Blogginheads Controversy
by BilboBradley Monton has offered his opinion on the McWhorter/Behe diavlog controversy. I mostly agree with Prof. Monton. My opinion takes issue with part of editor Robert Wright's criteria:
"3) The Behe diavlog, in particular, was blatantly at odds with guidelines I’d laid down to my staff more than a year ago in discussing the prospect of Behe appearing. Namely: Behe should only appear in conversation with someone who is truly expert in the relevant biological areas, and since most such matchups would yield a conversation unintelligible to a lay audience, it was hard to imagine a Behe pairing that would make sense."
I agree with Wright that the conversation would best be carried out with a fellow expert. I disagree that the conversation would necessarily be unintelligible to a lay audience. Behe was able to make his views clear to a lay audience. I think a good interviewer, even if an expert in Behe's field, would be able to make their objections intelligible, also. And the ensuing conversation would be enlightening for all.
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 am
Durett and Schmidt, Thornhill and Ussery, Michael Lynch, Trevors, Hubert Yockey, etc. thought Behe's work worth discussing or citing in peer-reviewed literature.
Behe and Snoke published in peer-reviewed literature, plus there was a 1990 article by Behe on Histone Deletion mutants.
Let's grant that ID is false for the sake of argument. Zimmer can deal with it and move on. Running away in protest looks a bit cowardly, especially in light of the fact far more eminent scientists than Zimmer found it worth their time to critique Behe in peer-reviewed journals.
Zimmer looks like a cry baby. I at least credit Durett and Schmidt, Thornhill and Ussery, for attempting reasoned critiques. I have publicly stated at TT that I had high regard for Durett and Schmidt's critique of Behe, not the least because Doug Axe of the Biologic Institute referred to Durett and Schmidt favorably (irony of ironies)!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 3, 2009 @ 12:51 am
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 am
I didn’t read what Zimmer wrote, but I did read what “the real” Sean Carroll wrote. I wouldn’t characterize it as running away or “taking his ball and going home” as UD did. At least what I read on Cosmic Variance—I love the science posts on that blog—the best around in my opinion) indicated he was upset at the McWhorter-Behe pairing and decided he would no longer participate.
You may disagree with his decision—but it seemed to me quite non-controversial—he didn’t like what was happening, he voiced disagreement, he sensed that that the situation would not change to his liking, he acknowledged that it is within their (BH’s) rights not to accommodate his preferences, he made a personal decision to leave, and he wished them well.
What’s wrong with that? There is certainly nothing improper about severing this sort of non-contractual, semi-professional relationship when you feel it is no longer profitable.
That’s how I saw it. Maybe behind the scenes Carroll was screaming and stomping his feet and acting all the prima donna jerk, which would change my opinion, but I have not seen any evidence of that.
As a point of reference, on an invite-only ID listServ that I used to belong to, Dembski once threatened that he and the other elite IDers would leave if the riffraff (we proletarian invitees to the list) didn’t start having better discussions—better meaning that our discussions should demonstrate that we had read and understood his work. I think that was a textbook example of (threatening to) “take your ball and go home.”
Comment by David Heddle — September 3, 2009 @ 5:19 am
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:03 am
David Heddle:
And people have the right to join the KKK. However, Carroll and other critics like him have done little more than express contempt for Behe’s ideas, they haven’t really refuted them. In my opinion that is anti-intellectual. Is that an attitude that is good for science?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 3, 2009 @ 11:03 am
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
JaD,
I don't know. But while we are asking questions: Is comparing leaving BH to joining the KKK a good attitude for holding a reasoned discussion?
Comment by David Heddle — September 3, 2009 @ 11:32 am
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
Sean:
It is a common occurence to witness reporters with no particular scientific expertise interviewing scientists. Not an eyebrow is raised. Sean's real objection is not McWhorter's lack of technical expertise. It is the lack of a confrontational attitude. If McWhorter had been confrontational the linguist and race stuff would have been overlooked.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2009 @ 11:55 am
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Okay, I’ll retract my KKK remark and agree we need more civility in our society. I still would argue that Carroll’s remarks were contemptuous and that does not make for a civil discussion and/or debate. I’ve read Behe’s book as well as several articles he has written; for sure he has raised some provocative ideas, but does he deserve to be labeled a crackpot?
Am I a crackpot for thinking that he has raised some worthwhile issues? Am I to accept that Behe is a crack pot just because Sean Carroll said so? If I am wrong in accepting some of Behe’s arguments I would like it pointed out to me where my reasoning is wrong. Or, aren’t lay people like me worth the time and effort?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 3, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Is science worth the time? You know that hallowed and revered idol. I once posted an entry on an IC system to illustrate the point that in most cases pathways are hazy and speculative and based more on suppositions than hard empirical data. A primary objection as I recall was that the particular example would have evolved as part of an abiogenic process which of course puts it into the realm of the explored. I could then be chided for inserting God into gaps.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
JAD,
Eh. I get called a crackpot so often it doesn’t even register. I’m not addressing the fact that Carroll called Behe a crackpot—no doubt it would be better if we all were more gracious—I’m merely addressing the fact that, based on the information I have—he severed his ties with BH respectfully. I saw no signs of a tantrum.
An analogy might be that if I was on BH semi-regularly to discuss Christianity and all of a sudden BH brought in The Right Reverend Bishop Spong as a representative of Christianity—then I might say: Yo: If you want him then don’t want me and (yes, probably after saying Spong is a crackpot) I’d leave.
Comment by David Heddle — September 3, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
David Heddle wrote:
If Behe was introduced as a representative of mainstream evolutionary biology, I could see how your analogy applies. Otherwise, the analogy does not fit at all.
It is also somewhat humorous to me that you would substitute a religion for evolutionary biology in your analogy, as if science was as fuzzy and capricious as a religion.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 3, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Hi David Heddle,
Yes, but wouldn't it be profitable/beneficial for the public at large for Carroll, Zimmer or both to go back on bloggingheads and explain to the public exactly what is wrong with Behe's book/hypothesis in their considered opinion(s). Where exactly is the edge of evolution then? Is there no edge? Can there be no edge at all? Is science not allowed to discuss possible limits to Darwin's mechanism? If not, why not?
Comment by William Brookfield — September 3, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
William Brookfield wrote:
May I humbly suggest to the public at large that it show a little more curiosity and find out whether perhaps Sean Carroll has already addressed that? He has reviewed Edge of Evolution in the journal Science, doi:10.1126/science.1145104. Most public libraries carry this journal.
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Carroll's review appeared in the 8 June 2007 issue of Science. A further exchange between Behe and Carroll can be found in the 12 October 2007 issue, doi:10.1126/science.318.5848.196. To whet your appetite:
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I confess that I didn't watch much of the diavlog. When McWhorter went off on a tangent about the evolution of the skunk, I felt that on whatever level the discussion would be conducted, it probably wouldn't provide me with much more information than I already had from reading Behe's books. That's why I agree with editor Wright's opinion that for a controversial figure like Behe, the interviewer should be a fellow expert. I disagree with Wright, in that I think such a conversation could be still be done in a way that was intelligible for a lay audience.
BTW, Olegt, are you quoting Sean Carroll the biologist or the physicist (or is it astronomer)? And would you know, are they twins?
Comment by Bilbo — September 3, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Bilbo,
How about clicking on the links and finding out for yourself?
Hint: the name of the astrophysicist is Sean M. Carroll.
Comment by olegt — September 3, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
For those curious, Behe posted a reply to Carroll's review on his blog, and there's the link. The blog in general features a lot of Behe's replies to critics and reviewers, if anyone was unaware of him writing there.
Comment by nullasalus — September 3, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Sean M Carroll the physicist is the one who resigned blogging heads. Sean B. Carroll the biologist is the one who wrote the review of Behe's book, Edge of Evolution.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 3, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
'Cause I'm busy.
Comment by Bilbo — September 3, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
September 4th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Carroll's essay offers us a moment of clarity given that it is nothing more than a long-winded rationalization for closed-mindedness. His argument boils down to this:
Behe is a crackpot and a looney.
Crackpots and loonies should be shunned and ignored.
Bloggingheads is not shunning and ignoring the crackpots.
Thus, I am going to shun and ignore the crackpot-accomodationists.
Dime-a-dozen.
Comment by MikeGene — September 4, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
September 5th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Also, let’s not forget that Carroll is the same scientist who advocates a god-of-the-gaps approach where science detects the supernatural by finding something that is not “perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena.” So let’s combine this with Carroll’s closed-minded approach.
*For science to detect supernatural causation, it must find something that is not “perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena.”
*Behe claims to have found something that is not “perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena.”
*Because Behe thinks he has found something that is not “perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena,” he is a crackpot.
*Because Behe is a crackpot, he is to be shunned.
In other words, Carroll insists science could include miracles, but advocates that anyone looking for such examples must be shunned.
Comment by MikeGene — September 5, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
September 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Mike Gene:
Comment by Bradford — September 5, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
September 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
So Behe is looking for miracles? That doesn't sound like a research program very likely to be awarded a grant. Indeed, that would require a miracle!
Comment by JarrodF — September 5, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
September 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Not quite. I’m trying to help others see what the world looks like from the perspective of Carroll’s closed mind. Carroll thinks this is an accurate summary of Behe’s position: “an ill-specified supernatural “designer” is interfering at whim with the course of evolution.” It stands to reason that a supernatural designer whimsically interfering with the course of nature would be perceived as a miracle from Carroll’s perspective.
Since Carroll claims that miracles can be included in science, it is worth noting (very much so) how he treats other scientists perceived to be looking for miracles in nature. It’s all fits the pattern of his closed-minded approach.
Comment by MikeGene — September 5, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote:
It's nice of you that you are trying to be helpful. But why would you say that Carroll has a closed mind? Does everybody who rejects Behe's arguments and views them as pseudo-science have a closed mind?
Comment by JarrodF — September 6, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Yawn. There's more to Carroll's ramblings than just rejecting Behe's arguments. Mike put up a straightforward logical argument and your response is to focus on a small aspect of it and gloss over the rest.
Comment by Jean — September 6, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Hi JarrodF,
LOL. Step back and survey the landscape. Carroll insists that Behe is a “crackpot” and a biochemist who has “wandered into looney land.” He quits Bloggingheads because they allowed Behe to be interviewed. That's all you need to know. Now, are you under the impression these positions and activity are evidence of an open mind? When you shun someone and label them a crackpot and looney, it’s safe to say you are not open to their views.
What’s more, Carroll misrepresents Behe’s position and misrepresentation is commonly associated with a closed-mind. When you are closed-minded about a position, you have no serious interest in trying to understand that position as it is being put forward. Thus, when you later try to describe that position to a third party, you’ll often misrepresent it (often tapping into stereotypes or the representations borrowed from tribe members).
Follow-up questions to ponder:
1. If Carroll’s behavior and description of Behe is not evidence of his closed mind, what would evidence of closed-mindedness look like?
2. Is there any evidence that Carroll is open-minded when it comes to the views of a crackpot from looney land?
Comment by MikeGene — September 6, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Hi Mike,
I find semantic discussions usually not very productive, but I'll try to humor you. I say let's give Carroll the benefit of the doubt here. It could be that he was initially open to Behe's ideas, but then upon closer analysis found them severely wanting and decided Behe is a crackpot who wandered into looney land. Not exactly diplomatic words to characterize Behe's views, but fair enough if that's how Carroll feels.
That is new to me: that misrepresentation is commonly associated with a closed mind. Maybe it's not that common or I need to get out more. I would associate it with dishonesty. But how exactly did Carroll misrepresent Behe's position? I must admit that I haven't followed the debate.
Refusal to address the arguments on their merits?
I prefer to assume that people are open-minded until evidence to the contrary compels me to conclude otherwise. I really don't know why Carroll would call Behe a crackpot from looney land. Have you considered the possibility that Carroll might have good reasons for this?
Comment by JarrodF — September 6, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
MikeGene wrote:
That is a pretty bad caricature of Carroll's position. Here are two key paragraphs from Carroll's post, with my emphasis:
All this talk about closed-mindedness is a side show. Carroll does not mind having ID on btv, he objects to it being presented as science. (Recall that Paul Nelson appeared on Science Saturday.)
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Comment by olegt — September 6, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
olegt:
Have you read any of Behe's books?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 6, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Hi JarrodF,
Okay, we’ll assume he was once open-minded and is now closed-minded. It doesn’t detract from my point: “Carroll's essay offers us a moment of clarity given that it is nothing more than a long-winded rationalization for closed-mindedness.”
Yes, misrepresentation can be a function of dishonesty, but I prefer the more charitable interpretation – closed-mindedness. For example, over the years, my views have been seriously misrepresented by dozens and dozens of critics. I suppose they could all be dishonest, but given that they also tend to rely on stereotypes, closed-mindedness seems to be the better explanation. It’s not a matter of getting out more; it’s a matter of thinking it through.
Don’t have the time to hang around long enough to explain/debate Behe’s views to ya, but suffice it to say that “an ill-specified supernatural “designer” is interfering at whim with the course of evolution” doesn’t really convey the essence of his position. It doesn’t really matter, however, as the clear evidence for Carroll’s closed-mind stems from his insistence that Behe is a “crackpot” and a biochemist who has “wandered into looney land” and that he very publicly quit Bloggingheads because they allowed the "crackpot" to be interviewed.
Yes, Carroll did not address any of Behe’s arguments in the video he didn’t want shown. But not addressing an argument could simply be function of time – someone may put off addressing an argument until they have the time. Now, calling someone a crackpot and looney while not addressing the argument and quitting because the argument is aired – that’s closed minded.
Me too. The evidence compels me to conclude otherwise.
It wouldn’t matter. I said he was being closed-minded. I did not claim he was closed-minded without a reason. And the significance of his closed-mind really comes into play when it is coupled with his advocacy for New Atheist arguments about science and God (as explained above).
Comment by MikeGene — September 6, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
No, John, I haven't. I am, however, familiar with his testimony from the Dover trial.
Comment by olegt — September 6, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Hi olegt,
No it is not.
Sure. In this case, the closed-minded researcher studies the “crackpot” as if they were a lab specimen. This approach can actually function to entrench the closed-mind.
This shows that Carroll is not a bigot. To his credit, he is willing to listen to the views of an IDer as long as the topic is not ID (not all critics can make this claim). But being willing to listen to discussions about art and politics does not, in anyway, detract from the observation that Carroll is closed-minded about ID.
So Carroll is closed-minded about the notion that ID has scientific merits. What’s the problem here? I am closed-minded about the notion that astrology has scientific merits. And as you can see, I openly acknowledge my closed-mind in that area. So why would anyone deny the obvious about Carroll?
Whether it is a sideshow is a matter of personal opinion. The fact remains that when Carroll describes Behe as a “crackpot” who has “wandered into looney land,” we have very good reason to think Carroll is closed-minded about Behe’s views.
Was Behe’s interview on Science Saturday?
Nah. Just answering questions and responding to points.
Comment by MikeGene — September 6, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
MikeGene wrote:
So am I. What's exactly the problem with that? I thought you, too, expressed the opinion that ID isn't science.
Comment by olegt — September 6, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
There is more to this. Backtracking:
Mike Gene:
Behe has found examples of structures not accounted for by natural phenomenon if accounted for means an explanation grounded in solid experimental data establishing a plausible theory. If Behe has not fingered the suspects to your satisfaction I'll be glad to. Back to gapping which has become a rearguard action against critiques of mainstream beliefs, not to be confused with plausible theories. Of course when a critic says on one hand that you need to find something not explained by natural causes and then when presented with the item calls you a crackpot, maybe there is something more fundamentally amiss with the accuser. Or maybe he meant crockpot?
Comment by Bradford — September 6, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Why don’t you do a little homework and evaluate Behe’s ideas for yourself before giving Carroll the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, why do you give Carroll the benefit of the doubt and not Behe? Do you know him personally? Or is it because you agree with him ideologically?
It is amazes me the people who have strong opinions opposing Behe but have never read his books, or any of his articles– most of which are available free on-line. Is that the way you would want your work evaluated? That is analogous to a college professor giving a student and F on a paper without bothering to read the paper because he doesn’t like the people that student hangs around with. That is prejudice plain and simple, and you know it.
Isn’t it Sean M. Carroll’s responsibility to tell us why he thinks Behe is a crackpot?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 6, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
Actually, John, it's up to Sean B. Carroll to explain that. Which he did. Behe's claims have been evaluated by biologists and they didn't find them remotely interesting.
Comment by olegt — September 6, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Olegt:
So it’s Sean B. Carroll that Mike has been talking about? And, it was Sean B. Carroll that said he wouldn’t be appearing on Blogging heads? Funney I just visited “Cosmic Variance” and I could have sworn that that that was Sean M. Carroll.
http://blogs.discovermagazine....
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 6, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
John,
Sean M. Carroll, the one who quit Blogging Heads, is a cosmologist. He would be no better in evaluating Behe's specific claims than you or me. Sean B. Carroll is a professional biologist. I read his review and so should you.
Comment by olegt — September 6, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Then neither is he in a position to call Behe a crackpot, which he does in his Cosmic Variance article.
So you are opposed to lay people being informed and coming up with their own opinions? We just defer our thinking to the experts?
I have, I also read Behe response. Have you?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 6, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
John,
I'm all for lay people forming their own opinions, but as an educator I can tell you that there are certain prerequisites if you want to do that. How much biology have you had?
Comment by olegt — September 6, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Is that a law?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 6, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
September 6th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
John, I am not saying you need a license, just some expertise.
Comment by olegt — September 6, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 9:53 am
ID is based on observation and experience.
ID can be objectively tested.
What else does it require in oreder to have "scientific merit"?
Comment by ID guy — September 7, 2009 @ 9:53 am
September 7th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I disagree. It is not possible for any us to have expertise in everything. However, it is possible for all of us to be better informed. For example, I have read both of Behe’s books as well as books by his critics like Kenneth Millers, Finding Darwin’s God. You haven’t read any or Behe’s books. Who is better informed?
I am all for being better informed, but it sounds like you want censor anyone who lacks expertise. If that is the case then why bother having scientists write popular books? Or, allow amateurs to participate in science?
For example, I am an amateur astronomer. Like many amateurs I have decided to specialize in the kind of objects that I observe. My particular interest is double stars. Over the past few years I have logged about 700 different observations. Locally I am known among fellow amateurs as something of an “expert.” One of the catalog’s that I rely upon was written by another amateur, Sissy Haas, a self described house wife, who lives in Pennsylvania. My point is that none of us are experts, or have any formal education in astronomy. Indeed, I have more formal education in biology (high school and college) than I do in astronomy. Do I have opinions in astronomy? Yes. Do I need to be an expert to hold these opinions? No. Why should the opinions I have developed from my reading in biology, biochemistry or OoL be any different?
However, Michael Behe is not an amateur. He does a Phd has the credentials of a biochemist. Why not at least extend him the courtesy of first reading his books before you pass judgment on him?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 7, 2009 @ 10:27 am
September 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am
John,
Please explain what made you write this paragraph:
Go back and reread my comments if necessary.
Comment by olegt — September 7, 2009 @ 10:40 am
September 7th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I'm not substituting an explanatioon for JAD but am simply noting that some of your arguments are arguments from authority- an intrinsically weak argument.
Comment by Bradford — September 7, 2009 @ 11:05 am
September 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Because you wrote this:
And…
Expertise means education and credentials. I do no have a B.S. in biology. I am not going to pursue a B.S. (or M.S. or Phd.) in biology, but that does not disqualify me from developing an informed opinion based on my reading, or publicly expressing that opinion. Kenneth R. Miller wrote a book, Finding Darwin’s God, which was targeted at laypeople. Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, was also targeted at lay people. In other words, they both think that it is worthwhile to persuade non-experts that their particular view concerning Darwinian evolution is the correct. I am perfectly justified in forming an informed opinion based on my reading. I do not need to be an expert, and furthermore, neither writer expects me to be an expert.
However, that is not what this thread is about. I don’t care if you agree with Behe or not. My only argument here is that his ideas deserve to receive a fair hearing and reading before he is declared a crack pot.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 7, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
John, you quote my words "I am not saying you need a license" and in the same breath insist that I ask you to get credentials? I see no charitable way to interpret this: you either have an awfully short attention span or are willing to twist my words to suit your preconceptions. Whatever the explanation, I don't think I am interested in having any further conversations with you.
Comment by olegt — September 7, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, Behe is making an argument that requires a certain amount of knowledge of biochemistry to evaluate. Like it or not, you need help from an expert to help you digest the argument. Case in point: you rely on Behe's popular accounts to form an opinion about his work.
I am not saying you should not do that. But you should certainly get a second opinion from an expert who is not Behe. And maybe a third opinion as well.
So when I go to experts in biology other than Behe, they are pretty unequivocal in their opinion about his work. What am I to conclude? That all mainstream biologists are engaged in some kind of conspiracy theory and are out to get Behe? I have been in academia long enough to know better.
Transcripts of the Dover trial present an excellent opportunity to see scientists from both sides of the divide present their popular accounts before the judge, who is, just like us, not an expert. Read the transcript and weep. Behe was forced to admit that ID contains as much science as astrology did when it was en vogue.
There is nothing wrong in listening to experts. It's not advisable to listen to one side only.
Comment by olegt — September 7, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Have you considered the possibility that some writers are hoping you aren't an expert because if you were, you'd disagree with them? Since you aren't an expert, have you considered what experts say about these books? Do either of those books tell you that you shouldn't trust the experts?
It is absolutely true that a layman can have an informed view, but it is absolutely false that you can do it by doing nothing more than trusting authors that are saying all or most people with the necessary expertise are wrong.
Comment by don provan — September 7, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Olegt,
expertise:
1 : expert opinion or commentary
2 : the skill of an expert
expert:
one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
How in the world could I claim to have any expertise in biology without with out the proper education, training and credentials? Words have meaning, olegt.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 7, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Don,
No, they are writing popular books because they already know that I am an not an expert. I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.
Yes. I did not claim that those are the only books, papers or articles that I have read.
No. Where did you get that idea from.
BTW I don’t agree with Behe on every point. Indeed, there are several points that I agree with the critics. But, you don’t know that, Don, because you don’t bother to ask those types of questions. Why is that?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 7, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
This is par for the course. Believe what you wish Olegt. The plain fact is I am able to identify and understand the parts of IC systems nominated by Behe and others. In fact I welcome challenges to that. It gives me the opportunity to distinguish between opinions based on solid data and opinions based on mindset.
I participated in and observed thousands of discussions prior to coming to TT. Nothing a critic says is going to surprise me.
You are to conclude that there exists a consensus among most biologists. Not really surprising as it reflects un underlying consensus among scientists in general as well as most non-scientists about the ultimate power of science to shed light on both subjects of direct study and some subtle philosophical side concerns.
Comment by Bradford — September 7, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Bradford wrote:
Did you read the Dover transcripts, Bradford? That was where Behe and Miller went toe-to-toe. What did you think of Behe's performance? Why did he fail to impress the judge? What do you think Dembski was a no-show at the trial where he could employ his much-touted Vise strategy?
Comment by olegt — September 7, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Yes.
Very poor. Olegt, there's a life's lesson in this. Being knowledgeable about a subject matter does not confer public speaking prowess, a good set of nerves or debating ability. It is very likely that some TT IDists could have perfomed better as witnesses. I've watched liberals and conservatives debate over the years many times. Generally the outcome is mostly dependent on the individuals supporting each side. It does not signify that issues are won by debate, speaking prowess or personality.
The judge is not a scientist. He knows far less about biology and science in general than either JAD or me. I think the judge was swayed by attitudes he brought to the trial and of course by the ineptitude of the school board and their attorneys.
Comment by Bradford — September 7, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Bradford,
So Behe is not a good public speaker… Okay, what about Scott Minnich's testimony? Is he, too, also a but shy? Or maybe he did not have anything new to say as this excerpt shows:
Comment by olegt — September 7, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I would have pointed to DNA as a better example of design but what does it matter when the one listening is convinced there is no design? In that case all examples will elicit similar responses. A more interesting question would be what is the criteria by which design is assessed. In other words how do you detect design in DNA? Or similarly how is it known that a design concept is not an essential element to detecting the origin of said example?
Comment by Bradford — September 7, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Here is the reason Dembski was a no show.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 7, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
According to Casey Luskin who was at the Dover trial this is Behe’s view of astrology.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 7, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
September 7th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Yeah, the three more talkative ID guys from DI suddenly got cold feet once they saw that the trial wasn't going well. Here's Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center at a panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute in 2005:
Comment by olegt — September 7, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
September 8th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I can make up my own mind, as well, and I've reached a different conclusion. That's why I'm asking you the same questions I asked myself. Since I am not an expert in biology, I thought it made sense to look to people that are experts in biology and see how they appraise Behe's arguments. You decided against that approach, and I'm wondering why. That's all.
Comment by don provan — September 8, 2009 @ 11:46 am
September 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I decided to take a little time to re-read select sections of Behe’s first book, Darwin’s Black Box, to see exactly what crime he has been guilty of. First of all, I was struck by the overall tone and tenor of the book. Behe presents his thesis in a positive and friendly manner with some affable homespun humor thrown in for good measure. We know that he has kids, a dog and enjoys "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strips. Furthermore, Behe is incredibly respectful and deferential towards other biochemists, even when he is critiquing their work. He clearly knows his place. And, he clearly knows that he is not a scientist who holds high standing. On the other hand, if you put forth some effort, as I have, Behe is able to open up the world of biochemistry to a curious layperson as good as any other science writer around.
By contrast Ken Millers arguments against Behe in, Finding Darwins God and subsequent articles, strikes me as condescending if not bordering on contempt. One has to wonder if science has already solved these kind of problems, why that kind of reaction? If you have the answer you should be able to give it in an understandable, non-hostile and dispassionate manner without trying to vilify another scientist. Just answer the question. If it is unequivocal then that is game…set… match.
Furthermore, Miller is frequently guilty of making fallacious arguments. Even a non-expert like myself can identify a fallacious argument. For example, in the online article, “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of Irreducible”
The problem is that is not Behe’s argument. Behe very clearly states in DBB that he is not arguing that the natural evolution of any IC structure is logically impossible.
William Dembski seconds that opinion.
So, what is Behe’s crime? In my opinion it boils down to a simple question: “How did this thing evolve?” Apparently some people think that is an illegitimate question.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 8, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
September 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I have no problem with Darwin's Black Box. As I recall, I enjoyed reading it and didn't find it at all offensive. It presented some interesting ideas, but in the end, I thought the logic didn't hold water. Being a layman, I considered the possibility that that was just because I didn't know enough, but since then, I've see that most experts in the field also see logical flaws as well as factual mistakes that I wouldn't know anything about.
It's no crime to be wrong.
Eh. Behe's OK, but I think there are far better science writers. But perhaps that just reflects our differing points of view: I think his presentation as simply slanted, while you, I think, see it as a novel way to look at the issues.
I don't really know or care that much about Ken Miller or his arguments. Let's just agree to assume he's an ignorant jerk and ignore him. I don't think that helps Behe much, since there are plenty of polite critics.
I haven't looked at the exact context of the remarks you're speaking of, so I don't know if Miller has this excuse, but what I seen in the past is that, yes, in fact, science has already solved problems being raised, and some scientists start to get a little testy when they have to point that out for the 100th time.
But what's your thinking? That if science has already solved it, then people would object less when it was brought up again?
Then what is Behe arguing? Are you just picking the nit that "logically" impossible is different than practically impossible? Or are you reallly saying that Behe's point is not that the prevailing explanation cannot account for IC structures?
In what way does Behe answer the question, "How did this thing evolve?"? I think this is, in fact, one of the major flaws: Behe's point is entirely negative. To the extent you could say he makes a counter proposal, the proposal is something like, "What did it is intelligent, and by 'intelligent', I mean 'able to do what I just said evolution cannot do'."
Comment by don provan — September 8, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
September 8th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
(As much as I think the "preview" feature is a great improvement, let me second the request for restoring the edit feature, in addition, if that's possible.)
Oh, I just noticed something I left out that would clarify my point about what case Behe is making. The quoted passage from Behe illustrates the point quite nicely:
Even if we accept Behe's premise in this sentence, the fact is that "intelligent design" must be rejected for exactly the same reasons as "the Lock Ness monster". The conclusion is "we don't know", not "this is how this thing came to be."
Comment by don provan — September 8, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
September 8th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
It’s not a question about logic. It is an empirical question: How does this thing evolve?
Behe very succinctly states what he is looking for in a response to criticism by evolutionary biologist Allen Orr.
In other words, we must defer our critical thinking about all things scientific to the experts? Suppose one day you decide to ask our physicist friend olegt if the Higgs Boson exists. He immediately answers “yes.” Does that mean that the Higgs Boson exists? No, not really. If you did a little research on your own you soon discover that the Higgs Boson is theoretical particle that is yet to be discovered. From his research olegt may honestly feel, believe even think that the Higgs Boson exists but until it is discovery is confirmed the honest answer is that we don’t know.
I think that is what is going on with irreducibly complex sub-cellular structures. The experts can’t presently answer the question but believe that eventually there will be explained by natural selection. But that is not science, that is crystal ball gazing.
Again this illustrated in Behe’s respose to Allen Orr:
I know that there is a parade of experts out there that share Orrs opinion but they are all dodging the main question, “how does this thing evolve,” and hiding behind a flourish of rhetoric. Many of them probably believe they are right but that doesn’t mean that Behe is wrong. The only way to establish that Behe is wrong is to prove him wrong.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 8, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
September 8th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
John, you are making a fool of yourself. I am on the record saying that the existence of the Higgs boson is yet to be confirmed experimentally. I already asked you twice not to make stuff up about me. That ought to be enough.
Comment by olegt — September 8, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
September 8th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
It was strictly a hypothetical example olegt. Read what I wrote. I began my sentence with "suppose…" According to the dictionary suppose means "assume to be true for the sake of argument." I never claimed that was your real opinion.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 8, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
September 8th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
John, you have no basis for making even a general statement along these lines. Quit making stuff up.
Comment by olegt — September 8, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
September 8th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
His logic is wrong, therefore it doesn't matter what "empirical question" he is trying to answer. And, as I pointed out, he makes no effort whatsoever to answer that question, anyway.
A classic example: the only way to falsify the entirely vacuous "explanation" of intelligent design is to demonstrate some other clearly specified explanation.
And, speaking of logic, this doesn't actually prove intelligent design false at all, it would only disprove Behe's theories about what natural processes can accomplish. This is such a stunning logical gaff, it's revealing the IDists aren't universally embarrassed by it.
Of course not. But what are you offering as an alternative way for you and I, two layman, to reach an agreement? Draw lots? A shouting match?
How would you determine that your hypothetical olegt was wrong?
As a layman, how would you know whether the experts have no reason to believe it can be explained by natural selection if they claimed they do? As a layman, how can you tell whether the scientific concensus is "will be explained by" and not "currently not explained".
And Behe is better how?
Are the Orrs of the world really just saying, over and over, "it is natural selection, it is natural selection," or are they actually trying to look for clues to construct actual pathways that would support a conclusion of natural selection? Who is looking for and finding the components of the flagellum as separate pieces in related species, and who is pooh-poohing such ovservations? As a layman, can you really judge, or do you have to trust Behe and his supporters?
Comment by don provan — September 8, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
September 8th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Don,
This is not complicated. If a physicist told you that the Higgs Boson existed he would be incorrect. He may be telling you that because he believes very strongly that such a particle exists, but you as a layperson can still make a judgment whether or not such a particle has been discovered by simply reading the news accounts, like the following one from Time magazine.
No one can scientifically claim that anything exists before it is discovered.
Behe is absolutely correct that no one has been able to experimentally demonstrate the evolution by natural selection of the bacterial flagellum or any other IC structure. The very principle that the Cern experimentalists made, in the article above, also applies here: “You can make conjectures, but unless you verify the conjectures, they are metaphysics.”
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 8, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 2:44 am
So in other words, you would know he's wrong because you listened to Time. And Time? Time knows he's wrong because people at Time listened to…wait for it…experts!
Let's imagine a different scenario. Let's imagine that your hypothetical olegt is seeing cutting edge research that actually does demonstrate that the Higgs Boson exists. Suddenly, your source, Time, is wrong because it's out of date. Or is it? How would you decide? There really is no rational way for you or I or any other layman to decide without listening to and believing experts. The only question is which experts you believe, and that's what I'm asking you to explain.
Yes, very much so. That's the core problem with ID.
I suppose he is. But that's not the same as saying that there is no evidence supporting the idea that the bacterial flagellum was the result of evolution. If he said that, he'd be wrong…at least according to the experts I listen to.
Comment by don provan — September 9, 2009 @ 2:44 am
September 9th, 2009 at 8:02 am
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
And to back his argument, JAD proceeds to quote the Time article, oblivious to the fact that the Time journalist had to ask several experts—whose last names are not Higgs—about the existence of Higgs boson. Tejinder Virdee, the head of one of the LHC's experiments, supplies the basis for JAD's claim:
No, sir, no experts were involved. JAD figured it out all by hisself.
Comment by olegt — September 9, 2009 @ 8:02 am
September 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Just want to point out that all of us have acquired knowledge as a consequence of the efforts made by previous experts in whatever field. PhDs included. What was it that Newton said about standing on the shoulders of giants? How much more applicable then to the rest of us.
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2009 @ 8:55 am
September 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Right, Bradford. Not sure that anyone disputes that here.
It would, however, be impractical to ask those giants about the Higgs boson. They've been dead for centuries. So you'll have to contend with the dwarves of the current generation.
Incidentally, by recycling Bernard's metaphor, Newton compared himself to a dwarf who, by standing on the shoulders of a giant, was able to see a bit farther than the giant did. It's clear then that Sir Isaac wouldn't dispute that the modern dwarves see a bit farther than he could.
Comment by olegt — September 9, 2009 @ 11:07 am
September 9th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I never said anything like that, olegt. Read what I wrote. I made it very clear that one expert physicist, let’s call him Joe, was asked if the Higgs boson exists. He says “yes.” I then wrote: “From his research [Joe] may honestly feel, believe even think that the Higgs Boson exists but until the discovery is confirmed the honest answer is that we don’t know.” I do my own research and discover a Time magazine article about the Higgs boson, and read: “so far no one has been able to find the Higgs boson in the stream of debris emitted when two particles are smashed together at high speeds.” Other sources accessible to a non-experts confirm this. Of course I am consulting experts, that is clearly implied by the context. However, my argument is that as a lay person I can make an evaluation and determine that in this case that Joe’s claim was based on his opinion and belief that had not yet been established experimentally.
If we can do science based on opinion and belief then why bother building something like the LHC? How much does it cost? Wouldn’t a few boxes of chalk be less expensive?
Now let’s take it to the next step. Suppose that a large majority of scientists shared Joes opinion. Does that change anything? As a layperson do I have to accept the majority opinion? The answer is no. Why? Because, “no one can scientifically claim that anything exists before it is discovered.”
Again, I wrote above, “Behe is absolutely correct that no one has been able to experimentally demonstrate the evolution by natural selection of the bacterial flagellum or any other IC structure.” And so far, his critics, who far out number him, are only able to give us their strongly held opinions and beliefs. That does not give them the right to demand that we accept their opinions and beliefs on faith. Give us experimental proof and you won’t have to demand anything.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 9, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Just don't lose sight of the fact that a layman, by definition of "layman", depends on information provided by experts to make any such determination. When you evaluate information, you are implicitly making choices between experts, and it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask about those choices. But when I do, instead of answering, you seem to deny you're even making such choices.
Comment by don provan — September 9, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Yes, just so! That's why it's so silly for John to say things like, "I can make up my own mind," when I ask him about evaluating the experts he is depending on for his information.
By the way, keep in mind that PhD degrees are granted by experts.
Comment by don provan — September 9, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
We make choices among expert opinions all the time. It's not just where science is concerned. We do the same with reference to economic issues, political issues, art, legal matters and much more. All fields have their experts and most have conflicting expert views within those fields.
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Good point! The American jury system is a good example of that. In criminal trials it has become increasingly common to bring in expert witness to testify about the forensic evidence. Jurors with no expertise are asked to make a fair and impartial judgment upon the evidence they have seen and heard.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 9, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Including scientific evidence. Game, set and match to JAD.
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Ironically, Bradford, you don't follow the strategy of checking with experts other than
JoeBehe. I am quite certain that no one here has ever read reviews of Behe's book by mainstream scientists, only their regurgitated versions written by Casey Luskin.Comment by olegt — September 9, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Here, I agree with John: good point. In fact, it's the point. So it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask John how he selects among experts. And John should be able to explain because he's making a point that depends on it. For example, if I suggest something that might impeach the expert he is depending on — "Have you considered the possibility that some writers are hoping you aren't an expert because if you were, you'd disagree with them?" — he should be able to defend his choice of experts instead of just saying, "I can make up my own mind, thank you very much." If he refuses to justify his choice of experts, our conversation cannot continue.
Precisely. So how do we deal with such conflicting expert opinion, when we have to decide, such as in a court of law? Are we allowed to just say, "I can make up my own mind, thank you very much."? Or do we have ways of resolving conflicting expert input? For example, don't we typically accede to an overwhelming concensus of experts and rule against a small minority of dissenters? Don't we consider motives, such as discounting individual dissenters because of conflict of interest, such as when we can see that their careers depend on the contrary view?
This has been my point all along. Since John admitted to not being an expert, yet held a clear opinion, all I've been trying to do is explore how he reached his opinion because there's no other way for us to move forward towards an answer we can both accept.
Comment by don provan — September 9, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
olegt: I am quite certain that no one here has ever read reviews of Behe's book by mainstream scientists, only their regurgitated versions written by Casey Luskin.
How in the world would you know that? Olegt, who ever told you that you were psychic was joking. Come on stop believing that nonsense.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 9, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Aw c'mon. I read DBB and plenty of critiques of it. Here's what I wish to know. When you read of policy proposals by Obama, do you check with experts like O'Reilly and Hannity or do you simply regurgitate administration talking points?
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Exactly. So you and I are on a jury together. We've heard the same experts. We've reached different conclusions. Does that mean we're a hung jury? Do we say, "I can make up my own mind, thank you very much," and go tell the judge we can't decide? Or do we, as responsible jurors, start asking each other about why one expert or the other convinced us? Do we start talking about whether one of the experts might have been trying to hoodwink us because he knew we were laymen?
Comment by don provan — September 9, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Lol!
Remember, my friends, these are not rational people we are dealing with here. Not rational.
Can't emphasize this enough.
Comment by chunkdz — September 9, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I've been reading JAD's comments for quite some time and like other TT commenters he frequently states a view that can be traced back to research findings. BTW, he does have a BS in biology and I can't remember the last time an ID critic was questioned about his or her background although I suspect at least some of them have less formal education than JAD.
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Bradford,
I am not talking about the level of education. I am only saying that no one here seems interested in checking out mainstream science sources. At least that's my impression after seeing a bunch of you poke the dead weasel.
Comment by olegt — September 9, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Bradford wrote:
LOL, Bradford! What's O'Reilly and Hannity's area of expertise? Foreign policy? Financial markets? Transportation? Try harder, my friend.
Comment by olegt — September 9, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I've posted blog entries centered around actual research papers. IOW, they were cited and quoted and linked to in the blog entry. Frankly I'm disappointed in reactions which generally fall into one of two categories. Either a low level or no reaction response or one of chiding me either for gapping or for "oh no not OOL again."
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Olegt would you publicly recant and apologize if I provided you with several references to mainstream science sources made by TT'ers?
(These are not rational critics we are dealing with, folks.)
Comment by chunkdz — September 9, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
olegt writes:
It's funny that you're quite certain of that. It can only be by blind faith, because the evidence shows otherwise, I read and commented on several reviews of Behe's book here , here , here , and here .
Maybe you should take your own advice and check with the experts before you spout off nonsense.
Comment by Guts — September 9, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Olegt:
I wrote that with tongue in cheek but more seriously what was Ted Kennedy's expertise when he was first elected to the Senate or Obama's for that matter?
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
The conversation has not called for him to offer any research, so I don't see how this is relevant. But tracing views backed by research findings is what most experts will be doing, whether they agree or not, so your observation doesn't really help.
At no time has John attempted to establish himself as an expert. That would make a different conversation between John and I, but it would not substantially change the point. If John is a bona fide expert, that just changes the question to one of how you and I can decide how to factor his input into our deliberations.
I readily admit I know essentially nothing about biology and must depend heavily on expert opinions about it. That's exactly why I'm so focused on evaluating expert opinion instead of pretending that making up our own minds, thank-you very much, gets us, as laymen, anywhere.
Comment by don provan — September 9, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
On the topic of expert opinions, let me offer this: I think most people are not aware to what extent their safety depends on anonymous experts. Food safety, safety of bridges, safety of airplanes, safety of drugs, etc etc. Yet when it concerns evolution, for many people the opinion of experts is suddenly irrelevant. Why is that?
Comment by Jure — September 9, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Guts,
I concede that my comment was a bit over the top: you personally have read a number of reviews of Behe and commented on them.
Comment by olegt — September 9, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
It's sometimes hard to tell, Bradford, whether you're serious.
Why mention Ted Kennedy? A US senator does not have to have expertise in some particular area. That's not in their job description.
Comment by olegt — September 9, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Oh! Oh! I better set the record straight. I do not have a B.S. in biology. However, I do BS a lot about biology. Maybe, that is how Bradford got idea. But, the extra college degree was nice while it lasted. Thankyou! Do you have an MD laying around someplace? I could use the extra cash.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 9, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
September 9th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
One of the disadvantages of the internet is its one dimensional quality. No voice tones or facial expressions. The little round faces help but not enough.
True but you would hope voters would look for more than a name or personal charisma. Their law making affects every facet of life.
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
September 10th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Thanks for recognizing Guts.
I too have written original reviews such as this one of Miller in Nature: Ken Miller Honest Darwinists at UD.
I actually mentioned and gave favorable comments to a review by Durrett and Schmidt from Cornell.
I also read the one by Jerry Coyne, and I pointed out that someone as hostile to ID as Jason Rosenhouse thought Coyne did a misearble job:
With Enemies Like Coyne, Who Needs Friends.
I then got into an argument with Abbie Smith about what she wrote and that's how I met you Olegt on the net, do you remember?
I've also read Yockey's critique of IC, which he mentions Behe in his book and Yockey's book is prominently advertised on the TT sidebar. I've commented on Yockey's critique of Behe.
I'm not so sure Durrett and Schmidt have refuted Behe, but they had clearly the best math of any of Behe's critics.
My conclusion: the scientific method will eventually prevail in this debate. It will become evident where the Edge of Evolution really lies in terms of the synthesis rates vs. extinction rates of proteins and binding sites.
Quite apart from the ID debate, the question of where the "Edge of Evolution" lies is probably open to theoretical and direct empirical inquiry.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 10, 2009 @ 12:01 am
September 10th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Since much of the discussion on this thread has centered on expert opinion I was wondering what an expert on logical fallacies thought about appeals to authority.
Here is what Douglas Walton writes:
http://books.google.com/books?...
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 10, 2009 @ 9:34 pm