Friday Quote: An Irksome Phenomenon
by MikeGeneActivist Richard Dawkins argues with one of his "fleas." He writes:
I'm not going to write a proper review of the book, but it set me thinking again about a common phenomenon, which I am finding increasingly irksome. This is a tendency for critics to read what their prejudices expect to see in a book rather than what is actually there.
Has it ever occurred to Dawkins and his followers that they too may have participated in this irksome phenomenon? That Dawkins and those like him also have a tendency to "read what their prejudices expect to see in a book rather than what is actually there?" Could it be?
For some strange reason, I think I just might be quoting Dawkins some time in the near future. 
September 15th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Or the near past. I read EoE, then read Dawkins' review, and wondered, "Did he even bother to read the book?"
Comment by Bilbo — September 15, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You wrote…
You put quotes around the question. Who were you quoting? Yourself?
MikeGene asks…
"Has it ever occurred to Dawkins and his followers that they too may have participated in this irksome phenomenon?"
This leads to an inevidable circle. Has it ever occurred to you and Mike that this occurs to most people? Has it ever occurred to you and Mike that this is why many critics of the ID Movement provide detailed explainations and scientific models when making arguments.
In the link MikeGene provided, Dawkins provides detailed arguments as to why he questions whether his critic demonstated "Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity" (the title of the piece). But this particular comment isn't the point is it? The ID Movement is about molding perceptions in the Culture War. Generalizations make for better weapons than specific examples. The ID Movement is known for avoiding specifics in order to maintain its Big Tent even it this isn't very helpful to those trying to promote ID Science.
Your characterization of Dawkins' review of Behe has finally forced me to read his review.
Here is the link to the Dawkin's review.
Here is the link to Behe's response.
Rather than make Culture War generalities, let's look at the details. Dawkins writes…
Behe correctly dissects the Darwinian theory into three parts: descent with modification, natural selection and mutation. Descent with modification gives him no problems, nor does natural selection. They are "trivial" and "modest" notions, respectively
…
The crucial passage in "The Edge of Evolution" is this: "By far the most critical aspect of Darwin's multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept."
Do you agree this correctly represents Behe's view expressed in EoE?
Here is Dawkins' response…
Darwin set no store by randomness. New variants might arise at random, or they might be acquired characteristics induced by food, for all Darwin knew. Far more important for Darwin was the nonrandom process whereby some survived but others perished. Natural selection is arguably the most momentous idea ever to occur to a human mind, because it "” alone as far as we know "” explains the elegant illusion of design that pervades the living kingdoms and explains, in passing, us. Whatever else it is, natural selection is not a "modest" idea, nor is descent with modification.
Dawkins is, appropriately, distancing what Behe is arguing against from Darwin. One of the large generalizations of the ID Movement is to attempt to paint Darwin as believing in the equivalent of a tornado creating a 747 from a junk pile. That wasn't what Dawin was suggesting.
Having explained that to the New York Times readers, Dawkins went on to address Behe's argument directly…
But let's follow Behe down his solitary garden path and see where his overrating of random mutation leads him. He thinks there are not enough mutations to allow the full range of evolution we observe. There is an "edge," beyond which God must step in to help. Selection of random mutation may explain the malarial parasite's resistance to chloroquine, but only because such micro-organisms have huge populations and short life cycles. A fortiori, for Behe, evolution of large, complex creatures with smaller populations and longer generations will fail, starved of mutational raw materials.
Ignoring the opening snide comment and the reference to "God" as opposed to some unidentified designing agency, doesn't this fairly sum up Behe's desciption of the "Edge of Evolution"
Here is Dawkins' response to Behe's main EoE argument…
If mutation, rather than selection, really limited evolutionary change, this should be true for artificial no less than natural selection. Domestic breeding relies upon exactly the same pool of mutational variation as natural selection. Now, if you sought an experimental test of Behe's theory, what would you do? You'd take a wild species, say a wolf that hunts caribou by long pursuit, and apply selection experimentally to see if you could breed, say, a dogged little wolf that chivies rabbits underground: let's call it a Jack Russell terrier. Or how about an adorable, fluffy pet wolf called, for the sake of argument, a Pekingese? Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard? Behe has to predict that you'd wait till hell freezes over, but the necessary mutations would not be forthcoming. Your wolves would stubbornly remain unchanged. Dogs are a mathematical impossibility.
Don't evade the point by protesting that dog breeding is a form of intelligent design. It is (kind of), but Behe, having lost the argument over irreducible complexity, is now in his desperation making a completely different claim: that mutations are too rare to permit significant evolutionary change anyway. From Newfies to Yorkies, from Weimaraners to water spaniels, from Dalmatians to dachshunds, as I incredulously close this book I seem to hear mocking barks and deep, baying howls of derision from 500 breeds of dogs "” every one descended from a timber wolf within a time frame so short as to seem, by geological standards, instantaneous.
Behe responded to this by making a hand-waving reference that he already dealt with this in his response(s) to Jerry Coyne but offered that "Dawkins seems quite reluctant to engage my argument at the molecular level; in his review he defers to other scientists for that."
Personally, I was disappointed that Behe didn't stress more of the microscopic level in EoE. To me, quantum mechanics or an EAM-like mechanism is the answer Behe was searching for in Darwin's Black Box. I agree with Dawkins that Behe's EoE appears to be a timid exercise by comparison to DBB. While Behe talks about IFT (intraflagellar transport) and Cilia, it wasn't the focus of EoE. I wish it had been, because then we might have had more discussions on microtubules and quantum mechanics. Excuse me, but from my biased point of view, Behe relied too much on the macro-world view of humans and mosquitoes which is what Dawkin's was addressing.
Finally, Dawkin's concluded with"¦
If correct, Behe's calculations would at a stroke confound generations of mathematical geneticists, who have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation. Single-handedly, Behe is taking on Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants. Notwithstanding the inconvenient existence of dogs, cabbages and pouter pigeons, the entire corpus of mathematical genetics, from 1930 to today, is flat wrong. Michael Behe, the disowned biochemist of Lehigh University, is the only one who has done his sums right. You think?
The best way to find out is for Behe to submit a mathematical paper to The Journal of Theoretical Biology, say, or The American Naturalist, whose editors would send it to qualified referees. They might liken Behe's error to the belief that you can't win a game of cards unless you have a perfect hand. But, not to second-guess the referees, my point is that Behe, as is normal at the grotesquely ill-named Discovery Institute (a tax-free charity, would you believe?), where he is a senior fellow, has bypassed the peer-review procedure altogether, gone over the heads of the scientists he once aspired to number among his peers, and appealed directly to a public that "” as he and his publisher know "” is not qualified to rumble him.
Behe responded with"¦
It's a flattering thought, but incorrect. If I am right it would overturn virtually no theoretical work, simply because theoreticians have not dealt with the sorts of complex, functional systems I write about. For the most part, models have considered one or two simple mutations at a time, conceptually isolated from the real-life complexity of an actual cell or organism. That's necessary, because detailed models of complex systems would be intractable. Those (relatively) simple models can of course be very important and useful for things like predicting the spread of the sickle hemoglobin gene, or calculating from the number of neutral mutations the time since two species shared a common ancestor. But there is no theoretical evolutionary work on the production of molecular machinery.
(One of the luminaries Dawkins lists, John Maynard Smith, once briefly alluded to the kind of problem The Edge of Evolution deals with. In a letter to Nature in the early 1970s, Smith compared evolution of proteins to a word game where only one letter is allowed to be changed at a time, and misspellings are disallowed too. I cite Smith's paper in the book.)
At the end of his review Dawkins chides me for lack of peer-reviewed publications. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If Dawkins himself has many peer-reviewed research publications in the last few decades, he must be writing them under a pseudonym. Dawkins' hypocritical complaint makes a nice little example of Darwinian gate-keeping. The nebulous, wooly-minded scenarios Dawkins spins in his books, of the origins of bat echolocation, spider webs, and so on, have no real justification in peer-reviewed publications. Yet Dawkins is free to write trade books without howls of protest from the scientific community because his stories fit the way many scientists want the world to be. But if (ahem…) someone publishes a book critically analyzing the data from a different perspective, the reaction is dramatically different.
I suggest these exchanges between Behe and Dawkins go to show that Dawkins did present his understanding of Behe's arguments. Behe countered by appealing to the microscopic world.
Was Behe's appeal supported by EoE?
Reading a book with prejudices works both ways. A prejudiced view can imagine favorable things just as easy as (if not easier than) unfavorable things.
For example, can you describe the mechanistic model Behe suggests for implementing microscopic designs? Did he talk about quantum effects inherent in microtubules and DNA? Did he suggest an EAM-like organization or microscopic life? What scientific hypothesis did Behe suggest in Edge of Evolution?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 15, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
TP quotes Dawkins:
But the origin of adaptive modifications is the crux of the issues at stake, is it not? Selection is a lot like gravity, in that it's so obvious a factor in the demographics of life in time, that hardly anyone has ever been inclined to think of it as a radical "scientific theory." Differential success at life and reproduction is a given. Has nothing to do with one's relative 'fitness', since fit and unfit alike are subject to the fickle finger of fate.
If you don't live long enough to reproduce, that's karma. If your offspring don't reproduce, that's their karma. If you're never born, you're not a consideration at all. It has always been thus. You don't see mass amounts of scholarly exposition about why people can't fly. Jump off the cliff, you will fall. Nobody ever needed a credential-toting scientist to explain it to them. Heck, not even squirrels need a credential-toting scientist to explain. Miss your target limb and you fall. Tough titty.
Thus humanity didn't really need Charlie to tell them that there is diversity in life, that there is relative adaptive ability, or that those who have the most offspring get the biggest thumbprint on the future. That much has been obvious to humans since time immemorial.
Which means it's not a "scientific theory." It's just an observation, and anyone could make it. Humans have been breeding livestock and food crops on that observation for thousands of years. It really wasn't anything new.
Which means it's not new now either. It doesn't explain anything except why some lucky adaptations might lead to speciation. The extrapolations to phyla from that are completely spurious. There is no evidence that a single phylum has evolved at any time in the last ~550 million years. Which, evolutionary scientists tell us, is longer than it took for humans to evolve from rat-like ancestors.
And nobody - not Charlie, and not anybody since - has any idea of where life originated, how or why. Evolution is what happened after life already existed. That's all it is, and the "modern theory" doesn't explain it. Decent with modification and the existence of variation have always been uncontroversial. They're still uncontroversial today. This is not the crux of the issue here. Here, the issue is where the modifications and variations come from, and whether or not those are strictly random.
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
This is feeble. Dawkins is not proposing a radical new scientific theory. In recent decades he has concentrated on communicating existing theories, not research into new ones. Why should he have lots of peer-reviewed research publications?
Comment by Mark Frank — September 15, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
You don't need to have a radical new theory to do research.
Comment by Guts — September 15, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Hey TP
Was something designed, and how was a thing designed are two completely separate questions. The first questions must come first.
We knew that Stonehenge and the Pyramids were designed long before we had a theory as to how they were designed. Middle age Europeans knew that Roman concrete structures were designed even though they had no clue how to make them themselves.
In fact the consensus that something is designed must come before "mechanistic models" can be discussed. Imagine a peasant farmer trying to explain his theory on how to make concrete to his neighbor who is sure concrete is a natural phenomena. He would get nowhere.
This is why your third choice will never make any headway until science is willing to discuss the possibility of design. Like it or not you are stuck with us.
His hypothesis is reflected in his chart on page 218. It can be formulated into following simple statement
RM/NS is incapable of producing effects that go beyond the E of E.
This leads strait away to the following testable prediction.
No observed instances of RM/NS will move beyond the two binding site rule.
A single instance of this happening invalidates his prediction and he is sent back to the drawing board with his tail between his legs.
Despite lots of bluster from his critics nothing yet has surfaced to falsify his hypothesis.
Peace
PS
So far his is much more of a legitimate scientific hypothesis than your pet theory . And I like your theory.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 15, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
In 1687 Newton's thoughts about the implications of gravity were considered radical when he published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
In 1859 Darwin's thoughts about the implications of natural selection were considered radical when he published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Apparently the longer title was the formal one for the book we usually refer to simply as "The Origin of Species".
Therefore, I am not really sure what your point is. "It's just an observation, and anyone could make it" holds true for most, if not all, scientific theories. The Theory of Gravity is just an observation. Does that mean you treat the hypotheses about the formation of galaxies the same as evolutionary hypotheses and visa-versa?
The topic of the thread concerns extreme confirmation bias during reviews.
Bilbo implied that Dawkins' review was so biased that Bilbo felt it appropriate to question whether or not Dawkins bothered to read EoE at all.
You may very well disagree with Dawkins, but I suggest Dawkins is making his arguments honestly and openly (at least in this specific review).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 15, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
TP:
No, the several "theories of gravity" attempt to assign cause to the effect we observe, or at least quantify the observed effects. This has been true for a couple of millennia at least. There have always been attempts to explain why we observe what we observe. Until the 17th century, however, we couldn't observe a whole lot. And until decades into the 20th century nobody knew there were any other galaxies in this universe apart from ours. Thus no one thought to extrapolate from a single galaxy to a host of them the same kind of self-organizational proclivities that make our galaxy a spiral.
Then it turned out that Einstein's formulations worked regardless of how many galaxies there were. Explain one, you've explained them all. THAT is good science.
Charlie Darwin never heard of any of it - died well before Harlow Shapley was a force to be reckoned with in astronomy. Shapley turned out to be wrong, despite his total control of astronomical thought for the entirety of his astronomical career. No true DarwinDefender I've ever seen, heard or dealt with is willing to admit there are things Darwin didn't factor other than genes (and for that, "gemules" were as serviceable). Even though they know just as sure as I know that there indeed are things Darwin didn't factor. And that his progeny didn't factor when formulating the NDS. The ideology had by then taken over, and that's all that counts.
Do you have any independent evidence that demonstrates Dawkins read the book, or are you simply assuming on the basis of the fact that he wrote a review that he 'must have' read it?
I haven't read it. Yet I don't automatically assume Dawkins did either. If the review is as trite as Bilbo thinks - and Bilbo says he DID read the book - there's no reason at all to believe he did.
What kind of a sloppy scientist, writer or ideologue would publish a scathing review of a book he never read? And expect to get away with it, that is…
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
TP says:
Well, only if one mistakenly thinks that when Behe talks about "Darwin's multifaceted theory" and "Darwinian thought", he was speaking of only Charlie himself and not how those ideas have "evolved" over time.
Mike Gene, if I recall correctly, used to have a tag line at ARN, that said something to the affect that one should first read for understanding. One should be generous in attempting to try to understand what the writer is trying to say, because you can only challenge his ideas if you really understand them.
It's pretty clear that Behe was aware of the fact that Charles himself didn't speak of random mutations, because he lived at a time when DNA and genetics were unknown. Indeed, that lack of knowledge in Darwin's time was why his first book was named "Darwin's Black Box".
Now, if Dawkins is trying to distance himself and other Darwinians from random mutations, that would be newsworthy. If modern Darwinians, who Behe is attempting to engage, don't envision an important role for random mutations, whence the variation that Darwin himself saw as a necessity?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 15, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
That was an unusual shift of burden. That word "must" means a lot. Are you absolutely certain that having someone tell you how they made a murder look like an accident wouldn't make your "first question" moot?
You wrote…
In all of these cases there were hypotheses. There are a lot of people who "know" the moon was designed. They have hypotheses about how it came about (see Book of Genesis).
Just about everyone agrees that life was designed. The argument is about how. Was it designed via RM/NS or Quantum Mechanics or EAM or ….
Manufacturing concrete would likely be the only thing that could convince a doubtful neighbor, especially if some religious principle is involved.
Likewise, with the Third Choice. It explains too much. The Many Worlds quantum interpretation is the only practical alternative but it isn't realistic in any sense of the word.
The old scientific models stay in place until you provide a substitute. The Third Choice is a substitute. I think it's inevitable.
And, like it or not, there is a difference between suggesting something is not random and presuming intelligent designer(s).
I don't know if you noticed how, in other threads, I have indicated that Behe's arguments serendipitously provide support for the Third Choice.
Behe is arguing against randomness. The Third Choice implies there is no such thing as randomness.
In a vain attempt to get back on the thread's subject…
My original point was that it could have occurred to ID critics that they have biased views of things but would be willing to understand scientific proposals even if they disagreed with them.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 15, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Hi Joy,
You asked…
I did a quick read of Edge of Evolution a while ago.
I also read Dawkins' review. (did you?)
I also reread Behe's response. Behe suggests… "Other Darwinist reviewers have blustered; Dawkins is the only one who has dripped venom. I will pass on replying to that. He makes just two substantive points in his review."
Dawkins' New York Times review was short, but Behe provides no hint that Dawkins didn't bother to read the book. In fact, the implication was that Dawkins' second "substantive" point was something new that the other reviewers hadn't addressed.
Even though it was short (I quoted most of it) Dawkins' review included several direct quotes from EoE.
For all of the above reasons I suspect that suggesting Dawkins didn't read the book borders on flights of fancy. Or, more probably, it was a Culture War inspired generalization that would presumed to be favorably received by like-minded individuals.
Let's see how Bilbo responds to my comments, shall we?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 15, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
TP:
Well, if he's got time (couple of days. He charges accordingly, you know) to read and review ID supporter's books, that's great. That his criticisms would necessarily bias readers tending toward ID or tending toward Dawkins' brand of evangelical atheism is naive. Though both will quote-mine it.
I can get quotes from any book out right now (and most historicals) with a short Google of the Nets. So can you, so can Dawkins, and so can any kinda Guru's speech/article writers. But it makes no difference to me. I don't expect Dawkins' review would be any different either way.
Someday maybe I'll be fated to read all the famous ID tomes, maybe even some of the NAM's atheist tomes. I'm sure it's a very interesting back-and-forth, lots of drama and angst. Maybe even enough plot twists to rival Ludlum!
Until then, I'm just here observing the play, and the galleries for both 'camps' and their cheering squads. What I think about ID (or something that qualifies under that heading) is something I earned long ago. Part of me, how I view the world and how I parse the dynamics. Maybe I'd pen as scathing in a review of one of Dawkins' books as he has of Behe.
If I ever happen across a Dawkins book for free, I'll let you know… §;o)
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
TP:
The "ID movement" is overhyped nonsense. It molds no perceptions and is not even a blip on the culture war radar screeen. America is not threatened by any so called movement. If you ask for evidence that it has impacted the U.S. you are left waiting for responses. There is a thriving anti-ID movement that seeks to conflate ID with religion and utilizes generous doses of personal attacks to accomplish their ends.
Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Hi RodgerRabbitt,
You wrote…
I suggest Quantum Mechanics may provide a clue. Most people consider the idea of no randomness extreme. I think even Behe suggests Random Mutation provides some variation, just not enough. Others have made suggestions that include a form of Lamarckian models and models that suggest Adaptive Mutagenesis, including Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis (EAM). Most of these are in addition to Random Mutation.
While most in the ID Movement would like to generalize all "Darwinists" as believing purely and only in random mutation, I suggest there are other possibilities that aren't random that would be considered possibilities by many evolutionary biologists.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 15, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
TP
Actully Genesis tells why the moon came about and not how. I thought you were reading the bible.
Making concrete would not prove that concrete was a designed substance any more than making artificial life would prove that life was designed.
I agree that is one reason I like it . Darwinism on the other hand relies on randomness. That is probably why it bugs me so
now back to the topic:
Bradford
You are so right. I'm amazed at the level of panic expressed in the west by just the possibility of design. If we lived in India then you could say the anti-science forces were a threat. Check this out http://www.religionnewsblog.co...
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 15, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
fifth monarchy man:
Ironically if the Hindu hardliners made demands in the west and were clever enough to play an ethnic discrimination card they just might intimidate the "pro-science" crowd.
Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 6:37 am
But you haven't really explained what that clue is. Is QM's influence random with respect to fitness or not? If the former, it doesn't change the debate at all. If the latter, what is the principle involved that favors fitness and how does it work?
Without those questions being answered clearly, I'm not sure of what interest the 3rd choice is generally, or why it would even be considered a 3rd Choice.
Let me see if I've got this. You are generalizing about IDers generalizing about what what Darwinists generally believe. Is that correct?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 16, 2007 @ 6:37 am
September 16th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Don't wimp out on me now. You are one of the few who ethically admits to knowing the Truth.
It is a matter of detail. We don't know exactly how the Empire State building came together even though we have a pretty good idea. We have a working hypothesis as to who put together Stonehenge over five thousand years ago. That is a good start.
Another good start is the working hypothesis that…
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Doesn't this mean the Truth is that the moon was designed?
Are lasers designed?
It turns out that lasers can occur natually link.
It appears that in this universe if it can happen it does. Be it lasers, concrete or life.
I suspect your real question is whether of not all these things can occur as a result of randomness. Since I question the existance of randomness (see The Magic of Intelligent Design) I tend to think of everything as "designed".
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
You wrote…
I guess it is time for me to submit another guest post.
I have tried to make it very clear I am suggesting there is no such thing as randomness. However, you added the qualifier "with respect to". Neither stock market prices nor the phases of the moon are random. However, it might be possible to think of stock market prices as being random WITH RESPECT TO the phases of the moon.
Whether of not this level of depth was your intent, I tend to think that fitness corrilates with life's dependance on quantum effects. It is not random by either sense of the word.
As to how it works. One way to think of it is an Gaia-like effect. If all life is interconnected via quantum effects, then all life is in some aspects a single living organism, that is conscious. It gets even more profound when you realise everything in interconnected in both space and time (Einsteinian/Minkowskian Spacetime).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Hi TP,
Of course, although I have never critically reviewed a book based on prejudice. Then again, maybe it's because I have never critically reviewed a book. I just think I might someday find these quotes to be quite handy:
[There] is a tendency for critics to read what their prejudices expect to see in a book rather than what is actually there. "“ Richard Dawkins
"Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity" "“ Richard Dawkins
This is not accurate. The accurate question would be, "Has it ever occurred to you and Mike that this is why such a small number of the critics of the ID Movement provide detailed explainations and scientific models when making arguments?" Most critics opt for name-calling, nit-picking, misrepresenation, arguing against straw men, etc. I should know -I've argued with 100s of them.
Comment by MikeGene — September 16, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
TP says:
I wish I could claim credit for this qualifier, but I can't. That is generally what Darwinists say is meant by RM in RM/NS. And I've seen this play out over the last 8 years or so in these discussions. I don't know of any significant arguments over whether "randomness" truly exists. And I've tried to point that out to you, as you've tried to assign that position to Behe, if not others.
Now you are free to make such arguments, but I'm not sure who you think your opponents might be.
That certainly sounds like the opposite of science, or of a mechanistic theory, which you have at various times claimed to be doing. And it's anything but profound. It may indeed be true, but you haven't given me any reason to investigate further, or climb on the bandwagon. If the Gaia-like thing floats your boat, fine. But is there any substance that will provoke interest from the non-Gaians?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 16, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Hi Mike,
It is practically an ID Movement mantra not to provide "pathetic level of detail" since it might ruin the Big Tent atmosphere.
You have indicated that you feel ID is not science. There are many ID proponents that don't see it that way. The ID Movement generally has attempted to have its cake and eat it too (being both science and religion).
In your sciphishow interview you mentioned that Front Loading needs to gain acceptance and provide substance to become viable.
It should come as no surprise to you that I value substance a lot more than I value acceptance. Gaining acceptance is easy. All you have to do the tell people what they want to hear. Or better yet, present things vaguely enough so they ""¦read what their prejudices expect to see in a book rather than what is actually there". Positive prejudices are sometimes referred to as Group Think.
Personally, I get worried when people agree with me. It is a sure sign they don't understand the significance of what is being said. Rather than complaining about strawmen arguments, I use them to provide further substance as to what I am saying versus what I am not saying.
Suggesting EAM, the Third Choice, or even an omnipotent Intelligent Designer is substantive. It provides a framework to carry on constructive (albeit LOUD) conversations. The alternative is to get stuck in shield bashing mode complaining that your critics just don't get it. This plays well to the friendly crowd, but does it advance understanding?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Hey TP
First you must keep reminding yourself that the Truth is a person and not a list of facts found in a book. Facts in a book may be true but they can never be "the Truth"
Next you need to realize that the fact that the universe was the result of design was taken for granted in the worldview of the biblical writers (PS 19:1 etc)
Finally you need to understand that by the time we get to this passage the claim of design has already been made in verse 1 which is nothing more than the Leibnizian cosmological argument (the ancients weren't as backward as you've been led to believe)
The passage you quoted Gen 1:16-19 claims only that the reason the moon was designed was
to give light upon the earth and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness
To get the idea of what is intended here check out this paraphrase from a distinguished OT scholar John Sailhamer found in the book Genesis unbound. ( I would recommend this book to all who believe biblical literalism requires YEC)
as he had done on each of the preceding days, God spoke on the fourth day to issue a decree that the heavenly bodies were to serve a particular purpose for those who were to dwell on the land. They were to remind God's creatures of this power and Grace, and they were to mark the arrival of the great feast days when his people were to worship him in the land. such special purposes for the heavenly bodies were in addition to their natural function as a source of light upon the land.
It might be a good idea to understand something before you discount it and belittle those who belive it
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 16, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Hi RodgerRabbitt,
You wrote…
Penrose-Hameroff announced the Orchestrated OR model of consciousness ten years ago. Here is the scientific paper.
Sir Rodger Penrose and Stephen Hawking had a well known debate on their different views of quantum mechanics in 1994. The reason Penrose's quantum interpretation was, and is, so controversial is because of its radical departure from thinking about matter as made up of randomly vibrating particles. The obvious implication of Penrose's quantum interpretation us that the universe is one giant interconnected wavefunction.
The lack of randomness is minor compared to the forced abandonment of the last "strings" of materialism (pun intended). Science had accepted the lack of randomness for a couple of centuries when Newtonian Physics was king.
But Dembski and Behe claim that "Dawinism" fails if randomness can't explain scientific observations (Dembski refers to "chance hypotheses"). There arguments are just as valid if randomness doesn't exist. The only difference is that Behe and Dembski suggest that only alternative to randomness is whatever they are hypothesizing.
Generally, this is presented as a choice between random "Darwinism" and intelligent designer(s). I am suggesting there are other choices, a Third Choice.
Like I said, it may be time for another Guest Post. Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model provides a great deal of detail including equations (E=Ä¥/t) and experiments. There are multiple peer-reviewed studies and experiments supporting it. There are also scientists providing significant critiques, especially Max Tegmark.
LOL
Do you think I WANT to believe this stuff? I don't want you to "climb on the bandwagon", I want you surrendering kicking and screaming. If you are going to believe what you want to believe, I have no chance to convince you otherwise. I am not going to try. All I can do is present the detailed arguments that best that I can and defend them.
However, if you wish to do a compare and contrast of my model against your model, I would be all too happy to oblige.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Ok, the Bible "may" be true. Does that mean you believe some parts of the Bible may be false?
I tend to think of the universe as designed (even if there isn't an intelligent designer or designers).
I have a great deal of respect for "ancients", including those who created Stonehenge around 3000 BC.
I don't believe biblical literalism requires YEC.
Why would I need someone else to explain words that I can read and understand for myself?
It wasn't my intent to belittle anyone.
I tend to think of the universe, including the moon, as designed.
I wanted to know if you think of the moon as designed.
Do you?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
TP:
The Hawking, Penrose, et al references are pretty irrelevant to the discussions at hand.
No, that isn't what Dembski refers to as "chance hypotheses". The chance hypotheses include not only random or pseudo-random phenomenon, they include law-like behavior, up to and including the probability of 100%. Just another way you've completely missed the point.
I've heard neither Dembski nor Behe present it like this. Do you have a citation to provide us with? I'll bet not.
It's not really that you need another guest post. It's that you have to cut the BS, and actually make a case that you understand ID, which you haven't exhibited up to now, and explain without a single link or reference to Penrose et al what your 3rd choice is in simple terms, and how it addresses the arguments made by Behe or Dembski.
You could do that in a post or two in a rabbit thread if you chose to, and are capable of doing what you claim. I have my doubts.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 16, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Hey TP
I want to thank you for providing me with so much enjoyment. I can't tell you how much it cracks me up to have repeated biblical discussions on a science blog with some one who takes NOMA as an article of faith. It's like you are doing it on purpose
I keep waiting to hear you say that it has all been a big joke and you are really affiliated with the Association of Confessing Evangelicals or somthing LOL
I only want to have the record reflect that it's always you who brings it up.
"The Truth" considered the bible to be true so if parts of the bible are false this would either make him a liar or incompetent. In which case he would not be the Truth and I would be with out hope.
If on the other hand he proved himself to be the Truth (by his resurrection for example) then I would have every reason to trust his opinions.
All of this does not mean that parts of the bible aren't misunderstood or misinterpreted this happens all the time. Just like the things that you and I write are often misunderstood and misinterpreted. Often this is because to quote the reason for this thread:
There is a tendency for critics to read what their prejudices expect to see in a book rather than what is actually there.
See the above quote LOL
I do because I can't help it. It is obvious (Romans 1:20). Effects demand causes
No one needs a book to know that the moon is designed. All a book can tell us is who did it and why
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 16, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
Your last comment was, unfortunately, very predictable.
The Third Choice is the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model. Here is the link explaining how and why.
Here is a link where I explain it in simpler language.
Here is a link where I explain the significance of thinking of the universe as SpaceTime geometry.
Remember how I indicated shield bashing was a common reason for attempting to shift the burden of proof in a discussion? I give you these links as my offering, take them or leave them. I feel no obligation to attempt to make you believe something you don't want to believe.
As to your shield bashing attacks. I am perfectly willing to discuss the relavance of a Dembski paper that can be found here. where he says…
and..
This is the kind of golden opportunity I was talking to MikeGene about earlier. Instead of yelling "strawman", it would help increase the level of understanding if you would explain what Dembski did say.
I would be all too happy to participate in a detail analysis of this Dembski paper. Either here or in a rabbit thread.
It is kind of on topic for this thread since it is an example of how people "…read what their prejudices expect to see…rather than what is actually there".
BTW, my challenge was to have an EVEN discussion. You present your ideas, I present mine. Then we do a compare and contrast. What you are talking about is me giving you more shield bashing practice. Thanks, but no thanks.
If I am going to do that, I will open it up to a wider audience.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
I hope you are in earnest, because I too am enjoying the conversation.
Yes, I am "doing it on purpose". In the past I have pointed out that I think Telic Thoughts should quit trying to argue against religious connotations. An open, honest and ethical response to accusations that ID is religious would be "so what?", especially for someone claiming to know the Truth.
I bring up God and the Bible to facilitate open discussions.
Do you understand my NOMA stance means I don't deny the possibility of God's existence? I just don't think God is empirically detectable.
I asked "I wanted to know if you think of the moon as designed. Do you?"
You responded with…
To keep from going too far off topic, I will just hold on to this data point for now. I am sure the subject will come up again.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
TP:
The internet just blew another irony fuse.
Comment by BenK — September 16, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Hey TP
I know that is what NOMA means to you in theory. In fact it Shoehorns God into the realm of personal feelings and leaves the physical universe as the god of everything that is real and objective. This might seem like a good compromise but it is nothing less than idolatry IMHO.
The disciples made objective empirical claims about God and to rule this evidence as out or order is to render their testimony impotent and worthless.
How about a few more quote from that book you seem to like so much
John 20:30-21 Jesus' disciples saw him do many other miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life.
1st john 1:1-3 The one who existed from the beginning is the one we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is Jesus Christ, the Word of life. This one who is life from God was shown to us, and we have seen him. And now we testify and announce to you that he is the one who is eternal life. He was with the Father, and then he was shown to us. We are telling you about what we ourselves have actually seen and heard, so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
2 peter 1:16- 18For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming again. We have seen his majestic splendor with our own eyes. And he received honor and glory from God the Father when God's glorious, majestic voice called down from heaven, "This is my beloved Son; I am fully pleased with him." We ourselves heard the voice when we were there with him on the holy mountain.
nuff said
I share your desire not to stray off topic but you must understand when you bring this stuff up you are asking for it.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 16, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Hi BenK,
You wrote…
They do that a lot.
Here is the quote in context…
But this particular comment isn't the point is it? The ID Movement is about molding perceptions in the Culture War. Generalizations make for better weapons than specific examples. The ID Movement is known for avoiding specifics in order to maintain its Big Tent even it this isn't very helpful to those trying to promote ID Science.
Prove me wrong. Let's talk about the specifics in Dawkins' comments MikeGene was talking about in the opening post.
I read it, did you?
I read the specifics of the review Bilbo was talking about too. Did you?
But that isn't the point is it?
We would rather try to score points in the Culture War wouldn't we?
The irony fuses were blown long ago. Are there any left?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
So you reject NOMA. That rejection is a double-edged sword that people like Richard Dawkins can also wield.
It is another data point that will be sure to come up again.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
"Rather than make Culture War generalities, let's look at the details."
Sure, lets. First of all, TP, your selection of quotes from Dawkins' review grossly misrepresents it. Dawkins opens:
And so on and so forth. Dawkins can complain about Cornwell using quotation marks or mixing up Karamazov and Dostoevsky, but his own review of Behe opens with two long paragraphs of blatant ad hominem. An assessment of Dawkins' review should not ignore its vitriolic tone and smearing of Behe.
Moreover, when he actually begins to review Behe's book he shows, at best, that he has skimmed through bits of it; although someone could quite comfortably have written Dawkin's review based on a summary of EoE provided by someone else. That's not to say he I know he actually hasn't read the book but I can sympathise with Bilbo wondering.
Dawkins' misses the import of one of Behe's simple points. Dawkins can rejoice in natural selection as 'the most momentous idea ever occur to the human mind' but the salient point is that unless something already exists natural selection can't favor it. Far from being so mementous, natural selection is almost tautological - things which are more likely to survive and reproduce are more likely to survive and reproduce - novelty depends on random mutation.
As for Dawkins' claim that Dog breeding refutes Behe's EoE, this seems to me to be blatant clutching at straws. Wasn't the vast majority if not all of the genetic information present in modern dog breeds present in dog's mongrel ancestors?
Comment by BenK — September 16, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
On that note, can you give specific information on:
a) The culture war: What it is, who the parties involved are, how we can know with certainty whether something is or is not 'about the culture war;
b) The ID movement: How it is defined, who is and who is not a member, and how we can know with certainty what those people are about.
Then we could assess a statement like 'The ID movement is about shaping perceptions in the culture war', specifically, and without recourse to vauge generalisations.
Comment by BenK — September 16, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Thought Provoker wrote:
What's the basis for this opinion?
And do you think any mind is empirically detectable? If so, what is it precisely that licenses that kind of judgement?
Comment by stunney — September 16, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Hi TP,
Actually, I said that if front-loading is to go anywhere, it depends on two things:
1. Front-loading must be, in some sense, valid (there has to be validity, or some substance, to it).
2. A community of people that can recognize that substance.
Understanding comes from understanding this:
Comment by MikeGene — September 16, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Hi BenK,
You wrote…
It isn't news that Dawkins doesn't respect Behe and Bilbo didn't mention that point. Once again this is a shield bashing attempt to shift the burden of proof. Bilbo was the one questioning whether or not Dawkins bothered to read Behe's book. Bilbo has yet to explain the details of why he thought that.
Now it so happens that I agree with Dawkins that Behe's first book showed more spark and conviction than his second. I believe Behe, and most of the ID proponents, were being more honest in their pursuit of ID Science. If I understand correctly, this was the atmosphere that substantial ID hypotheses like EAM were proposed.
Dawkins' review in the New York Times was short (presumably the Times gave Dawkins a word limit) and was after others much longer reviews were in the public domain. Dawkins brought up two key points, one of which was not addressed by previous reviewers. He included several quotes from the book. I thought it packed a very efficient punch considering the constraints. I suggest Behe's response supports that contention.
Frankly, I am interested in what you or Bilbo think Dawkins got flat out wrong as opposed to suggesting that he could have said something different.
It is no surprise that you and Behe disagree with the review.
Dawkins didn't miss it. He directly and strongly disagreed that Darwin's natural selection proposal was a "modest" idea. Are you suggesting that Dawkins is forced to see things the way you and Behe see them?
Even so, Dawkins address the issue that "novelty depends on random mutation".
What do you say to Dawkins' argument that this novelty is necessary for both artificial and natural evolution?
Was it?
This is assuming the conclusion (i.e. begging the question).
IMO, Behe was better off focusing on the microscopic world like he did in Darwin's Black Box It is his strength. This is where Behe retreats to when the going gets rough. Look at how Behe responded to Dawkins (link).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Hi BenK,
You asked…
I can't give you specifics about the Culture War any more than I could give you specifics about the reason we are at war in Iraq. There is no consensus. Frankly I don't like either of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
As to my definition of the ID Movement. Specifically, I consider it a movement sponsored and empowered by the Discovery Institute and its fellows. Specifically, Dembski and Wells are leaders of the ID Movement. Dembski has made several pronouncements on what are and are not "ID Alternatives".
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Hi Stunney,
You asked…
Sorry Stunney. I am going to be your shield bashing target. If you want to engage in a compare and contrast of our ideas, I will do that in a rabbit thread.
Do you think God is empirically detectable?
And do you think any mind is empirically detectable?
What is it precisely is your justification for your judgment?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Yes, I think I appreciate where you are coming from, but I suggest nature is throwing us a curve ball (again).
I have been composing in my mind a post titled "It depends on how you look at it."
This old saying takes on a new meaning in quantum mechanics. It also makes your society-mind-nature balancing act a lot trickier.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 16, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Thought Provoker wrote:
I'm game.
According to Ockham (as in William, the actual man), God is the sole necessary reality.
Of course, his Razor principle doesn't say per se anything about whether God makes, or does not make, an empirical difference.
Now, suppose physics cannot account for some phenomena, such as there being laws of physics in the first place, or there being a real universe that instantiates them, or there being rational minds capable of doing physics, or there being moral experience, or for the laws of physics enduring consistently and reliably for another 4 months. It seems to me that these are all empirically different"“—and strikingly so—"”from there not being laws of physics in the first place, and from there not being a real universe that instantiates them, and from there not being rational minds capable of doing physics, and from there not being moral experience, and from the laws of physics not enduring consistently and reliably for another 4 months.
Ockham's principle says not to multiply entities beyond necessity. Well, Ockham himself and I agree that these striking empirical differences require a theistic creator.
So to return to your questions:
Do you think God is empirically detectable?
Yes.
And do you think any mind is empirically detectable?
Yes.
What is it precisely is your justification for your judgment?
Abductive inference. In God's case, the empirical data I noted above are best explained in my view by the hypothesis of a theistic creator as the causal agent who brings about that data. In the case of other minds generally, the hypothesis of conscious rational minds as being the causal agents who bring about certain classes of human behavior best explains that behavioral data.
Comment by Anonymous — September 16, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Thought Provoker wrote:
I'm game.
According to Ockham (as in William, the actual man), God is the sole necessary reality.
Of course, his Razor principle doesn't say per se anything about whether God makes, or does not make, an empirical difference.
But now, suppose physics cannot account for some phenomena, such as there being laws of physics in the first place, or there being a real universe that instantiates them, or there being rational minds capable of doing physics, or there being moral experience, or for the laws of physics enduring consistently and reliably for another 4 months. It seems to me that these are all empirically different"“—and strikingly so—"”from there not being laws of physics in the first place, and from there not being a real universe that instantiates them, and from there not being rational minds capable of doing physics, and from there not being moral experience, and from the laws of physics not enduring consistently and reliably for another 4 months.
Ockham's principle says not to multiply entities beyond necessity. Well, Ockham himself and I agree that these striking empirical differences require a theistic creator.
So to return to your questions:
Do you think God is empirically detectable?
Yes.
And do you think any mind is empirically detectable?
Yes.
What is it precisely is your justification for your judgment?
It is justified by abductive inferences. In God's case, the empirical data I noted above are best explained (in my view) by the hypothesis of a theistic creator as the causal agent who brings about that data. In the case of other minds generally, the hypothesis that conscious rational minds are the causal agents who bring about certain classes of human behavior best explains that behavioral data.
Comment by stunney — September 17, 2007 @ 2:46 am
September 17th, 2007 at 8:47 am
TP says:
You are excellent at predicting, especially in hindsight.
Of course, lacking the "how and why" of its relationship to ID. And including misleading statements like this:
Let's add UPB to concepts you either don't understand, or like to misuse.
LOL! Let's review. It starts out:
You fail to give us any definition of what you mean by "magic-like mechanisms", nor any citations or links demonstrating a Behe or Dembski doing this as part of their logical or evidentiary case for ID. Then you proceed to go thru this whole exercise on randomness and coins and QM, and then finally near the bottom, in a rare moment of clarity, say:
Yeah, now maybe we will actually get to the "simple explanation":
Huh? The phrase you coined upthread, never explained, is now declared potentially "scientific". You've completed the circle of irrelevancy, and we are back at square one, looking for that simple explanation.
Perfectly willing to concede this and even more, that QM effects are instrumental in life today. So? So is gravity. And the relevancy to ID?
Where is the simple explantion again? It's nowhere in there. I'm perfectly willing to concede that you feel some kind of Gaia-like consciousness and connectedness to the 3rd Choice and that you honestly "feel" and "believe" that this is the answer. But it can't be the basis for an intellectual exchange, because you are unable to articulate any kind of objective description of what you are proposing.
And if that's as far as you went, I would refrain from commenting. But you've gone on to imply, and even state openly in some cases, that folks like Behe or Dembski are "unethical" and "unscientific" and "non-substantive", and a whole lot of other descriptive words, that you use in a manner not generally accepted, but that to you mean "things TP doesn't like", because they don't climb aboard with you. At that point I merely challenged you, just to clarify for any interested parties, that there appears to be no objective assertion in your 3rd Choice, and that your claims about Behe and Dembski are misleading in the extreme.
In order for me to have an active unwillingness to believe something, I'd have to have some understanding of what that something is, and I don't about the 3rd Choice. I do have a pretty good understanding about your use of loaded terms in a manner inconsistent with how they are generally used, and I sometimes choose to challenge to to define or defend said usage. I don't have the authority to put any burden on you. But I think reasonable people with a modicum of intelligence and interest in an issue, when they see somebody like you making all sort of wild claims, have an expectation that you, as their promoter, will have a vested interest in supporting them, if they can be. But you are free to disappoint their expectations.
Just as you are free to ignore my requests to provide some support for your claim about what Dembski means by "chance hypothesis" , and instead claim some willingness to discuss a Dembski document out of the blue. I'll merely note that "coin tossing" hardly represents true "randomness", hence the discussions in that paper clearly undercut the point you asserted. Not sure what other purpose would be served by a discussion, if you don't realize and admit this upfront.
I'm sorry, is that your way of admitting that you misconstrued what Dembksi was saying?
EVEN? Is this gonna be another in that whole series of terms that means "what TP likes" By its very nature, to the the extent that you are lobbying for guest posts to push your 3rd Choice, and inviting folks to challenge you, it is unlikely to be a symmetric discussion. I think most people understand that. But maybe "challenge" is another of those words. . .
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 17, 2007 @ 8:47 am
September 17th, 2007 at 9:04 am
In a word, no. I always get suspicious when a critic employees quote marks around a single word, because clearly, by definition, they are taken out of context. We have to hunt down that context to figure out if the criticism is fair:
So, not the notion, but the notion as an explanation, is trivial. Because the "also" means in addition to the other descriptions he gives in the prior sentence, "startling" and "astonishing". So, yes, to an objective reader, they would see this as not correctly representing what Behe said.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 17, 2007 @ 9:04 am
September 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Hi Stunney and RodgerRabbitt,
I am sorry I have to do this to you. I thought this was going to be a slow week. This morning I unexpectedly found out it is not (as in I have to travel).
It will be a while before I can follow through on my challenges.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 17, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Well, TP, this is my first chance to get back to this thread. I didn't expect my comment to spark such a storm. There are too many comments here for me to have time to read them all. Let me reply to yours, even though someone else may have already done so.
Dawkins says:
And then he goes to attempt a refutation of Behe's argument from irreducible complexity. But he leaves the readers with the impression that Behe is abandoning this argument. On the contrary, not only does Behe not abandon the argument, he supplements it with further scientific discoveries. What Behe does say is that irreducible complexity is too unwieldy a measuring rod to inform us of the boundaries of Darwinian evolution. We need a finer measuring unit. And this is why Behe doesn't concentrate on irreducible complexity. You would never suspect that from Dawkins' review.
Dawkins says:
True, Behe seems to think that natural selection is trivial and modest. But not so common descent. He argues vigorously and with a great amount of detail for the truth of common descent. I bet that section of his book could be used in any biology class, and do the concept of common descent proud. But you would never gather this from Dawkins' review.
Dawkins did get Behe right on thinking that random mutation was the crucial concept of Darwinian evolution. But Dawkins misses the fact that Behe isn't dealing with theory. He is dealing with actual examples of evolution: Malaria, HIV, and E coli. Whether the conclusions that Behe draws are correct or not is one question. If Dawkins thinks they aren't, it would have been helpful to point out where Behe is mistaken. But it would have been a better review if he pointed out that Behe was dealing with actual examples.
Comment by Bilbo — September 17, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I forgot to add that Behe devotes a chapter to showing what Darwinian evolution can do. The example I remember is how a certain kind of fish evolved "anti-freeze" in its blood. Behe thought this could be accounted for by Darwinian evolution. And he thought that the evolution up to at least the species level could be accounted for in this way, also. So for Dawkins to cite the dog-breeding as a counter-example to Behe should make one wonder if he bothered to read EoE.
Comment by Bilbo — September 18, 2007 @ 5:11 pm