and appropriately.
I also have one with Mike Behe, who is always interesting to talk to.
Stay tuned for July 15th
Jason
Comment by thesciphishow — June 29, 2007 @ 1:54 am
June 29th, 2007 at 6:52 am
From Ken Miller's Nature review of The Edge of Evolution:
Comment by keiths — June 29, 2007 @ 6:52 am
June 29th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Ken Miller:
So Miller's counter to the idea that "production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site" is implausible amounts to what- homology based arguments? observing a new protein-to-protein binding site? or what?
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2007 @ 7:06 am
June 29th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Bradford,
Literary critics don't rewrite the novels they review. Why should Miller rewrite Behe's book? Isn't it enough to point out Behe's egregious errors?
Comment by keiths — June 29, 2007 @ 7:43 am
June 29th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Before determining if something is an error, much less an egregious one, I want to know what the evidence for the production of new protein-to-protein binding sites is. It's a reasonable question. Did Miller observe it? Is it inferred through circumstantial evidence?
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2007 @ 9:28 am
June 29th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Bradford,
In the review, Miller explains exactly why Behe is in error:
Which of Miller's points do you dispute, and why?
Comment by keiths — June 29, 2007 @ 9:40 am
June 29th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Before Keiths embraces Miller's buffoonery, he might familiarize himself with several areas where Miller erred. It was humorously bad. See: Ken Miller, an honest Darwinist
Furthermore, before Keiths asserts Behe was refuted, I would be interested to know if Keiths has Behe's book. He can a copy for a modest donation at ARN.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 29, 2007 @ 11:00 am
June 29th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Wow. Coyne, Carroll and Ruse are generally highly respectable. It is quite telling that they could barely form one relevant argument among the three of them.
I hate to say it, but so far Matzke's criticism (at PT) seems to be the only one that on it's face really addresses Behe's argument. (and perhaps Miller's - I haven't read it yet)
These three "giants" appear to have punted.
Comment by chunkdz — June 29, 2007 @ 11:14 am
June 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Unfortunately that's the essence of most atheist critics. X or Y has published a critique of Behe, therefore Behe must be in error. There's no evidence Keiths has even critically analyzed Miller's supposed 'rebuttal', he accepts it blindly only because it is consistent with his preconveived ideas.
Comment by Jean — June 29, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Keiths, when you wrote those words, was it penned wtih the first hand experience of actually having read Behe's book? Did you even have Behe's book when you wrote those words?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 29, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Now Miller and then shortly Richard Dawkins. Who else do they have left? My bet is Dawkins (wisely so) will only focus on religion and metaphysics and not even try to touch upon the science or even literature bluff like Miller.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 29, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Keiths, I have not read Behe's new book so I'll not comment further on these specifics other than to observe that when speaking of protein-to-protein new active sites, in general, it is something that is argued rather than directly observed. That has significance to me when evaluating statements of those who would use strong language like lies and egregious to describe Behe's position.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
keiths
Behe actually spends a lot of time discussing cumulative resistance, for example Malarial resistance to pyrimethamine.
What Miller doesn't say is that where a mutation at 220 is absent mutations at two other positions (144 and 160) are present, making it even less probable.
Furthermore, Behe's analysis is not just theoretical it is consistent with observations. If chloroquine resistance can be conferred by sequential mutation as Miller claims, where is the evidence? And given the astronomical numbers of organisms malaria represents, why doesn't chloroquine resistance independently arise more often?
Comment by Jehu — June 29, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Jehu, I have a question. Does Behe or anyone else have a theory explainging why the ID carefully crafted drug resistant malaria parasites to kill millions of children? On another thread, Eric assumed this was a theological question, which is a strange assumption, because of course IDism isn't about religion at all. It sounds like the ID is engaging in biological warfare in Africa; what do you think?
Comment by Aagcobb — June 29, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Aagcobb, those drug resistent parasites have information laden genomes that allow for adjustment to environmental conditions. Do you know of a law of physics that generates symbolic encoding systems?
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
You are assuming that intelligence is an entity.
Many ID proponents see intelligence as an aspect of the universe, not some kind of external entity who deliberately genetically engineers malaria parasites. So your question really only addresses "externalist" flavors of ID, not EAM and the like.
Comment by mcromer — June 29, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Aagcobb,
Your statement is a nonsequitor. "IDism isn't about religion" therefore Behe should explain why Malaria exists? That doesn't makes sense. If ID is not about religion then ID shouldn't concern itself with why Malaria exists, not the other way around.
Furthermore, do you posit that because Malaria kills children it must have evolved by RM+NS? Regardless of the huge mathematical barriers?
I could venture several good scenerious why Malaria exists but they would mostly be theological. ID is concerned with identifying design, not explaining who designed it or why.
Comment by Jehu — June 29, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Hi Jehu,
No, if ID is science, and Behe has scientific evidence that the malaria parasites have been carefully designed to be drug resistent so they can kill more people, that isn't information you simply muse over. If Behe is right, he has identified a terrorist plot to wage biological warfare in Africa, and it is morally incumbent on him to help identify the perpetrators so that strategies to stop them can be developed. OTOH, if the point of ID is just to identify the hand of God at work, then ID critics were right all along.
I'm not aware an of any actual mathematical barriers. Behe's calculations are GIGO. And its not the fact that malaria kills people that leads one to conclude it evolved; its all the evidence that it, and life in general, evolves.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 29, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
No, we don't want to overlook this so let's give you the answer we get in response to the origin of life question. We'll get back to you when the motive is determined. It could take awhile as OOLers have shown.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Aagacob,
Maybe but that is not an issue ID is concerned with.
Tee-hee! You are so clever!
The assumptions behind Behe's calculations are solid and well supported by evidence. If there is some error in them why hasn't anybody pointed them out by now?
Comment by Jehu — June 29, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
"ID is concerned with identifying design, not explaining who designed it or why."
If it has been designed, it was obviously designed to kill people.
As for motive, maybe Satan designed it.
Good as explanation as any other.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Hi Jehu,
Umh, they have. In lots of places.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 29, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Hi Jehu,
So Behe can tell someone designed the malaria parasites to make them more effective child killers, but he is utterly incapable of developing a single shred of information to help authorities find or stop the terrorists behind it. And you wonder why scientists don't take IDism seriously.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 29, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
mcromer said:
Well, the universe definitely contains intelligence (us). And you can view the process of natural selection as a distributed design process, an intelligence that works by trying things (mutation) and picking out the ones that work (selection). So yes, the universe has an aspect of intelligent design, manifested as natural selection. If that's what you mean by ID then there is no quarrel between it and mainstream science.
Comment by mtraven — June 29, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Behe should explain why gravity exists as it does too. After all, if you jump from a 10-story high building you're just as dead. Obviously, gravity kills people too, not just Malaria parasites! In fact the whole universe is hostile, radiation kills people, the vacuum of space kills people. Yep, plenty of killin' things out there!
Aagcobb, your non-sequiturs are hillarious!
Comment by Jean — June 29, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
In what way is "mutation" intelligent?
Comment by Jean — June 29, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Jean:
and then:
Oh the irony! It hurts.
Comment by Raevmo — June 29, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Jean:
It's not. The combined process of mutation and selection can be thought of as intelligent, in a loose sort of way.
Comment by mtraven — June 29, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
This is very poor terminology.
Almost everyone here agrees that organisms "evolved", the question is whether or not the natural selection of random mutations is able to account for the designs that appear in the course of that evolution.
Comment by mcromer — June 29, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
This is where you take an utterly anthropomorphic viewpoint on what intelligence must be.
Comment by mcromer — June 29, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
The truth is, we have no good theories of what "intelligence" and "creativity" actually are (much less consciousness). If you study what some of the most gifted artists and scientists say, they will usually remark that some of their most brilliant work appeared in a "flash of insight" or even "came from something beyond myself". So it is entirely possible that creativity and insight come from "beyond" the individual, that the universe manifests creativity through the vehicle of individual people, but that the actual creativity and insight are not strictly speaking personal qualities (although certainly some people are better channels for creativity to flow through than others).
It is not a surprise that we have trouble understanding the intelligence in natural designs, since we do not understand how human intelligence and creativity works. So it is entirely possible that the intelligence and creativity that manifests itself through human beings and the intelligence and creativity that manifests through nature and biology have the same source, and that it is something more than simply natural selection of purely meaningless, random inputs.
Comment by mcromer — June 29, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hi All,
For what it is worth, of all of the leaders in the ID Movement, Behe is among those I feel somewhat neutral towards (verses distain). At least Behe is trying to be scientific.
He accepts mainstream evolutionary concepts to the point that it appears he is only arguing the details of the mechanisms. Arguing the details of the mechanisms is a major pastime of Evolutionary Biologists. Unfortunately for Behe, he appears to resist offering his own mechanism and the reviewers gleefully take him to task for it. An improbable explanation is better that an unknown (or unknowable) one. Of course it is a well-known secret that Behe probably favors an unstated mechanism.
Even if Behe doesn't have an unstated mechanism in mind, the "GodDidIt" mechanism ("IntelligentDesignerDidIt" mechanism if you prefer) will undoubtedly be assumed by most of the audience, proponents and critics alike. However, I feel that is a violation of NOMA principles. More specifically, it is using a metaphysical construct to try and solve a scientific puzzle. This is the same problem I have with the multi-world interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Obviously, I can't demand that Behe provide a scientifically consistent explanation (I wouldn't want to give Vivid too big of a club) but I can be curious as to why Behe doesn't avail himself of scientific ID hypotheses like EAM or the Penrose/Hameroff model.
He wouldn't even have to embrace them fully, just enough to take that obvious bit of ammunition out of his critic's hands. In case it isn't obvious, from what I can tell, Behe's arguments are very supportive of the Penrose/Hameroff quantum hypothesis.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 29, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I see you are citing Mark Chu-Carroll's Super Monkey Ball theory of dynamic fitness landscapes as a refutation of Behe's calculations.
Why is it only small time bloggers are raising the argument? Why do you think that Sean Carroll, Ken Miller, and Jerry Coyne failed to raise the issue? Could it be because Super Monkey Ball evolution is no better than a random walk?
Comment by Jehu — June 29, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
TP
Let me see if I follow you.
Behe's failure to endorse a mechanism will be interpreted as an endorsement of "Goddidit". And this is somehow Behe's problem? The violation of NOMA only seems to occur in the minds of those who would fill in the thought balloons for Behe. How is that his fault?
For one thing the title of the book is "The Edge of Evolution: Finding the Limits of Darwinism". It is not "The Mechanism of Evolution: Finding An Alternative to Darwinism".
Furthermore, do you really think that Behe would soften the critics by latching on to highly speculative hypotheses like EAM or Orch OR?
Comment by chunkdz — June 29, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Hi Chunkdz,
You wrote…
Actually, I think it would dramatically increase the criticism and probably alienate a large percentage of his defenders.
But he would have me in his corner (and probably Joy).
How many other TTer's would like to see a true battle against that misuse of science from BOTH SIDES of the Culture War?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 29, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Aagcobb, to answer you question cleanly, in parts:
…so far so good…
…?? Not so good. I have not finished the book (on chapter 9), but perhaps you can show me where Behe argues this? The central argument of the book is that malarial drug resistance is dependant on Darwinian/unguided mechanisms, so we now have direct evidence of what those mechanisms are capable of. The empirical answer: not very much.
…that's where you really overstep. Behe does not argue malaria were designed to "kill more people."
It is easy to break something; it is a lot harder to fix something. There are many ways to do the first, but only a few ways of doing the latter. Perhaps malaria is something that was not designed to "break" humans, but since there are so many ways to do so, it may have become "broken" itself, and now "breaks" humans. (An out of control process, if you will)
Comment by Atom — June 29, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Chunkdz:
I can quite firmly say that I would.
Comment by bj — June 29, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Sorry, previous comment needs to be addressed to TP
Comment by bj — June 29, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Addendum/Clarification:
"The central argument of the book is that malarial drug resistance is dependant on Darwinian/unguided mechanisms" - so that aspect of their form (the drug resistance) is not the result of design. It is the result of unguided mechanisms at work, in all their (limited) glory.
Comment by Atom — June 29, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I haven't read Behe's book, but perhaps the Behe-fans on this blog can explain to me how Behe reached this conclusion (from the Nature review):
How does he calculate that?
Comment by Raevmo — June 29, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Just a guess but I suspect he identified the proteins involved and the codons in each. Knowing the end configuration of the proteins one would need to estimate the starting protein nucleotide configurations and assume the chance of a mutation was equally distributed throughout the proteins. Factor in human reproductive figures and there you go. These things are rough by nature but how would you approach it?
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Are you saying you did not notice I was being facetious?
That's not what you said above. And besides, I still don't see how a "combined process of mutation and selection" is "intelligent", even in a "loose sort of way". Define intelligence for us would ya?
I think you're really begging the question, again. You know the output of the evolutionary process, which are highly evolved complex organisms. You also "know" that a "combined process of mutation and selection" must be the cause. So that same "combined process of mutation and selection" _must_ be 'intelligent'. Because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be seeing complex organisms in the first place.
In short, you've simply assumed the truth of your proposition. Poor logic, shame on you.
Comment by Jean — June 29, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
This is an important point that seems to be missed regarding calculations of probabilities. These can be approached in two ways, theoretically and empirically.
It is almost always possible to question whether some mathematical model of reality is realistic. The acid test is to compare with the actual evidence offered by reality.
A major significance of Behe's book is to point out and highlight the objective, observable facts about how relatively little undirected processes have been able to accomplish in the trench warfare of life, such as with diseases like malaria.
Those who question Behe's calculations as being supposedly significantly wrong need to support their alternate claims with an examination of the empirical evidence.
Comment by eric — June 29, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Aagcobb has repeatedly suggested that Behe's position implies the malaria parasites have been carefully designed to be drug resistent so they can kill more people.
and
Atom is on target. The whole point of The Edge of Evolution is to examine what undirected processes are capable of doing.
Notice that malaria (and therefore its earlier design) existed before the drugs to fight it. Those drugs may have been initially effective against that design. But if it only takes one simple substitution error to escape the effect of a heavily used drug, it becomes easy for that error to be propagated. That is an undirected process propagating an error in reproduction.
This undirected process is not unique or exclusive to any living organism. Darwinists know this, of course, but somehow it seems to be forgotten or assumed to not be true when discussing work such as Behe's.
Perhaps Aagcobb did not intend to create this impression, but his posts tend to give the impression that Behe suggests that the designer is engaging in ongoing re-engineering in order to counteract drugs. That would be a significant misunderstanding of Behe's position.
Someone else wondered about Behe's model. Behe leans toward a front loaded model for design. This was stated as far back as Darwin's Black Box. (The developments since then about the lossy nature of evolution are interesting in this regard.) He is not supposing design intervention at each change.
Comment by eric — June 29, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
This makes me wonder if Aagcobb has yet read through Behe's blog, which includes this relevant response:
p.s. To spell it out more explicitly, it is hugely important for science to gain an objective understanding of the true limits of evolution — an understanding that is not corrupted or distorted by ideological beliefs in what such processes ought to be able to do.
It is only by understanding what these processes can and cannot do that we will understand how to resist diseases like malaria effectively. Believing blindly that evolution can do anything we could hope or imagine or that it might "need" only blinds our own efforts to thwart its tendency to overcome our older approaches.
Comment by eric — June 29, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
This is sheer nonsense. There are billions of ways to die. Were they all carefully designed with the intention of killing people? Don't be ridiculous. They are simply facts about the finitude of living organisms.
If I fly into the sun or swim in a shark-filled pool with a bleeding wound in my leg, I'll probably not live to tell the tale. On the other hand, Third World countries have large numbers of living people. And if we in the West were serious about following the teachings of Christ, far fewer of them would die as children.
Atom nailed it:
Comment by stunney — June 29, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Hi bj,
When I asked…
"How many other TTer's would like to see a true battle against that misuse of science from BOTH SIDES of the Culture War?"
You answered…
Thank you for the support.
It is unfortunate that we seem to be a very small minority.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 12:17 am
June 30th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Raevmo, to Jean:
Jean:
Ow! Ow! Ow!
Comment by keiths — June 30, 2007 @ 7:53 am
June 30th, 2007 at 9:43 am
keiths,
You have not responded to my simple questions.
You claimed Behe made egregious errors. And then I asked you a couple of opening question as part of making you defend your claim. Let me restate them (with a couple typos removed) in case you didn't comprehend:
Is that because you are you making claims about a book you haven't even read?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 30, 2007 @ 9:43 am
June 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Salvador,
You never learn, do you?
Yes, I own and have read EoE, as well as DBB and the Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, not to mention my other ID books. I'm not thrilled about the idea of lining Behe's pockets (and Dembski's, Wells', Woodward's, etc.), but I do find it useful to have copies at hand. Indeed, judging from our past interactions, I've read and retained considerably more about ID than you have about information theory or computer science.
Nevertheless, I would have quoted Miller's review even had I not read EoE, as it fits perfectly with the topic of the thread. Anyone who thinks that Miller has distorted Behe's position is welcome to make a case. It's telling that you and others in this thread have chosen not to, for the most part attempting to draw attention away from Miller's criticisms rather than tackling them head-on.
Your UD post, for example, is an attempt to smear Miller as dishonest, yet you don't address his argument. Why is that, Salvador?
Comment by keiths — June 30, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Behe writes (EoE, p. 237):
Yet he also writes (EoE, p. 47):
I wonder what Behe would consider to be a "fitting end" for the Agent who designed this agent of such human misery.
Comment by keiths — June 30, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Well, excuse me, given your comments, I'll have to instead attribute your mis-statements to your inability understand and reluctance to accuretaly represent ID proponents.
Thanks, however, for contributing to the children of Michael Behe college fund.
I did address Miller's literature bluff. It was good for the gullible who have not read Behe's book. And since you have his book, you have even less excuse for repeating Miller's distortions and misrepresentations and outright falsehoods. I presumed you didn't have the books, otherwise you wouldn't have been complicit in promoting Miller's review as a good review. It appears my mistake was giving you too much credit.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 30, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Salvador,
Can you refute Miller's argument?
Comment by keiths — June 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Hi All,
I broke down and looked into two books of current interest, Behe's The Edge of Evolution and Paul Davis' Cosmic Jackpot. As unfair as it is, I will do a compare and contrast of these two starting with Paul Davies's book. And to add to the unfairness, I will also be referencing Penrose's Road to Reality intermittently.
If you are reading Cosmic Jackpot on your own and don't want me to spoil the ending, stop reading now because I am going to attempt to summarize Davies' conclusions and how he got there.
I can see why Cosmic Jackpot is popular. It is easy to understand yet deals with tough subjects. And Davies directly deals with them instead of just talking around them. I will have to do a reread, but at this point I don't think there is any hard scientific conflict between Davies and Penrose. In fact, I saw a lot of Penrose in Davies. For example, figure 2 shows how a portion of the Platonic World is projected into the physical world. This is just one leg of Penrose's three legged metaphysical loop. To me, Davies' ideas appear to be a subset of Penrose's ideas. Of course that is a biased point of view. A Davies' proponent would see it as Penrose using Davies' good ideas to promote a particular controversial hypothesis (Orch OR). I don't know what the Truth is so, at this point, I will just accept both viewpoints as multiple, contradictory Truths. Davies does mention Penrose twice in his book; once for Penrose's work (along with Stephen Hawking) on singularities, and a second time for Penrose's argument for the impossibility of computerized consciousness (via pure algorithmic processes). Davies appears to agree with Penrose by pointing out the uncomfortable ramifications if one assumes Penrose is incorrect (The Matrix is all but a certainty).
The concept that the ideas presented in the Cosmic Jackpot are a subset of those presented in Road to Reality isn't a surprise considering we are comparing a 269 page book to a 1100 page book. Also, Davies does something that Penrose does not. Davies gives a reasonably balanced treatment of various hypotheses, even those he disagrees with. I suspect most Intelligent Design proponents will like Chapter 9. They might even be comfortable with Chapter 10 until the bold-faced pronouncement "Quantum Mechanics Could Permit a Subtle Form of Teleology" on page 242. From here until the end of the book, Davies describes a quantum mechanical explanation for everything. It includes positive discussions about casual loops and how the retrocausual paradox isn't a problem in a universe that is internally consistent. In short, this part of the book is chock full of quoteminable material for a Quantum Quack like me.
I was partially inaccurate when I implied that the last 27 pages supported my pet hypothesis. Davies did something I find admirable. He attempted to clearly separate his analysis from his biased interpretation by adding a separate "Afterward:" at the end of his book. In case there is any doubt Davis was being biased here, he framed the discussion of the various positions by starting with "The Absurd Universe".
Here is a summary of everyone's position ala Davies"¦
A. The Absurd Universe "“ "There is no God, no designer, no teleological principle, no destiny. Life in general, and human beings in particular, are an irrelevant embellishment in a vast and meaningless cosmos, the existence of which is an unfathomable mystery."
B. The Unique Universe "“ "This point of view holds that there IS a deep underlying unity in physics, and there is a mathematical theory "out there" that will pull it all together if we are only smart enough to formulate it." (think String Theory)
C. The Multiverse "“ "Modern cosmological models point strongly to the existence of a multiplicity of cosmos domains"¦as a natural and generic feature in which the big band that gave birth to our universe is but one of many (probably an infinite number of) bangs generating a multiplicity of "universes".
D. Intelligent Design "“ "The traditional monotheistic view is that the universe is created by God and designed to be suitable for life because the emergence of sentient beings is part of God's plan."
E. The Life Principle "“ "In this theory, the bio-friendless of the universe arises from an overarching law of principle that constrains the universe/multiverse to evolve toward life and mind."
F. The Self-Explaining Universe "“ "All the forgoing options hit the tower-of-turtles with the exception of [a must-be-what-it-is variant of B], the Tegmark version of the multiverse [under C], and the existence of a necessary God [under D]. Something unexplained has to be accepted as given and the rest of the explanatory scheme constructed on that ad hoc foundation."
G. The Fake Universe "“ "We are living in a simulation, and what we take to be the real world is an ingeniously contrived virtual reality show."
H. None of the Above "“ "Did I leave anything out?"
Davies' inclinations ""¦lie in the directions of E and F, although there are many details to be worked out." Which is pretty closed to the Penrose/Hameroff position, IMO.
Now for Behe. While I was biased by the back and forth exchanges, Behe's book offered little in the way of surprises. Behe only mentions quantum mechanics in a passing reference to its appearance in the early 1900's. Of course there is no reference of Penrose. BTW, he did talk about the apparent malevolence of an Intelligent Designer who intentionally designed malaria. It is obvious he is looking at it from a religious outlook. He even mentions demons.
One thing did surprise me. Behe PROPOSED A MODEL!
It was The Truman Show. This would be Davies' "G. The Fake Universe".
Behe, of course, didn't explore the mechanistic details of this model. Like the location of God's hidden cameras, or who and what are God's employees creating reality.
Please don't go overboard in pointing out I am being unfair to Behe. I know that I am. But it was his choice to focus almost exclusively on limiting evolution without offering a realistic alternative. This is pretty much my complaint about the ID Movement's methods in general.
Davies, Penrose, Hameroff, Joy, tb, myself and others are suggesting we explore a third choice. One that truly follows the evidence yet doesn't try to impose a social preference.
P.S. I apologize to all EoE readers for whom I spoiled the ending.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Keiths, thank you for the reference. (I am on p. 206, so I haven't read that part yet.)
For some context, a little later in EOE on page 238:
So Behe acknowledges this as a philosophical/theological problem, not a scientific one. He also shows that it may be possible the design of the "horrible" feature is really a small part in a larger design, which would bring the greater good on balance (a philosophical answer).
For my part, I stick to my own philosophical answer to this question: it is entirely possible that malaria have become "broken" from their original design and now wreak havoc. For example, just because broken (cancerous) cells kill humans does not mean that our cells were intentionally designed to kill us. I think the same may be the case with malaria. (Or perhaps Behe is correct.)
And there is always the possibility of malevolent secondary designers "hacking" original designs for their own purposes.
Comment by Atom — June 30, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Addendum:
Furthermore, Behe limits the design to the "molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells", not to the "drug resistance", as was claimed earlier by another poster. Furthermore, can we show conclusively that malaria were designed to: a) invade red blood cells specifically? b) invade human red blood cells? c) once in a cell, destroy it? d) destroy enough red blood cells to kill or permanently harm a human?
We would need solid evidence showing all points (a-d) were the specific result of intentional design, rather than the result of an out-of-control process, for the dilemma to have force.
Comment by Atom — June 30, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
New, functional protein-to-protein binding can be evolved in a couple of weeks. The source of genetic variation in this case is primarily recombination (not included in any of Behe's calculations), secondarily frameshifting (not included in any of Behe's calculations), and least of all point mutations (the slowest variation mechanism, and the only one that Behe considers).
I agree completely, and it is one that Behe doesn't address very well.
I'm sure that he has, as have you. Can you identify the system to which I refer? Remember, Behe's thesis in this book is not about selection, it's about generation of genetic variation (which was never a part of Darwin's theory, another egregious error by Behe).
Not in this case. The production of new, functional protein-to-protein binding sites can be observed, step-by-step, in real time and is well-understood through direct experimental manipulation of the components.
So can you figure out which system this is? Behe won't help.
No, each different allele makes it MORE probable, even if you assume without any evidence that they have to occur simultaneously.
No, Behe's MO is to list the observations and then ignore critical ones that he just listed in his calculations.
Behe notes the relevant observation that explains why on page 50-51, and then ignores this critical observation in his calculations. Ironically, it has to do with fitness landscapes changing over time.
Comment by JAM — June 30, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Behe on the malignancy of a designed biosphere:
pp238-239
EoE
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
TP,
You are not being unfair to Behe, but that is only because whomever you are discussing it is not him.
The Truman Show is not his model, he does not propose a Fake Universe (although he dismisses it quite nicely from pages 224-227), he doesn't limit evolution and he does provide a realistic alternative to Darwinism.
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Atom, Pez –
Behe is leaping to his desired conclusion about Darwin's reasons for denying a designer:
Darwin believed that the Ichneumonidae could not have been designed by a specifically "beneficent and omnipotent God" (note the adjectives), but there is nothing to suggest that he rejected the possibility of a designer altogether on that basis. After all, he had discovered a mechanism that made the designer superfluous, which was reason enough to jettison the idea.
Revulsion may not be a scientific argument, but the Origin certainly is.
Comment by keiths — June 30, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
Ok, I will bite. What is Behe's "realistic alternative"
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Atom wrote:
Why Charles Darwin Wouldn't Have Done It That Way If He Was The Designer.
Uh-huh. Er, why, Chuck?
And what other, mathematically sound, and logically consistent pathway of generating viable big-but-finite-brained beings do you propose instead, that would rule out pathogens?
Comment by stunney — June 30, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Atom,
Sorry, I didn't see that you had already referenced the Behe quote.
===
TP,
You may already have heard of it.
Purposeful design.
====
Keith,
Perhaps.
But if you are right that that was not Darwin's reason, Behe is selecting that that reason (whomever holds it) as the indefensible one.
As an indefensible rationale it ought not stand as evidence either, neither in an argument, nor a book which is an extended argument.
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
You get points in my book for using the word "Purposeful".
I had borrowed my copy of the Edge of Evolution so I don't have it handy. However, I can get it again.
Can you tell me some page numbers where Behe outlines his model for Purposeful Design? It was my recollection that Behe's explaination of this was towards the end of the book where he said something like…
"Truman knows something is not right, his gut instincts and the many little clues are contradictory." [paraphrased from memory]
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Hi TP,
What can I buy with my points?
I didn't choose the word 'purposeful', that is how Behe discusses design.
And what do you mean by 'model'?
How does your term 'model' qualify the statement that Behe proposes a realistic alternative to Darwinism?
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Quote-mining. It's a private letter, not a scientific argument. Darwin's thoughts are much more subtle than what Behe allows. And Behe misrepresents Darwin's conclusion.
So Darwin looks to laws designed by an omniscient Creator, considers his views not at all necessarily atheistical, thinks it may be too profound for the human intellect to understand, allows each man hope and believe what he can, and that he himself is bewildered by the contradictions in the human condition.
Comment by Zachriel — June 30, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Hi Pez,
You asked…
What you might call Evolution's "just so" story is a model. It is internally consistent, even if the assumptions are incorrect and don't match the evidence.
"God Did It" is a model. God is the mechanism that explains everything since God is omnipotent by definition.
"The Matix" is a model. Nothing we call "real" is real. It is all computer-generated and we have no way of knowing what the REAL reality is like.
EAM is a model. Matter, itself, is conscious and manipulates reality.
Here is a model I offer as a possible ID alternative based on the Penrose/Hameroff model. All quantum effects (including those in microtubules) are interconnected in the space-time continuum forcing consistency.
Did you check the end of Behe's book where he talked about the Truman Show? My memory/understanding may be faulty. But it appeared to me that Behe was making some kind of attempt to provide a model.
The Truman Show had a Purposeful Designer that created and ran Truman's world.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Now why did you have to go a burst their bubble on that one?
Behe had to do something to not appear to embrace Darwin too much considering how Behe agreed with practically all of Darwin's theories, including Common Descent. Behe even wrote a paragraph acknowledging Darwin's positive contribution to science.
Darwin's statement
"...the more I think the more bewildered I become"brings up a conversation I just finished with my sixteen-year old son. My son had a straight-forward answer…"Don't ask the question in the first place!"
I had to admit that 99.9% of the population probably shares his attitude. However, we still managed to continue the conversation where he was impressed that these "simple" questions are tough even for his father and all the authors in these books I have been reading.
Paul Davies has two pictures of the turtles all the way down. My son already knew about the turtle dilemma from earlier conversations, so at one point he asked "Yes, but what is the last turtle standing on?" Paul Davies has a picture of the world on the back of an elephant on the back of turtles on the back of one giant SUPER TURTLE. He laughed. I think he might even read the book now.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
So Darwin looks to laws designed by an omniscient Creator, considers his views not at all necessarily atheistical, thinks it may be too profound for the human intellect to understand, allows each man hope and believe what he can, and that he himself is bewildered by the contradictions in the human condition.–Comment by Zachriel
Darwin was a Creationist!? Whoa! The implications boggle!
Comment by Rock — June 30, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
New, functional protein-to-protein binding can be evolved in a couple of weeks. The source of genetic variation in this case is primarily recombination (not included in any of Behe's calculations), secondarily frameshifting (not included in any of Behe's calculations), and least of all point mutations (the slowest variation mechanism, and the only one that Behe considers).
I agree completely, and it is one that Behe doesn't address very well.
I'm sure that he has, as have you. Can you identify the system to which I refer? Remember, Behe's thesis in this book is not about selection, it's about generation of genetic variation (which was never a part of Darwin's theory, another egregious error by Behe).
Not in this case. The production of new, functional protein-to-protein binding sites can be observed, step-by-step, in real time and is well-understood through direct experimental manipulation of the components.
So can you figure out which system this is? Behe won't help.
No, each different allele makes it MORE probable, even if you assume without any evidence that they have to occur simultaneously.
p(A and B)=p(A) x p(B)
p(A or B)=p(A) + p(B)
No, Behe's MO is to list the observations and then ignore critical ones that he just listed in his calculations.
In the multiple resistant alleles that have been observed.
Behe notes the relevant observation that explains why on page 50-51, and then simply ignores this critical observation in his calculations. I don't know whether he was being negligent or deceptive in doing so. Ironically, it has to do with fitness landscapes dramatically changing over time, in this case mere weeks.
Jehu, do you realize that when Behe notes that CQ resistance has only arisen 10 times, he is equivocating? The number 10 refers to population events and he is presenting it as the number of genetic events.
Comment by JAM — June 30, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
TP,
Thanks for providing examples of what you consider to be models.
As I suspected, these ideas of 'model' do nothing to disqualify purposeful designl. At the same time, however, they do nothing to demonstrate what you mean by 'outlines his model' at the end of this chain:
TP: Behe provides no realistic alternative to evolution (sic).
Me: Yes he does, it is purposeful design.
TP: "Can you tell me some page numbers where Behe outlines his model for Purposeful Design?"
What is it that needs outlining?
Behe's model is one in which a mind, a purposeful, agent, has specified certain aspects of the universe/biosphere and that there are instances in which we can discern that this specification took place.
Yes, I read the entire book and no, the Truman Show is not Behe's model.
It is a metaphor for how contingency, chance and will can continue to act in a designed universe - how the raw observation of the design behind our universe need not impact the control we have over our daily lives.
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Hi Pez,
I will certainly reread it now with this in mind.
I have to admit, I never considered that Behe was suggesting we have enough control and will to detect the Purposeful Designer's manipulation contrary to his/her intent to hide that from us.
However, you still haven't suggested a particular section of the book where Behe provides an alternative explaination beyond using the term "Purposeful Design". Would it help if I asked for mechanisms instead of a model?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
No, I don't think so.
Having escaped the mechanistic/clockwork view of nature I think the word 'Mechanism' is an inappropriate word choice, and, at least, does nothing to clarify what you are asking.
It would help if you defined 'model' to demonstrate why your question has not been answered.
You provided examples of models - 'just so stories', 'God did it' and the 'Matrix'.
Purposeful design is a model in exactly the same way, but you still say I am not providing a model.
What is it you are looking for? What is it that you think will define science in this instance? Why is purposeful design not realistic? How does following the evidence where it leads independently of imposing a social preference disallow purposeful design from your category of 'model'?
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
TP,
ps.
What was this supposed to mean?
You aren't half as cute as you seem to think you are, so why not just try having a conversation?
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Hi Pez,
I am sorry that my request was too confusing and/or too difficult.
Repeating a single phrase over and over does not help a reader understand how everything fits together. I call an explanation of how everything fits together, "a model".
The last chapter in EoE is titled "All the World's a Stage". This title suggests a model to me. (It was Shakespeare's model of reality).
link
The last chapter is where most scientific books summarize findings into a consistent model. That is what I understood Behe was doing in this chapter where he used The Truman Show as an explanatory vehicle.
However, I will reread that chapter with what you have said in mind.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Hi Pez,
You asked…
I thought we were.
A common description of me is "arrogant".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Your request isn't confusing or difficult because it isn't a request. It is a challenge for which there is no appropriate answer and for which you will accept no answer.
Now, when repeatedly asked what you mean by 'model', you give a version of a definition where before when I asked you gave some examples.
"An explanation of how everything fits together":
Let's limit this to biology, as per Behe.
Certain aspects of life are best explained by reference to purposeful design.
The purposeful design is the product of a willful agent making choices or specifications.
This is evidenced by the fact that the combination of chance and law do not provide good explanations for certain features whereas purposeful agents are known to have the ability to bring such features into being.
What's unrealistic about this?
Why isn't this a model?
Why do you require a 'mechanism'?
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
re: Your (self) description:
I know it is.
And it is nothing to be proud of or try to live up to.
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
It seems to me that JAM has done a convincing job in debunking Behe's analysis of plasmodium resistance, but I'm sure not all here will agree with my assessment. I asked before if a Behe-fan could provide me with the details of Behe's calculation of the crucial 10^-20 number and why this implies that it would take humans 10 million times 100 million years to evolve a comparable adaptation, but no luck so far. Anybody? Let's discuss the actual calculations and the underlying assumptions and population genetic models. In the mean time I've ordered the book myself (Behe's numerous kids have to eat too right?), but I'm impatient (it'll take at least a week for the book to arrive) and I want to know now.
Comment by Raevmo — June 30, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
TP,
The last chapter includes sections on consilience of results from various branches of science, Behe's reference to fine-tuning in laws, properties details and events, a reflection upon design and OOL, how deep design goes into the planning of life, a rejection of multi-world explanations, a discussion of whether or not the designer needs to be supernatural, whetehr or not the designer needs to 'intervene' to realize the purposes, demarcations of science, implications of inferring teleology, implications of inferring ateleology, the aforementioned rejection of the design inference because of squeamishness, and, finally, the implication of the design inference, re: The Truman Show (ie: are we just puppets?).
So, yes, it is a summary of Behe's findings. Your discussion thus far has been based upon the final page of the book.
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Raevmo,
You'll be disappointed. Strangely, there's room for an entire page devoted to a callout box explaining scientific notation, but there's no step-by-step derivation of the 10E-20 number.
Therefore, I predict that you will be met with great reluctance to discuss the calculations among Behe's acolytes.
Pez, the term "findings" has a very clear meaning among scientists: it means data, and is never used to describe anyone's interpretation of the data, theirs or anyone else's. It doesn't refer to what you glean from other people's findings. So, to me, you are claiming that Behe published new data in this book, and I sure don't recall seeing anything of the sort. Is that what you mean?
Comment by JAM — June 30, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Hi Pez,
You stated…
I requested that you point to page numbers in Behe's new book, Edge of Evolution, where Behe provides an alternative to what you and he refer to as "Darwinism".
It may be a "challenge" if it is not there. I think the last chapter is Behe's alternative model. You, apparently, are uncomfortable with that.
To this, you have offered that YOUR position is…
And then ask…
If I offered my opinon on these questions, I would expect (because it has happened before with other people) that you will ask why I "require" a mechanism and get indignant about my unreasonable "demands".
Therefore, I will cut this short by pointing to THIS LINK where I have offered my model complete with mechanisms. (see the six chapters in the comments).
If you want to point me to an alternative model that includes an equivalent amount of details, I will gladly read it.
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;"
While I think Behe's overall model a similar to Shakespeare's, I will reread the last chapter with what you have said in mind.
If you wish to discuss my Paul Davies review, I will gladly do that. Here is a link.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
JAM,
His book is a popular treatment of the body of available evidence, not a scientific paper on a laboratory experiment.
Behe finds that by looking at the available information he can determine certain probabilites and make certain inferences. That is what he finds, and those are his findings.
Comment by Pez — June 30, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Pez,
If it truly covers the body of available evidence on the generation of Darwinian variation, why did Behe choose Plasmodium, a system in which we are incapable of examining mutations immediately after they occur, because we have yet to figure out how to culture the sucker?
Why did Behe not explore the vast body of available evidence from far more tractable systems?
How do you know that he looked at all the available information and didn't cherry pick?
Would you be willing indulging Raevmo and going through the assumptions underlying Behe's alleged determination of the 10E-20 probability?
I don't think he merely found the data he chose to put in the book. I think he rejected enormous amounts of far more relevant data.
Comment by JAM — June 30, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
tp,
No, I am not.
What I told was that the last page (and a quarter, perhaps) did not contain his model.
If you accept model as you've described then the last chapter does, indeed, provide the model - but over several sections, and not in the Truman Show analogy.
Perhaps so.
Then again, perhaps your opinion is required if you are going to say that Behe doesn't offe