Behe vs. Dawkins
by MikeGeneThe NYT gave us an unusal opportunity to compare and contrast when it allowed Behe to review Dawkins and Dawkins to review Behe.
Here is Behe on Dawkins:
It is a measure of the artful way Dawkins, 66, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, tells a tale and the rigor he brings to his thinking that even those of us who profoundly disagree with what he has to say can tip our hats to the way he has invigorated the larger debate.
Dawkins had a mild Anglican youth but at 16 discovered Charles Darwin and believed he'd found a pearl of great price. I believe his new book follows much less from his data than from his premises, and yet I admire his determination. Concerning the big questions, the Bible advises us to be hot or cold but not lukewarm. Whatever the merit of his ideas, Richard Dawkins is not lukewarm.
Here is Dawkins on Behe:
I had expected to be as irritated by Michael Behe's second book as by his first. I had not expected to feel sorry for him. The first "” "Darwin's Black Box" (1996), which purported to make the scientific case for "intelligent design" "” was enlivened by a spark of conviction, however misguided. The second is the book of a man who has given up. Trapped along a false path of his own rather unintelligent design, Behe has left himself no escape. Poster boy of creationists everywhere, he has cut himself adrift from the world of real science. And real science, in the shape of his own department of biological sciences at Lehigh University, has publicly disowned him, via a remarkable disclaimer on its Web site: "While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific." As the Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne wrote recently, in a devastating review of Behe's work in The New Republic, it would be hard to find a precedent.
For a while, Behe built a nice little career on being a maverick. His colleagues might have disowned him, but they didn't receive flattering invitations to speak all over the country and to write for The New York Times. Behe's name, and not theirs, crackled triumphantly around the memosphere. But things went wrong, especially at the famous 2005 trial where Judge John E. Jones III immortally summed up as "breathtaking inanity" the effort to introduce intelligent design into the school curriculum in Dover, Pa. After his humiliation in court, Behe "” the star witness for the creationist side "” might have wished to re-establish his scientific credentials and start over. Unfortunately, he had dug himself in too deep. He had to soldier on. "The Edge of Evolution" is the messy result, and it doesn't make for attractive reading.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Behe strikes me as exuding supreme confidence. He can afford to pour praise on his enemy. Reminds of the victor in a great sporting match praising an opponent which the victor just thoroughly defeated. Michael Behe is acting like a victor. He strikes me as the sort of guy that knows deep down he's right.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 14, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Comparing Behe and Dawkins is almost unfair. I can't recall reading anything by Behe, even in his responses to critics, where he came off as snarling and incensed.
Comment by nullasalus — August 14, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Salvador wrote:
I don't know what Behe really thinks about his predicament, but Salvador is clearly in deep denial.
Comment by keiths — August 14, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Whatever you think of the merits of someones position one thing is clear, while Mike always comes across as a genuinely nice guy, Dawkins comes off as an arrogant jerk.
Of course Behe's ideas are in ascendence and Dawkins' ideas are running their last gasp so I guess it is to be expected that one would adopt the shrill screech of a bad loser while the other adopt the manner of the gracious winner.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 14, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
If the bit of information that Mike got on Dawkins is correct — that he was molested by an Anglican priest when he was a child — then I think it can explain much about Dawkins, and allow us to forgive him his uncharitableness. Perhaps someday he'll be able to deal with what had to be a very traumatic experience.
Comment by Bilbo — August 14, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Hi Bilbo,
Not to get too graphic, but my mom was molested by her 1st cousin and he threatened her that if she ever told anyone (which she eventually did) that she would never see her kids again (my sister and myself). We were just in grade school (my sister and I) and he would park on our block, in sight for my mom to see, when we would go out to wait for the school bus (completely oblivious to what had happened) to show that he would deliver on his promise.
My mom was still a very loving person up until her untimely death (an aneurism…. brought on because of her alcoholism…. which in turn was brought on by the stress she was dealing with in living through that hell). I can't recall her being insultive and mean spirited to her other 1st cousins.
But this isn't unique. Crap gets thrown at everyone in life, it's how you deal with it that makes all the difference. You can take out your paint brush and make broad strokes over everybody else - pointing fingers and laying blame, or you can move on and learn from it.
I know she did. In 1993 she quit drinking entirely, quit smoking in 2000 (passed away in 2003). And if you met her you'd be immediately struck by how loving she was.
Comment by Doug — August 14, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I don't blame the IDers for picking on their most consistently stupid critics. But c'mon….
Give me something more to more to work with…
By only reponding to your "critics" you are marginalizing yourselves. Don' t you realize that?!
That's what they want you to do!
Comment by Rock — August 14, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Both Behe & Dawkins are mentally-retarded, so let them bicker it out away from civilization.
Comment by dimasok — August 14, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 10:03 am
They are not mentally retarded, please get a clue.
Comment by Doug — August 15, 2007 @ 10:03 am
August 15th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Given that the "running their last gasp" claim is made pretty much constantly, would you be so kind as to predict a timeline for the demise of the modern evolutionary synthesis (or of methodological naturalism, whichever you're inveighing against here), or a timeline for the ascendance of Behe's ideas, along with some milestones you think they'll pass, and roughly when you expect to see them?
Comment by grendelkhan — August 15, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
grendelkhan,
I can't answer for thesciphishow, but my own take on it would be: What's ending is a near-monopoly of evolutionary studies as 'evidence' for a rather narrow philosophy. Evolution isn't going anywhere, neo-darwinism is going to be 'modified' (redefined in a lot of ways, only to keep the neo-darwinism label) but remain around unless enough scientists want to eschew the label. But more and more people are finding it easy to accept evolution alongside teleology and (for many) religion.
It doesn't hinge on Behe, or Dembski, or any other specific ID proponent. It's more the philosophy as a whole - and I think it explains a lot of the ferocity that animates some ID critics. For some, Darwin's ideas are basically a point of (a)religious reverence. That many people now can accept evolution and see design or purpose in it is probably to Dawkins (among others) what Raelians accepting the miracle of fatima as proof of their beliefs would be to many Catholics.
Comment by nullasalus — August 15, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Paradigm articulation, it can be pretty stubborn.
Comment by Doug — August 15, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I should get a clue?! Which one of them do you prefer, the antagonistic "i was raped by a a priest when i was little and now i'm taking my revenge on the world with my futile attempts to kill religion" Dawkins or the two-faced "i'm pretending to be a scientist on the one hand and praise my colleagues who have diametrically opposite opinions, but at the same time, i'm only showing my true face in my books written with an excess of religious overtones" Behe? Either way, you're FUBAREd.
Anyhow, both should get their heads out of their asses - religion is bullshit for the reasons we all know it is, but atheism is bullshit too since it doesn't make much sense as well, and the absolutely lame attempts of both Behe & Dawkins to argue for either camp are really badly written comic standup routines.
Comment by dimasok — August 15, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Confused troll.
Comment by keiths — August 15, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
dimasok,
Who the hell are you to make light of what happened to Dawkins or to act as if it is not significant?
I don't think it's a good reason to label all that might happen to be a priest (I could be completely wrong about Dawkins motivation), but you haven't a clue what he's been through.
You have to deal with his arguments by addressing his arguments - not by making light of some very traumatic experiences he's been through and assuming that those events are the origin of his arguments.
Comment by Doug — August 15, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
For once I agree with Keiths. Looks like trolling to me too. I would not take him seriously.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Bradford, can you match his IP to another TT poster?
Like a Smokey/ Flat-Top-Tom type scenario.
Comment by Doug — August 15, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
In Smokey's case his writing style gives him away. The IP only confirms it. There are many TT members and even more IPs.
Comment by Bradford — August 15, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Whatever. Dawkins makes me sick just like Behe and others like them. My main point here wasn't to downplay the events in Dawkins life, but to criticize them both for their utter ignorance.
Comment by dimasok — August 15, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
50 years maybe ?
Dawkins style atheism was in ascendence during the 19th century with its mechanistic view of the universe and the "progress" of mankind. Then it started to take body blows left and right as the 20th century unfolded.
Marx's materialist utopia failed to materialise, Freud's reductionist psychology likewise has fallen on hard times, and now Darwins mechnistic paradigm is coming apart. It has already happened in cosmology with the big bang and quantum mechanics, it is just a matter of time in biology.
This materialist worldview arose at a time of superstition and ignorance about the natural world and if they had known then what we know now about people nobody would have bought into the silliness for a second and millions may have been spared horrible deaths.
I would guess maybe in the next 50 years you'll see the old materialist superstitions finally collapse and die out mostly. You need to wait for the die hards to die off. But they are getting pretty old now and the next generation look to be a bunch of idiots, of course they are just following in the steps of their most vocal forerunners.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 15, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
More cheap shots at my person. This thread wasn't about me. When cheap shots are made it can indicate the lack of any real ammunition to take real shots at ideas and arguments.
Dawkins essay doesn't come off as written from someone arguing from a position of sound empirical and theoretical evidence.
In contrast, Behe appeared completely gracious, like someone completely unthreatened by Dawkins. Which is in fact true. Dawkins hasn't done much science in 30 years, people like Calder think he's out of date, peer-reviewed science paeprs are repudiating his views, and Behe has totally outclassed Dawkins in the area of molecular biochemistry. Behe is in another league in that respect.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 15, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
August 16th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Salvador,
How about doing a little research? Find all of the reviews you can, in the scientific press, of all of the books written by Dawkins and Behe. Tally up how many of the reviews of each author are favorable vs. unfavorable, and get back to us.
The results should be amusing.
Comment by keiths — August 16, 2007 @ 12:12 am
August 16th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Here is something to ponder:
You're resorting to Argumentum ad populum right out of the infidels manual for unsavory propaganda tactics. Well done, Keiths. At least this time it wasn't a cheap shot at my person, but rather a logical fallacy.
Behe is exuding confidence rooted in the fact he knows he's right. And speaking of reviews, when Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, and Sean Carroll could do little more than misrepresent and literature bluff in their critique of Behe, I knew he had something solid. Miller confusing lipids with proteins? Cut me a break…..
Ironically, I thought Dawkins shot of desperation was the most well written critique. Completely shallow and evasive, but from a PR perspective quite effective.
Anyways, I shouldn't have taken the bait from your cheap shot. Total waste of time. Although, I hope our exchange was provided some entertainment for my side….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 16, 2007 @ 12:53 am
August 16th, 2007 at 1:05 am
With regards to Dawkins, the only reviews of his work that I've read are for his latest book. And oddly, even among scientists and those philosophically sympathetic, the reviews weren't exactly glowing. The most positive review I recall was Daniel Dennett's, which struck me as embarassing for Dawkins.
Either way, Behe at the very least seems pretty cordial and calm when it comes to both his work and replying to criticisms - many of which have, frankly, been rather personal and vicious. Maybe I've missed incidents where Behe was being rude and obnoxious, but I can't say I haven't looked.
Comment by nullasalus — August 16, 2007 @ 1:05 am
August 16th, 2007 at 1:38 am
That's funny on two counts.
One, I am constantly getting that argument from people here who claim that because so many people have believed in God over the millennia, there must be something to it.
Two, an argument from popularity over the general population might not mean much (although it does mean something), but keiths explicitly asked you to tally reviews in the scientific press. Tallying up the opinions of qualified experts certainly does tell you something about an issue, in fact, it's the only way to get a good opinion about any issue that you can't observe firsthand or deduce from first principles.
Meanwhile, you seem to be using the argument ad nastium — that because Dawkins is less polite than Behe, that somehow invalidates his theory. That argument has the virtue of originality at least.
Comment by mtraven — August 16, 2007 @ 1:38 am
August 16th, 2007 at 2:23 am
mtraven,
Honestly, since when has "tallying the reviews" been a good standard for evaluating this kind of thing? I'm fairly certain if we did it on a book by book basis, Behe would be judged as having at best a minority, at worst an utterly wrong view of the IC debate - and Dawkins would be judged as being downright clueless when it comes to religion insofar as philosophy and theology are concerned. We may as well argue that Behe is mainstream, because if you 'did a tally' of the position he holds with regards to biology (Likely age of the first form of life, validity of common descent, evolution of many/most biological structures and forms of life) the number of areas where he's in agreement with orthodoxy vastly outnumbers his points of contention.
Content of the reviews may lend more insight, absolutely. But that's what's being discussed here - the reviews have been awfully emotional and vindictive, to say the least. It doesn't seem to have been warranted by Behe's own attitudes. This doesn't mean Behe is right, but it at least indicates that there's more at work here than 'Some scientists think Behe's ideas are incorrect.'
Comment by nullasalus — August 16, 2007 @ 2:23 am
August 16th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Actually I think you misunderstand the nature of the comment. The observation is that most people through all of recorded history have been religious and believed in God etc.
If you are going to claim that the vast majority of humanity has been at least deeply mistaken if not completely mad, then it is reasonable to at least expect you to shoulder a burden of proof.
They might all have been wrong, but you would need to do more than just assert this as some sort of default position that does not need evidence.
Well, only if you are honest and reasonable.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 16, 2007 @ 2:34 am
August 16th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Is it this simple? People should consider whether the qualified experts are making honest efforts to remain objective. For example, those of us who follow this debate know the score when it comes to people like Dawkins and Miller. It's not just that they simplistically equate ID with Creationism (itself demonstraing a superficial perspective and unwillingness to listen), but they come with their own agendas. Miller, for example, has been locked in an ego battle with Behe for some time. Dawkins is an activist whose movement does not tolerate someone like Behe (a leader of the "American Taliban"). And on it goes.
Comment by MikeGene — August 16, 2007 @ 7:55 am
August 16th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Hi All,
For what little it is worth, I think a lot of this comes down to ethics.
It is hard to accuse Dawkins of pretense (although a lot of people do anyway).
It would be pretentious of Dawkins to attempt to be respectful of Behe's Edge of Evolution. Didn't anyone else notice Dawkin's admission that Behe's Darwin's Black Box was seen as an earnest attempt? Dawkin's described it a "enlivened by a spark of conviction, however misguided."
I agree. That is what was interesting to me about Behe and the ID debate at Dover. Behe was actually trying to do science. Behe was making bold, definite statements. No moving goal posts. Clearly falsifiable ideas presented in clear, understandable language.
Here is Behe in 1996 in Darwin's Black Box…
Those are the words of someone daring the nay-sayers (like Nick Matze) to run to the lab and perform Blast analyses.
In 2000, Behe was forced to modify his boldness…
link
Sorry, but I have to run. Just let me say that I also that EoE was more timid than I had hoped. I was hoping to a bolder version of DBB. A more definative embrace of front loading. Possibly even references to quantum mechanics. There was nothing like that.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 16, 2007 @ 8:34 am
August 16th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Sure. And Dawkins didn't need to be so catty. I found that to be unethical. Then again, Dawkins is the guy whose sense of ethics allows him to use his privileged and large microphone to attack the physical appearance of ordinary citizens.
Comment by MikeGene — August 16, 2007 @ 9:03 am
August 16th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
So the infamous Smokey has been here? I encountered him in the AOL discussion forums. He's a troll of the worst kind. Makes Christians look bad.
Comment by Randy — August 16, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
August 16th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
ThoughtProvoker — Read the whole essay. The reason he modifies his wording is that his detractors misunderstood what he had said in DBB. DBB said that they can't form by _Darwinian_ pathways. Robinson's mechanism that he had proposed was non-Darwinian, so Behe simply rephrased it in a way that was more obvious to his detractors as to what he meant.
Edge of Evolution actually goes further and bolder than Darwin's Black Box, so I don't see why you say that he is "timid". He's actually saying that there are more systems that are unevolvable than just irreducibly complex ones, and trying to establish just where that line is, so I don't see how that is "timid", since his predictions are much bolder and reach further.
Comment by johnnyb — August 16, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
August 16th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Hi johnnyb,
Thank you for responding. I was beginning to think I wasn't going to get a chance to deploy my ready response to the that's-what-he-meant-all-along appeal.
Ok, let's do this. You wrote…
I have read that essay at least a dozen times over the last two years. Behe's other replies too.
Of course that was the reason he gave. Just like the Bush and Cheney claims about the reasons for going into the Iraq War and how there was no way to anticipate civil war would break out among the three Iraqi groups that have hated each other for longer than we have been a country.
It is standard PR damage control.
That was not the original definition of IC. Here is what he said…
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Behe 1996, 39)"
The original definition was a positive, bold statement.
It wasn't a fuzzy negative against something Darwinian that could never be proven or disproven.
Making a more sweeping statement is usually a less bold, not more. Although it can sound bold (especially if you SHOUT it), like…
ALL CURRENT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE WRONG!!!!
This statement could never be proven incorrect. I could probably make a good case that the statement is correct. Every science theory is incomplete, therefore inaccurate. No, the Penrose-Hameroff model is bold. Behe's focus on negative attacks is timid. It is easy to throw stones. It is a lot harder to defend a detailed model.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 16, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 1:01 am
ThoughtProvoker –
You never responded to the substance of what I said. Behe made two claims:
1) Some systems are irreducibly complex (the original definition)
2) Irreducibly complex systems cannot be evolved by random mutation + natural selection
No one to my knowledge has provided evidence against claim #1 for the systems Behe specified. In fact, the people who have done knock-out experiments on the flagellum have shown #1 to be absolutely correct - removing _any_ one part disables the whole machinery. THIS PART IS NOT IN QUESTION. I have never seen _anyone_ dispute this claim for the biological systems Behe notes. Therefore, to say he is backing off of this definition would be ludicrous, since there is nothing to back off of. It is agreed by all that these systems exist.
The problem is claim #2. No one has shown that there is a RM+NS pathway for building irreducibly complex systems. However, many believe it exists. Robison was proposing a scenario for the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. Robison, as far as I'm aware, does not disagree that the system is irreducibly complex as far as Behe's definition of it. The part he disagrees with is #2. So Robison proposed a pathway, and Behe was merely pointing out that the pathway Robison pointed out was not RM+NS because it has several non-selective points along the path.
Therefore, as I said originally, the point of the modification is not that there was anything wrong with the original definition (if there is, please point to the specific part of the system which Robison thinks can be removed and the system still function), but that Robison was trying to get there via non-selective pathways, which Behe was pointing out. The "new definition" merely points more strongly to its impact on evolutionary theory rather than the state of the system as it currently stands.
Behe's "new definition" is in fact stronger than the first. The first definition deals with non-selective changes in the immediately-preceding step, while the second definition adds all of the non-selective changes throughout the history of the system as well, with each non-selective step adding to the case.
Comment by johnnyb — August 17, 2007 @ 1:01 am
August 17th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Hi jonnyb,
I realize this is difficult to believe, but in many ways I really do admire Behe. At least he showed up at Dover and tried. But if the systems specified in DBB (blood-clotting, immune and flagellum) were as rock solid as you are suggesting they would have reappeared in EoE.
Compare this to Hameroff and his microtubules…
1974 - Ch'i: A neural hologram? Microtubules, bioholography and acupuncture
1982 - Information processing in microtubules
1992 - Acousto-conformational transitions in cytoskeletal microtubules: Implications for intracellular information processing
1994 - Quantum optical coherence in microtubules: Implications for brain function
1996 - Orchestrated Reduction Of Quantum Coherence In Brain Microtubules: A Model For Consciousness? (This is where Hameroff linked up with Sir Rodger Penrose and they published this joint paper)
1998 - Did Consciousness Cause the Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion?
2003 - Search for Quantum and Classical Modes of Information Processing in Microtubules: Implications for "The Living State"
When a scientist is on to something, he/she presents ADDITIONAL examples, not different ones. From Hameroff's website…
Quantum Computing In DNA?
Quantum States In The Retina?
Biological quantum coherence in photosynthesis
One of Behe's strongest arguments is that the closer you look into the microscopic machinery of life, the evidence for design get's stronger, not weaker.
I would have expected a scientist with that kind of mindset to almost be forced to deal with the realization that the organic parts he is talking about are as small, if not smaller, than what is being used in quantum mechanical experiments. DNA strands have become standard equipment in nanotechnology and quantum computing. Yet Behe's discussion of quantum mechanics in EoE was limited to a passing acknowledgement that its study started in the early 1900s.
Dawkins says Behe has given up. I think it is more likely, Behe has given in.
Given in to the easy path of appealling to a group think mentality willing to readily accept sweeping wandwaving arguments as going "further and bolder than Darwin's Black Box".
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 17, 2007 @ 8:14 am
August 17th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Could someone please get my link-laden comment out of moderation?
Thanks
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 17, 2007 @ 8:28 am
August 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
A provocative thought.
Sure they have. For instance, Behe has claimed that the blood clotting cascade is irreducible, but this is incorrect. (Let me express my condolences for the dolphins.) But I would agree that there are components of biological systems that are essential.
Irreducible structures are a normal result of how interacting networks evolve. Those aspects of the network that evolve earliest in history tend to become locked in and essential.
Many of the interesting microscopic structures evolved very early in the history of life, so the evidence tends to be either scant or indirect. This creates a sizeable Gap for Gap arguments.
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Another way of looking at it is considering whether evolution involves systems that are intrinsically multi-component in nature. The multi-component position is eminently reasonable. Since there is an observable outcome (a cell) that we can analyze with some precision, this raises the question as to how the elements enabling evolution could be set in place without an evolutionary process to make it possible.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Hi Zachriel,
This comment is shortsighted and betrays what Behe actually said were the components of the IC portion of the bloodclotting cascade: fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin.
Behe stated:
and
This has already been addressed. Hageman factor was not claimed to be a component of the IC network in the blood clotting cascade.
Comment by Doug — August 17, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Yes. That's what he said at Dover in 2005. But in 1996 he stated, "Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway."
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Zachriel,
Sorry, but that's incorrect. Those quotes are from Darwin's Black Box.
Comment by Doug — August 17, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Sorry. I don't have immediate access to his book. But I believe this is still an accurate quote. Perhaps you could verify it:
"Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway."
Comment by Zachriel — August 17, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Doug's quotes are on page 86 of my copy.
Zach's quote I have not found yet.
Comment by Pez — August 17, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Zachriel,
Behe was very clear in DBB that those four factors (fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin) were the necessary components for what he conceived to be the IC portion of the blood clotting cascade.
He is explicit when he states that it becomes murky after the fork in the pathway.
Comment by Doug — August 17, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Well the history of science would suggest that this would obviously be true.
Which is an interesting and problematic observation for those who indulge in scientism.
I would certianly contend that this is a perfectly reasonable statement if you are going to defend a scientific realist approach. The scientific anti-realist obviously doesn't care as long as they work.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 17, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Hi Zachriel,
Not so fast. You tried to make it look like Behe was changing his mind with a "that was then, this is now" argument. Although there is nothing wrong with someone modifying their position or views, critics tend to portray this in sinister terms. Nevertheless, I have to wonder about something. Doug took words out of Behe's book and you assigned the wrong date (2005) and the wrong place (Dover) to them about 40 minutes after Doug posted them. What's more, you failed to even qualify your views an opinion, but spoke with a sense of authority.
My question is simple. How in the world could you make such a spectacular error? Can you explain your thinking process that allowed you to so easily perpetuate misinformation with such a sense of authority and such specificity? How does that happen?
Okay, so we see a little appropriate hesitancy here. And yes, the quote is from the book "“ about half a page further down than the quotes Doug supplied. And guess what? You may be quote-mining. The quote you provide is the last sentence in a paragraph. But what is the first sentence of that paragraph?
In other words, if we rely on conventions of grammar and writing (where the first sentence of a paragraph is effectively the topic of the paragraph), your quote could very well pertain to a hypothetical blood-clotting system that Behe imagines to address another angle on this issue. This view is supported by the fact that two paragraphs earlier, Behe outlines the IC players as Doug provided.
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2007 @ 10:25 am
August 19th, 2007 at 8:04 am
He did refer to those statements at Dover. As he was merely referring to his earlier statements, I withdraw the comment without reservation.
That's fine. Perhaps you can clarify what constitutes the "entire blood-clotting system" as used by Behe in this statement.
"Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway."
Comment by Zachriel — August 19, 2007 @ 8:04 am