103 Responses to “Behe”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
Featured Books
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene 
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body 
Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology 
System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts 
The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart 
Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge 
Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris 
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey 
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies 
Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch 
Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman 
Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur 
Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee 
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards 
The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold 
The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet 
Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb 
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
March 11th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Dr Behe, it is nice to see you join this very public forum. (You may have posted here before, bit I haven't noticed.) I find it a bit frustrating that the top few ID theorists are not more involved in the dynamic discussions on this and the other blog. (I am sure that you and the others are busy people.)
Telic Thoughts has some very well-studied darwinists on board, so I am sure that the discussion here should be interesting. This is a great way to defend your thesis.
Dr. Behe, I have followed your work from "Darwin's Black Box" with great interest. I agree with you that the word "Creationist" is flashed around like candy. I also appreciate that the journals are open to rebuttal of your work — thereby validating it as "science". It is so frustrating that a whole school of thought is discounted purely on philosophical grounds. However, that rejection does seem to be cracking.
Comment by bFast — March 11, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
bFast:
Did Behe post here?
Comment by Raevmo — March 11, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Yeah bFast…
you're freaking me out. What are you refering to?
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 11, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Sorry, I read "Behe" as the title, and figured it was he that posted.
Comment by bFast — March 11, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Drats!!
I was hoping you know something I didn't.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 11, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
It would be nice if Behe posted here, but frankly I don't think he has the guts.
Comment by Raevmo — March 11, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
LOL!
Comment by TomG — March 11, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Yeah, Raevmo, maybe trash talk will get him to post here. Try, "Hey, Behe! Or is that Beanie? Yo' mamma' wears army boots!" I'm sure that will do it. I better add this:
just so everybody knows I'm kidding.
Comment by Bilbo — March 11, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Or,
He doesn't want to have every single thing he said scrutinized to the point where he's made to look like a mysoginist.
TP, I was surprised at your reaction on this amazon blog to his "mean girls" comment that was directed toward ERV.
With Abbie's response to him, I would have had to have conjured all the strength in my body to not reply back with something worse than calling her a "mean girl"… or, had my wife proof read it and then lecture me on how I should try to be a nicer person. She's a sweetheart.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 11, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
There is another reason why civil, well-educated people avoid public forums. It has to do with their desire for sincere and substantive dialog. You can't have that when those who disagree with you view you as an IDiot. I don't know who coined the term or exactly how the attitude that spawned that view originated but it has become a symbol for obstructive dialog. Why should Behe subject himself to abuse? It's not as if it takes courage to anonymously attack him from the safety of your keyboard.
Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Sez the anonymous troll from another continent.
Raevmo, you are by far my favorite critic.
Comment by chunkdz — March 11, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Raevmo, if I were going to invent a personality whose anti-ID antics make IDists look good by comparison I could not do better than you.
Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
So you guys don't think Raevmo was just trying to bait Behe with trash talk?
Comment by Bilbo — March 11, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Is that why he doesn't publish in the scientific journals?
Comment by Zachriel — March 11, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Oh yes, let's open that old can of worms. We need a good bloodletting around here, anyway.
Comment by Bilbo — March 11, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Since two of the linked items in the opening post are in fact responses by Behe to some of his critics I guess that means Zachriel is either a) lying or b) deluded when he is suggesting how Behe is hiding from mainstream press to avoid criticism. In fact, Behe has received plenty of critical responses from Miller, Coyne and so forth to which Behe has responded.
The responses by Zachriel and Raevmo could not more clearly illustrate how they perceive themselves; atheists are 'brights', theists are idiots.
I prefer to think the opposite is true more and more with each passing day.
Comment by Jean — March 11, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Jean:
Zachriel's exact statement was :
Behe's response, while not an original research paper, is a response to a peer reviewed paper that touches on points relevant to claims made by Behe. The issues themselves are being discussed and the science stopper complaint is clearly inapplicable. If anything an ID POV provoked an investigation and a paper based on it.
Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Hi GringoRoyale,
You wrote…
Is this the comment you were refering to?
Dr. Behe,
While I agree with Smokey's analysis of your unfortunate reply to Abbie I am taking advantage of the ability to comment here and publicly asking you something that has bothered me. You have focused on the microscopic level to suggest that randomness is insufficient to explain observations. It is obvious that you are dealing at a level of detail that involves quantum mechanical effects. Experiments have shown quantum effects aren't random. Why was there so little discussion of quantum physics in your book Edge of Evolution when many scientists have been linking quantum physics to life processes? Examples of such scientists include Stapp, Patel and those at Berkeley lab who, this year, demonstrated photosynthesis is a quantum mechanical mechanism.
Both you and Abbie Smith could be correct. Her observations could be correct and your analysis visa-vie randomness could also be correct. Random Mutation would turn out to be impotent if, in fact, non-random quantum effects are fundamental to life at the microscopic level.
I would have thought you and CSC fellow, Henry F. Schaefer III, would have discussed something like this.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 11, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Jean, I'm giving Raevmo the benefit of the doubt and think that he was just trash-talkin', to try to provoke Behe to post here. Raevmo, am I right? You don't really think Behe is afraid of you, Zach, Todd, et al, do ya'?
As far as Zach's comment, I hope he was just trash-talkin', also. When Behe tries to publish about ID, it's rejected as non-scientific. When he tries to publish without mentioning ID, it's accepted.
Comment by Bilbo — March 11, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Bilbo wrote:
When did that last happen?
Comment by olegt — March 11, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
What's cool about the Durret and Schmidt paper, is that they come right out and mention Behe and his book. That makes me wonder: If papers attacking conclusions in ID books are acceptable in peer-reviewed publications, does that mean papers supporting them are acceptable?
Comment by Bilbo — March 11, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
The Snoke paper, I believe.
Comment by Bilbo — March 11, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
TP:
Dr. Behe,
TP do you have a link to this?
Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
yeah TP,
that's it.
Smokey could have given a poor reading of Behe's comment. When I first read Abbie's reply I was pretty taken aback. Considering her personally unprovoked response I thought Behe handled the situation better than most.
Then saying you agreed with Smokey's analysis (which you're allowed to do) of his 'unfortunate reply' it seemed like simple deck stacking.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 11, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Well, I never anonymously attack anyone or anything. I'd love to have a discussion with Behe about his views, not that I would understand all the mathematical sophistry he might deploy in such a discussion. I can't see why he would bother to post here though, it wouldn't increase his book sales. He just seems like a guy trying to make a living to me.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 11, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
The links provided above reference a paper with mathematical analytics. Unless you've studied both the paper and Behe's response to it why would you fling the label sophistry around?
Do you point out the business angle when Dawkins' books are discussed or any number of other authors, who are not IDists, for that matter?
Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Abbie needs lots of luvin.
Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Bradford – I included the link in the original comment (note the blue "this")
GringoRoyale – I felt Behe's post to Abbie Smith was condescending. It didn't help that he attempted the punch and duck debate tactic ("I could say my opponent is …. but I won't"). It happens to be a pet peeve of mine.
If Behe actually thought Abbie Smith's comment was at the level of a junior high brat, he should have ignored it regardless of calls to do otherwise. Note, prior to this post, the comment section was closed. It was Behe who chose to bring this up in the Amazon blog.
Of course, Behe probably didn't expect the comment section to suddenly be enabled.
The main focus of my comment was asking about quantum level effects.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 11, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
What makes you say that?
Are you basing it on what Abbie wrote or on what Behe said Abbie wrote?
Do you have a link to Abbie's new web site?
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 11, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Abbie needs lots of luvin.
I've had personal experience dealing with her at my blog and have observed her behavior toward others. She's nasty. Pure and simple. No need to sugar coat it. The best cure for that is lots of love. Improves the self-esteem. Does she have a new website? Maybe someone has the link.
Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 5:27 am
I am curious; would you say that if Abbie was a guy?
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 12, 2009 @ 5:27 am
March 12th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I guess Bradford is saying that Abbie needs to get laid, and it sounds as if he is volunteering for the job. But I could be wrong of course.
Comment by Raevmo — March 12, 2009 @ 9:05 am
March 12th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Bilbo:
I doubt Behe reads at TT, but you never know…
Of course Behe is worried about having his ass kicked in a public forum. There's a reason why he avoids peer review and all that.
Anyway, Behe blew it in my book when he collaborated with the utterly dishonest "Of Pandas and People" project where a sloppy search-and-replace gave us the immortal cdesignproponentsists.
Comment by Raevmo — March 12, 2009 @ 9:17 am
March 12th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Raevmo
I think this is where he showed his true colours. The original draft of the book is now well known to be a creationist textbook. Behe – who accepts common descent – was nevertheless happy to take the money and run. I think this is a strong indication that Behe is more concerned with making-money at the expense of scientific integrity (I guess you could liken it to a Christian writing a chapter on the problem of evil in a book promoting Islam; in both instances the chapter itself is within the beliefs of the author, but the idealogy promoted by the book is not).
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 12, 2009 @ 10:34 am
March 12th, 2009 at 11:06 am
No,
Abbie needs to be called on her behavior. Plain and simple.
You wouldn't want someone acting like that to a person you actually gave a damn about. She says nasty and down right hostile things. The response she receives? Pats on the back.
A person acting like a child should probably be treated like one. He still addressed her points.
Anyone remember these Abbie gems:
posted all over the blog she claimed:
Wow…
I can't wrap my mind around the audacity of Dr. Behe to act condescending to her. He has some nerve. Truly disgusting and upsetting behavior on his part to treat her in a condescending manner.
Makes my blood boil, you can bet on that.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 12, 2009 @ 11:06 am
March 12th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Wait a minute.
They were going to use a term that recently got tarred and feathered… so they opted to not use it anymore. They opted to change it because they still thought they had something to say, despite a court ruling.
You would have to work hard to give the scenario an even less gracious reading.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 12, 2009 @ 11:08 am
March 12th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Hi GringoRoyale,
For what it is worth, I agree that Abbie's attitude is more in line with AtBC (aka "The Swamp") than Telic Thoughts.
Our discussion was over my comment suggesting the Behe's post was an "unfortunate reply". I did not know who Abbie Smith was until this incident. Frankly, it looks like Behe overlooked a recent discovery in HIV when writing his Edge of Evolution.
Of course, in the atmosphere of Culture War politics any mistakes are touted as proof the other side doesn't know what its talking about.
Clearly, Behe chose to attempt to discredit the source(s) of the argument rather than own up to a minor mistake and show appreciation for the opportunity to correct it.
I tend to give Behe more credit and respect than other major players in the ID Movement. I believe he was in earnest with Darwin's Black Box. He stood up and defended his ideas in the Dover trial when others backed out. While I was disappointed with Behe's follow up book (Edge of Evolution) and felt he could of handled the Abbie situation better, I am far from labeling him a bad guy.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 12, 2009 @ 11:45 am
March 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Raevmo:
He did not avoid a very public exchange over a peer reviewed paper recently. He might be avoiding the macho man mentality fostered by the likes of PZ Myers et al.
A collaborator. Behe had nothing to do with the machinations of the Board.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I could be mistaken..
but didn't the objection fall under the scope of viral protein-host protein interactions? Which Behe explained in his book where a different class of interactions from host protein-protein interactions.
His whole example of (paraphrased) "it's easier to gum up something that functions properly than to develop new protein-protein interactions".
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 12, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Nick Matzke says Abbie is very cordial in person.
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
He also had breakfast with Richard Dawkins. Also very cordial.
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Nick now calls him "The Dawk".
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Ahhhh, Nick.
Too bad she didn't seem to cordial when she and PZ were doing that conference. She was even cutting him off to interrupt.
Leaving aside her supposedly flicking off Luskin. Which I have the feeling some less than gracious TT readers would probably say, "yeah… well he probably deserved it". Guess you can't win.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 12, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I prefer Dickie D, myself.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 12, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Nick and The Dawk stayed at the same bed and breakfast together. Nick made sure that he was there when The Dawk woke up.
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Nick later abandoned his own grandparents to see The Dawk in concert, where he had secured advanced VIP seating.
The Dawk spoke to standing ovations, kindling feelings of man-love deep within Nick.
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
At breakfast, The Dawk was so impressed with Nick that he donated $5000 to help defeat creationists. Nick fought hard to stay composed. His lip quivered slightly. Was it wrong for Nick to feel these feelings? There was an erotic aura around The Dawk, almost palpable. He felt childish and giddy, like he did when he and Phina used to smoke cigarettes and tell bawdy jokes out on the balcony.
Nick ordered french toast. He wasn't hungry but he didn't want to appear in any way unusual. The moment lingered like a smoke ring in the bustling air.
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 12, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Nick briefly remembered the weekend in San Simeon with Wesley. The feelings were similar but Wes seemed like a child now. Like some old children's TV show that Nick could barely recall. But here was a real man. Even when The Dawk didn't speak his very presence was burning a memory into Nicks mind fast and hot. Nick tried to hide his discomfort by taking long gulps of coffee. Where was the damn waitress?
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Hi GringoRoyale,
Behe eventually admitted he had made a mistake in Edge of Evolution after being pressed in followup exchanges.
Here is the link.
Here is what Behe said…
"Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV. So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero."
Abbie Smith caught the error. Had he simply responded to her with the above paragraph along with a thank you for pointing it out, the whole incident would have probably quietly faded into obscurity.
Alas, that is not the way the Culture War is waged. The first reaction tends to be personal attacks and counter attacks (shield bashing) followed up by a lot of distracting (strawman) arguments and counter arguments that give the faithful a reason to continue trusting their side even if they don't fully understand the arguments.
As I said, I suspect Behe didn't expect the comments to be suddenly enabled on the Amazon blog (they had been closed previously). Whether he misunderstood or miscalculated, his reply to Abbie is reasonably described as "unfortunate", IMO.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 12, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
"What time is your lecture this evening?" Nick asked. The Dawk didn't hear. His camera man had leaned over from the next table to show him something on his blackberry. Nick felt awkward as they talked. He knew damn well what time the lecture was. The tickets were in his wallet and he'd already told his grandparents that he would have to be on the road by five. Nick waved a napkin to get the waitress' attention. If only he could be alone with him, someplace without clocks and blackberrys and clamoring fans, without the cameras and the autograph seekers.
He saw Vic coming down the stairs. Nick scooted his chair closer to Dawkins' end of the table and waved him over. He hoped Vic wouldn't notice that he was blushing.
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Yeah, tough love. Which she obviously never got.
She seems to already have lots of the non-tough love. She obviously loves herself immensely.
Anyway, it's easy to be vile, throwing metaphorical monkey poop in cyberspace. One day someone will probably take some of the polish off her attitude in person. Never fear, people like that are their own worse enemy, in the end. Karma is a bitch.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 12, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Abbie needs lots of luvin.
He needs his butt kicked. Yes, I do treat people differently based on their gender.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Vic talked and Nick pretended to hear. The Dawk had changed the subject to his upcoming photo shoot. Nick had just had some publicity photos taken too but he couldn't find a way to join the conversation. He held his breath as The Dawk held court court like a royal patriarch, smiling, erudite, commanding.
Nick had drunk too much coffee. His sphincter tightened as he tried to hold back the inevitable, but he knew that he would lose his seat if he went to the lavatory. Jewel-like beads of sweat began to form on his head.
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
chunkdz,
Heh heh, You've managed to make me laff out loud more than once.
It's all so clear to me now.
Keep those "pulp" installments coming!
P.S. please use the word "glistening" in one of your upcoming posts.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 12, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
chunkdz,
….and "heaving"
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 12, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Nick's phone vibrated. It was a text from Abbie.
"a bunch of us getting s#!tfaced after the lecture. wanna go?"
Nick had planned on going to The Dawk's booksigning. But that was before he met the man. Now he had lost the desire. How could he line up at the trough like all those stupid sycophants now that he had shared this moment with the man?
"They just want a signature. A piece of his fame, a trophy for enduring 3 hours in line for a superficial encounter." Nick said to himself.
"I've experienced the man. Connected with him."
Everything about The Dawk was exciting. His hair, his spritely European charm, his manner of dress, the way he asked the waitress for marmalade. Every electron in Nick's body was energized into a higher valence. But oh, that mind! That amazing glorious mind that seemed to understand Nick from the first email he ever returned. God, how he loved that mind.
Vic was babbling about frogs or something. Nick texted back an expedient "ok" to Abbie. He had to go to the bathroom right now.
Just as he was about to ask Vic to save his seat The Dawk turned to him.
"Do you know where the WC is?" Richard said to Nick.
Nick's head was glistening. His face was growing red again. What the hell was the WC?
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
What is this, Bradford? Can't appreciate some romantic comments? Unless of course your own team makes them.
Comment by Raevmo — March 12, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Oh yeah? Well supercalifragilisticexpealadocious to you, fella'.
For the record, I admire Nick Matzke. He's a true believer (or non-believer) who went from a major in geography to a masters in…what field of biology was it? And now is working on a PhD in…some biological field. When ID critics such as Miller want to show that the bacterial flagellum evolved, they go to Matzke's work, even though he doesn't have a PhD, yet. Though I disagree with him, I think he has a great mind.
Comment by Bilbo — March 12, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I love Nick too. I had hoped to option the movie rights to his epic love story.
Unfortunately, Raevmo has sucked all the romance right out of me.
Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
March 13th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Thanks for that info, TP.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 13, 2009 @ 9:59 am
March 13th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Hi TP,
How's it going?
But "unfortunate" is not really the crux of your response, is it?
Have you forgotten the content of the comment you rubber-stamped when you introduced yourself on that thread? You say now that you don't think Behe is a bad guy, but that it just what you were endorsing.
It's all well and good, and accurate, actually, to point out some characteristics of the so-called "culture war" that you choose to deride but your pretense that you are above is it tedious.
By the way, here's the analysis, with which you agreed:
Sounds like a bad guy to me.
You've also mentioned here again that you liked DBB better than EoE, which disappointed you. You were saying this back when you had only read the table of contents and a brief analogy to the Truman Show from the book. Have you actually read it yet, as you seem to imply?
Have you read either?
Comment by Pez — March 13, 2009 @ 10:57 am
March 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Hi Pez,
It's about time you showed up!
I have been running amuck in various threads far too long for my own good.
You wrote…
No, I am not above it all, but that doesn’t keep me from recognizing the situation.
You also wrote…
I am usually careful to qualify my agreement with something like “I GENERALLY agree with….”. I am at a loss to explain why I did not do it on the Amazon blog. I made a mistake.
Whether you accept it or not, I did more than read the table of contents and one chapter of EoE. I spent several hours going over EoE. Did I read every word? No, but I did read the parts about HIV and Malaria and “demons and devils”. As for DBB. Again I have not read every word of that book. However, I have spent WEEKS understanding Behe’s arguments and hypotheses during the Dover trial. This is what got me interested in trying to understand ID. Behe convinced me that he had been in earnest, at least at the beginning.
For what it is worth, I didn’t read every word of Penrose’s book either. I don’t tend to read every word of these kind of books. I skip over relatively unimportant parts to focus on the meat.
Yes, I was disappointed that Behe didn’t focus further on the micro/quantum level mechanisms of cells and offer possible mechanistic explanations by which a design might be implemented. As I indicated in my Amazon comment I would be surprised if Behe was unaware of the recent investigations of bioquantum physics. For example, CSC has a quantum physicist on its staff.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 13, 2009 @ 11:58 am
March 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Oh brother.
Comment by chunkdz — March 13, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
March 13th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
By the way, TP, I missed your reference to your health. I'm glad you're doing better.
I think 'generally' agreeing with Smokey's comment would still nullify your characterization of Behe's response as "unfortunate" or of him as not being a "bad guy".But that's getting pretty subjective, I guess.
Actually, I don't even credit you with a chapter; the Truman Show analogy is roughly one page.
These points you can pick up on this blog, his Amazon blog, or from his many "reviewers".
How about the parts on anti-freeze in the blood, Lenski or his revisiting of IC and the bacterial flagellum?
Were you also disappointed in the sections on fine-tuning, his reiteration of the argument from reason, or his philosophical discussion of the multiverse?
You also mention that perhaps he would agree with you about there being no such thing as randomness, but do you acknowledge the role he gives chance in evolution?
I think you are over-reaching as you try to represent yourself as a fair-minded seeker and as genuinely disappointed. There is no reason that QM ought to have been featured in any way in this book and has nothing to do with Behe's case. Is Behe's the only book ever written that didn't elaborate upon your preferred explanation and is it the only one that has disappointed you for this reason?
All my best.
Comment by Pez — March 13, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
March 13th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
By the way, it's not like it's N.T. Wright's book – several hours of "going over" EoE is all it takes to read it cover to cover.
Comment by Pez — March 13, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
March 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Pez,
You wrote…
Ok, here is the deal. I went through Behe's EoE while waiting for my wife and daughter to do their typical book search. I don't know how long they took but it seemed like hours.
Since I didn't know how long they would be, I flipped back and forth through Behe's book. I say I got about 80% of it, including the revisit of IC visa vie Cillia and IFT. At this point I'm not sure how much I know from direct knowledge and how much was from follow-up discussion on Behe's Amazon blog. I'm not sure that matters.
As you know, my interest was to see if Behe was going to offer suggested mechanisms with a special eye to bioquantum physics. The closest he came was a passing reference to Einstein.
Call me a biased, materialist Darwinist if you want, but I was honestly disappointed.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 13, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
March 14th, 2009 at 12:15 am
This isn't directed at you, TP.
But I heard that comment alot from ID critics: (along the lines of) DBB was at least enjoyable EoE was terrible.
I don't see it. When DBB came out Behe was criticized for focusing on nuances and not really giving an explanation of them. Because in DBB he admitted that he accepted descent with modification from an original ancestor(s).
EoE went to the heart of the issue. It didn't just give us unconnected example after unconnected example… it spelled out the problem (whether we agree it's a problem or not). It was a much more detailed and daring book. The claims were significantly more bold than those of DBB.
Opposed to throwing out some examples, Behe went deeper and actually addressed what he felt was the problem with the actual mechanism. Pretty much was he was criticized for not doing in DBB. He didn't just state an endpoint, look back at the supposed mechanism (RM+NS) and scratch his head hoping everyone understood what he was saying.
I really don't think it matters what would have come out after DBB from Dr. Behe. Because none of his regular critics were about to concede that Behe at least did anything right. It was lose/lose for him. If a superior book were produced then it would just be "and I thought DBB was bad…. boy howdy was I wrong!!"
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 14, 2009 @ 12:15 am
March 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Hi GringoRoyal,
Even though it wasn't directed at me, I will take a crack at trying to explain.
Here are some excerpts from DBB…
…
(emphasis mine)
In Darwin's Black Box, Behe attempts to make a positive case for ID. He is even positive about Darwin and his ideas. He is talking about advancing scientific understanding by boldly claiming the inner workings of cells don't just look like machines, they ARE machines. The only thing missing is a signature "made by…" label.
At this time, his definition for Irreducible Complexity was unequivocal…
This definition could be tested with a clear "yes" or "no" result. It was not shades of gray, it did not depend of probabilities or arguements of credible verses incredible. Clearly, Behe was throwing the gauntlet down with confidence that he had clear “observable evidence” of a designer’s manipulation of life at the cellular level.
Please excuse me for not attempting to get similar excepts from Edge of Evolution but it would take more effort than I am willing to make. Besides, I would probably be accused of cherry picking the bad parts. Maybe Pez, or someone else, who thinks EoE represents a better effort would try to make the case.
As for me, I found EoE focused mainly on the weaknesses and limitations of “Darwinism” to the point that Behe included irrelevant (and out-of-context) personal attacks on Darwin himself. For all the references and calculations, EoE falls back on the standard ID position that life’s complexity is too improbable to be explained by randomness. It is just another version of Dembski’s Upper Probably Bound argument. I’ll give Behe credit that he did touch on other explanations (e.g. multiverse) but in the end the main message is that since “Darwinism” can’t credibly explain life’s complexity the Design hypothesis wins by default.
It’s the same old negative argument repackaged.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 14, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
March 16th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Hi TP,
What were these personal attacks on Darwin?
And a sidenote. You seem overly concerned about the attacks that Behe dishes out. You seem to hold him to a much higher standard than you hold those he critiques to.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 16, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
March 16th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Hi GringoRoyale,
From Edge of Evolution page 238…
Here is what Darwin wrote to Asa Gray in context…
There are many places where Darwin makes reference to Divine creation of the universe and even the first cell. Theistic believers struggling with the problem of evil is nothing new.
This was a personal letter that should be irrelevent when considering Darwin's contributions to science. Yet, Behe chose to include it in EoE.
As for holding Behe "to a much higher standard", I was explaning why I felt Darwin's Black Box was a more positive contribution than Behe's second book. The focus of Edge of Evolution was more on discrediting Darwin and "Darwinism" than providing positive hypotheses for design.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 16, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Hi TP,
Behe's point is in no way a "personal attack" on Darwin – even if his conclusion were wrong, which it isn't.
Darwin does here conclude that the misery in the world, the problem of evil, as it were, is evidence against there being design at all – against, therefore, a designer.
He draws, as Behe rightly points out, the fallacious conclusion that the eye requires no designer from his observation that a designer would not have created a cat to play with a mouse. How does one follow from the other?
The design of the eye is evident, or not, on its own, and has nothing to do with Darwin's belief in what an omniscient and benevolent Creator would have done with caterpillars.
Throughout Darwin's letters and articles in response to Gray his point is that design is constantly belied by the fact that variation can be injurious. Because it can be injurious, it is not designed (as Behe said, Darwin skipped the 'not beneficient' or 'not omnipotent' choices). Not being designed, nature has no designer.
Your plea that this was a "private correspondence" of Darwin's, as though Behe has illicitly read from is diary, is also fallacious. Darwin said the same thing, and answered Gray publicly, in his published articles. Regardless of where and when he revealed it, his conclusion was non-scientific and not warranted by the evidence.
Books are full of illustrative points, anecdotes, and examples – even Penrose's, I bet (without reading). This point by Behe has nothing to do with Darwin's contribution to science – and neither does Behe's book in general. What's with this "poor Darwin" routine?
Not surprisingly, you seem to have missed the positively titled chapter 4, "What Darwinism Can Do" and the section "Kudos" to Darwin in EoE.
He's much more confident and bold in EoE. He has traced the designer's "manipulation" all the way to the creation of classes and possibly even to the species level.
That which is designed includes: OOL, cells, genetic code, multiprotein complexes, molecular machines, genetic programs, protein networks, and cell types….
"Design denies not only that some specific piece of machinery (say, the bacterial flagellum) would be produced by random mutation, but hat any complex, coherent molecular machinery would. Although random processes can account for small changes, there are real limits. Beyond those limits, design is required."
You want it cut and dried?
"One can view all necessary biological features that are beyond what it's biologically reasonable to expect of unintelligent processes – for example, all cellular protein complexes containing two or more protein-protein binding sites – as just more and more examples of fine-tuning of the universe for life, akin to the unique events that produced the moon".
217
Please, quit acting as though you have read the book (either, book).
Comment by Pez — March 17, 2009 @ 2:28 am
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
False.
Comment by Pez — March 17, 2009 @ 2:28 am
March 17th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Pez,
Thank You for your response.
Actually I smiled the first time I read Behe's discussion about the finely-tuned moon.
One of the first questions I asked ID proponents when I got interested in the debate was "Is the moon designed?"
Once it is agreed that non-living things are also designed by this unidentified "Intelligent Designer", it quickly becomes logical to presume EVERYTHING is designed by this same unnamed entity.
While you may think EoE is bolder because Behe expanded the set of things that fall into the "designed" category, I feel it made it weaker.
Paley's watch argument becomes meaningless in a universe seen as an automated factory filled with all kinds of "designed" objects.
Behe and Dembski can argue against chance hypotheses until they are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean they can automatically assert the existence of a designer by default. In Behe's own words "the onus is on him or her to support the assertion with observable evidence."
There are more than two choices. Chance hypotheses and designer hypotheses may be both wrong. The workings and information content of the universe may far exceed current understanding.
In his book Road to Reality, Penrose discusses the possibility of the future universe fine tuning its past.
While this idea may make our heads spin, think about the fact that time is contained within the universe (4D space-time geometry). It makes no sense to talk about "before" the universe was created. There was no time before the universe was created. It is like talking about south of the South Pole.
In Darwin's words…
"A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton."
Followed with…
"Let each man hope and believe what he can."
I suggest Darwin was an early embracer of NOMA even though Gould wasn’t even around to coin the term yet.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 17, 2009 @ 11:27 am
March 17th, 2009 at 11:35 am
One of the first questions I asked ID proponents when I got interested in the debate was "Is the moon designed?"
I know you do. That's why I brought up fine-tuning a few comments ago – to give you the chance to bring it up again. That's why I told you here that Behe actually uses it as an argument/analogy. If you'd read the book this would have struck you much more strongly than the Truman Show and you would have mentioned it here.
No kidding. Augustine told us that 17 hundred years ago.
I'll respond to your thought that Behe's stronger assertion is a weaker assertion later. I have a meeting.
Ciao.
Comment by Pez — March 17, 2009 @ 11:35 am
March 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Hey PEZ
I sense a pattern here how about you?
One of the things that most disappointed me about Dawkin’s book The Ancestors' Tale is the large amount of ink the he spilled over Behe’s DBB despite the fact that it was obvious that he had not even read it.
I wonder how many people came away from that book believing that the arguments Behe made had been refuted when in fact they had not even been addressed
It makes me wonder if any of the critics ever read anything that might tend to disagree with them.
This is a honest question on my part……..
Has any critic here even read Behe's books in their entirety or is everyone simply relying on snippets and secondary sources ?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 17, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Hi Pez,
To my moon discussion you wrote…
I strongly suspect you do understand my position (which is why you are a worthy debate opponent). Therefore, you should understand that once Behe expanded his argument to be more inclusive, I saw it as the same old negative argument that presumes the existence of an Intelligent Designer (i.e. God) as a default.
I have no problems considering the possibility that God created the universe. As I have said in the past, I would be delighted if it turned out that our universe is some kind of supernatural science fair project.
I am also a science fiction fan and can imagine space-faring Tnuctipun seeding earth as a Thrint food planet (which ended up being abandoned and grew wild). see link
It could even explain the presence of the moon (Tnuctipun created it as an observation post).
The point is that until positive explanations are offered all that is left are negative arguments against the status quo.
I can even accept suspending a need to identify a designer or designers but we need at least a proposed mechanism by which it or they actuated the design.
I biasedly suggest quantum physics would be an obvious choice for how designer(s) who exist outside our universe could manipulate the internals.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 17, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Hi fifth monarchy man,
Have you read Darwin's Black Box and Edge of Evolution in their entirety?
Pez is right. These are much shorter books than N.T. Wrights' book. Also, they are easier to obtain.
Are you willing to debate the contents of these books?
The "pattern" you are seeing from Behe's critics is a critical analysis of Behe's assertions and default presumptions.
Behe made a mistake when he claimed HIV had developed no new protein-binding sites. There is also some questions about Behe's consistancy withing the book itself. But, frankly, these are all side issues. The real questions are…
1. "What is Behe's justification for presuming the existence of a designer or designers?"
2. "What proposed mechanism(s) does Behe's presumed designer or designers use to implement the design?"
As Behe wrote in Darwin's Black Box…
"the onus is on him or her to support the assertion with observable evidence."
And if it isn't obvious by now, I am unimpressed with observations that simple chance can't explain life's complexity. There are too many other possible explanations available beyond the DesignerDidIt hypothesis.
And some of these hypotheses have experimental support.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 17, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Ditto. Sad, really.
Comment by chunkdz — March 17, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Hi Chuckdz,
Have you read Darwin's Black Box and Edge of Evolution in their entirety?
Are you willing to debate their contents?
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 17, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
fmm:
Me too. As soon as someone disagrees with your view of book X, they haven't read book X.
Obviously you haven't even read The Ancestor's Tale.
Comment by Raevmo — March 17, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
TP
Yes, they are on the shelf behind me right now. I make it a point ot read most ID related books that I can get my hands on.
This makes your critique of them with out actually having read them all the more inexcusable.
I must confess I have not read Mike Gene’s book yet mostly because I haven’t come across it at my local hayseed library. That’s why you don’t find me debating it here. It's just common courtesy.
In the past I’ve requested books like Wrights' and they have been quick to order them I just haven’t got around to it in the case of Mike’s book.
Perhaps with someone who has read them.
Actually these are not the questions at all. If you read the books you would know that they are mostly about the capabilities of RM/NS and a designer is only discussed as a possible alternative to these.
that's fine feel free to explore them as you like but please don't fault a book for not discussing them thoroughly enough when that was not it's purpose or objective in the first place.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 17, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Hey Raevmo
Not sure what you mean. Has any critic here claimed to have read the books in question? Have you?
Why so?
I base my opinion of Dawkins on the fact that he seems to think that demonstrating that parts of an IC system could have an unrelated function is a refutation of IC when Behe never claimed that individual parts could not have unrelated function(s).
Are you saying that a smart guy like Dawkins could read DBB and simply miss this?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 17, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Yes, I have read both. And no, don't really feel like debating them with you.
Truth be told, TP, I call myself an ID'er but I'm really more of a CT'er. And though I'm a relative novice I know enough about critical thinking to know that you should not make judgements until you've studied the facts,
and gained an appreciation for all sides of an issue. I'm not convinced that you have done this. In fact, I'm almost certain you have not done this.
This is evidenced in comparing our summaries of Behe's argument.
I think Behe feels that Darwinism is overreaching in thinking it explains everything from biodiversity to why rape occurs, and tries to examine the limits of Darwinian evolution at the level at which it is purported to occur – the molecular.
You think Behe is trying to "discredit Darwin and Darwinism" and insert his own explanation; "DesignerDidIt". And tellingly, one of your main criticisms is that Behe did not include your own pet theory of a quantum mechanism.
On a strictly critical thinking level, your analysis is at best misinformed and at worst pedantic.
Comment by chunkdz — March 17, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
FYI, I own a copy of Mike Gene's book. It could be argued that I didn't read it either since I skipped over things like the forward and some parts where I felt Mike was stating the obvious.
I am glad to hear you have Darwin's Black Box handy. If you turn to page 193 you might be able to find…
While I would agree with you that Behe's second book was more focused on the limits of "Darwinism" (as the title suggests), I thought Darwin's Black Box was a bolder and clearer attempt to make a positive case for Intelligent Design.
Are we arguing over something we partially agree on?
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 17, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I have the urge to say well duh
This is the obvious common sense conclusion. That is why he called it straightforward.
Humans are hardwired to conclude design we can’t help it and I could argue that assuming a designer is necessary for any coherent thoughts at all and I have done so in other places.
All of that is beside the point that Behe is making he is merely pointing out the obvious fact that the emperor has no clothes.
It’s possible Behe is mistaken and what really is at foot is some sort of weird backward causation via quantum effects but that explanation does not jump out at you like design. When you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras.
If you want to believe such things fine knock yourself out it’s a free country just don’t expect Behe and the rest of us to care to much until you come up with some proof.
I’m not arguing with you at all. I would have to believe you cared a little about what other folks had to say before I decided to go to that much trouble
I’m merely pointing out that it seems the critics in this discussion have a problem with trying to understand what it is they are critiquing. that's all
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 17, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Hi chunkdz and fmm,
I have to admit that I don't read everything I should from the other side, either. But I don't represent as though I have. And when I am making a point that relies upon those sources, as I did once with Dawkins, I make sure to have his books at hand to defend my arguments.
Since I like to argue about what Darwin said I have Origin…beside me here, have spent dozens of hours reading his correspondences and notes, and have been over, with a fine-toothed comb, most of Descent, for instance.
Hi TP,
re: the moon, finetuning, the multiverse, etc.
If you'd read Behe I think you would have found much with which you would agree and you wouldn't be making the charges you do.
Your points about his case being weaker rather than stronger because he sees evidence for design in more levels of creation doesn't make much sense to me, but I would like to explore it later when I've a little more time. Tonight, perhaps.
What makes you think the internals were manipulated?
Why would we need a mechanism if there were nothing to explain?
Other than as pure speculation, why would one even think there could be a designer who would need quantum physics as a mechanism?
For what about the moon do you think your aliens would provide an interesting explanation? Would you suggest they designed rock so that they'd have a place to land their crafts?
You once accepted Dembski's UPB as a good argument that "evolution" can't account for life. Do you still accept it?
You accepted Behe's argument for the BF. Do you still accept that as an argument for design?
Comment by Pez — March 17, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Hi Pez,
I still think there is merit in Dembski's UPB argument in that it suggests there is more to life and the universe than randomness. In fact, I have taken it to the extreme to suggest there is no such thing as randomness.
Yes, I was intrigued with Behe's IC argument using the flagellum as an example. And, yes, I think it can be included into Mike Gene's Consilience of Clues for something generally called "design".
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 17, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
fmm:
Do you honestly believe that Dawkins didn't read DBB before commenting on it? I haven't read it, but I did read TEoE.
Comment by Raevmo — March 17, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
fmm:
Why don't you quote the relevant passage(s) from Dawkins?
Comment by Raevmo — March 17, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Pez,
.
Not a problem. In fact, Behe encouraged readers to skip over certain parts of DBB that were relevant, but not essential to the "meat" of the argument.
What I object to in TP's approach is the technique of autonomously deciding what is "meat" before we even read. If preconception colors the choice of what is important, then any subsequently drawn conclusion will bear the same tint.
Hence TP's summary that EoE is primarily about "discrediting Darwin and Darwinism".
Comment by chunkdz — March 17, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Raevmo
Yes I don’t see how you could come to any other conclusion
I don’t have the book in front me of so I can't give all the relevant information but A quick Google is sufficient to make the point.
Check out pages 549-551
He hypocritically claims that IC is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why something like the wheel did not evolve in large animals but then inplies it should never be used as an argument for the insufficiency of natural causes.
Then he simply quotes Millers’ contention that the presence of TTSS in bacteria refutes IC.
Sure sounds like he did not read DBB to me. It’s enough to make you scream
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 17, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
March 17th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Raevmo
You have a weird European humor about you and I never know how to take you but I’ve learned to respect your willingness to at least look at the other side.
Now should we hold hands and sing campfire songs
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 17, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
March 18th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Hi TP,
Thanks for your willing attitude and your answers.
Unfortunately, I'm not done.
How does it do this?
Upon what basis?
Same as above. How does IC indicate design, or even "design", as far as you're concerned?
Comment by Pez — March 18, 2009 @ 12:17 am
March 18th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Behe Edge of Evolution page 170…
Behe Edge of Evolution page 171…
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 18, 2009 @ 12:34 am
March 18th, 2009 at 1:12 am
That's just a teaser toward your actual answer, right?
Comment by Pez — March 18, 2009 @ 1:12 am
March 18th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Hi Pez,
Take care, my "willing attitude" will tolerate only so much hoop jumping before I will expect reciprocity.
Dembski's UPB analysis presumes a common view of the universe where discrete events are independent and time-ordered. With this view, there is a definable limit to the information available in the known universe along with the number of "random" trials available to actuate complex objects such as life.
Penrose offers that quantum-level events are not independent. Instead they are interconnected both in space and time. This significantly increases the information content of the universe by orders upon orders of magnitude. It also brings into question the nature of "randomness" in such an interconnected universe.
Dembski's UPB argument in relationship to existence of a complex universe containing complex life can be thought of as an information problem. The common view of the universe doesn't provide enough information; ergo it suggests there needs to be something more. This provides support for Penrose's view.
As to the existence of randomness, I consider it as metaphysical as presuming the existence of a supernatural designer. Quantum experiments show quantum effects are interconnected in space and/or time. There is little justification to presume that a "discrete" quantum effect is independent and random. A normal distribution isn't sufficient to presume randomness. A pseudo-random number generator can give a normal distribution but it is clearly not random.
I don't know whether randomness or God (or something else) is behind quantum physics, but I suggest making a specific presumption on this is based on philosophical faith.
As for IC and "design". I agree with Mike that it is extremely unlikely that any one piece of evidence will make the case for something more than simple RM+NS is behind life. When is complex, too complex? When is early, too early? Eventually, the weight of many incredible situations could slowly become recognized as improbable thus providing support for modifying existing hypotheses. The bacterial flagellum is an example of something that is incredibly complex.
As for "design", many people jump to the conclusion this term automatically invokes the need for a designer, especially one with human-like intelligence.
First of all, I don't consider the existence of intelligence to be necessary for design. Computers can design without intelligence. Mandelbrot sets are a design without intelligence. Water and cold temperature design snow flakes.
Now your turn….
1. Do you think true randomness exists? If so, why?
2. Do you think "design" requires a designer?
If so, what basic capabilities must this designer have?
a. an ability to learn?
b. consciousness?
c. purposeful intent?
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 18, 2009 @ 1:50 am
March 18th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Hi TP,
I haven't asked you to jump a single hoop. I've merely questioned your assertions and asked you to support them. I have no fear of answering direct and pertinent questions.
A negative argument focused on the weaknesses and limitations of the "common view".
Too complex for what?
Too early for what?
Improbable given what?
So those are your positions on the evidences for design as presented by Behe and Dembski.
Since you have indicated you think I am asking you to hoop-jump you will be unlikely to answer the questions above, even though they merely clarify that you are not actually answering the question asked previously.
If you do answer, based upon the previous few comments, you will likely leave a trail that doesn't actually answer the question as I mean it so I will go ahead and answer for you. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Too complex for what? For the common view – the Darwinian explanation. Too early for what? For the common view – the chance hypothesis. Too improbable as well.
But earlier you said:
Which you accept as legitmate indicators of design, as seen above.
Which you accept, as above.
Which you accept as an indicator of the necessity of design.
Your acceptance of their arguments as a reason to even entertain, and especially to justify and forward, Penrose's hypothesis, is the same old negative argument. You haven't even repackaged it. You've just denigrated those from whom you've appropriated it.
—
Are these pertinent to our discussion? Are you desiring a real and in-depth conversation here about my personal views for some reason? Or would my answers in some way impact anything I've said above or how you might respond to me in the future?
Comment by Pez — March 18, 2009 @ 2:31 am
March 18th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Hi Pez,
I was aware of the point you were trying to make with my "willing attitude".
First, saying "there needs to be something more" is only the first step. As Behe indicated in DBB, when a person is trying to make a case, "the onus is on him or her to support the assertion with observable evidence."
In the case of Penrose's hypothesis, there are countless, repeatable Quantum Mechanical experiments that provide OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE of the interconnected nature of quantum effects. This makes it a positive argument.
Second, the definition of the words "randomness" and "design" are extremely pertinant to the conversation. Therefore, I am disappointed that you avoided my direct question on the subject.
If "design"simply means "not random" then the lack of randomness directly implies everything is designed.
However, Behe made it very clear in Darwin's Black Box that he was talking about a designer akin to Paley's watchmaker. In Edge of Evolution he was more equivocal about his meaning of the term "design".
I have tried to make it clear what my definition of the term "design" means. Putting it bluntly, I suggest the universe designs itself through Quantum Machanics. Is there a God or multiverse behind it all? That is a philosophical question.
So, back to my questions…
1. Do you think true randomness exists? If so, why?
2. Do you think "design" requires a designer?
If so, what basic capabilities must this designer have?
a. an ability to learn?
b. consciousness?
c. purposeful intent?
If you are concerned that your opinion is irrelevent then please provide your insight into how you think Behe would answer these questions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 18, 2009 @ 9:18 am
March 18th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Hi TP,
If you knew what my point was then you knew it was directly relevant to your claims, as I've highlighted above. Why then did you not supply the correct answers when asked? Why did you make me jump through hoops making the case that was evident already? This isn't conducive to either decent dialogue or supporting your assertions.
Every journey…
Behe's science is not QM or entanglement. He can only show you what his science demonstrates.
They certainly aren't pertinent to whether or not you've read the book, or whether or not you are properly representing it.
They are rabbit trails designed to distract from the point at hand by miring us in long, unsolvable, and previously discussed semantic gamesmanship.
Why do you say that? Can you support this assertion with quotes from the books? For your information, Behe provides his working definitions in both books. You can also cite his reference, to the dictionary definition, if you'd like.
As for his explication in DBB as to who the designer is, what did he say about te necessity of a candidate?
And the evidence of this design, the thing your theory is purported to explain/predict, is supplied by men like Behe.
Regarding your questions, yes, they are irrelevant to our discussion. If you want to know what Behe thinks about randomness and about purpose, you already do. As for "learning", I've never read anything from him on the subject and as for "conscious" I will infer that from his position on purpose.
Comment by Pez — March 18, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
March 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Hi Pez,
If your point was to get me to admit that Behe and Dembski are smart people with interesting ideas, I have no problem saying that.
In fact, I think Dembski is very intelligent. I just disapprove of his choice to use his intelligence in support a movement I consider to be destructive and dangerous.
I cut Behe a little more slack because it is evident to me that, at least in the beginning, he earnestly believed "the onus is on [ID Proponents] to support the assertion with observable evidence."
The simple situation is I had hoped Behe's followup book to DBB would be more geared towards making a positive argument with, possibly, mechanistic models. Therefore, I was disappointed with Edge of Evolution.
I'm not sure there is much more to say. I think we both know each other's position. Any more discussion would probably be just "dueling metaphysics".
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 18, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
March 18th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Pez, this is as good as it's going to get.
Comment by chunkdz — March 18, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
March 31st, 2009 at 9:24 am
Hi Bradford,
FYI, your comment caught Abbie Smith's (i.e. ERV) attention.
Here is a link to her comment on After the Bar Closes.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 31, 2009 @ 9:24 am