We've updated our blogroll. First, you'll find Michael Behe's Blog, where Behe responds to his critics. Second, you'll find Thought Provoker's blog and his continued exploration of the Third Choice. Finally, there is mcromer's blog, Science is a method, not a position, which he desribes as follows: "I don't cover ID much, but I talk a lot about the sociology of science and the proper practice of science." Enjoy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Thanks very much Mike and the rest of the TTers. . .
Comment by mcromer — July 22, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 am
Commenting not allowed in Behe's blog — what a surprise!
Comment by Idiot Wind — July 23, 2007 @ 11:09 am
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
Mike,
Next time you update give us a look. We talk about Design/Materialism a lot and we post three times a day, and our most recent post takes a look at P.Z. Myers' latest offering. The site (Viewpoint) is at http://www.wscleary.com/pov/ho....
Comment by Dick — July 23, 2007 @ 11:20 am
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 am
Mike,
Next time you update give us a look. We talk about Design/Materialism a lot and we post three times a day. Our most recent post takes a look at P.Z. Myers' latest offering. The site (Viewpoint) is at http://www.wscleary.com/pov/ho.... Thanks.
Comment by Dick — July 23, 2007 @ 11:23 am
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Idiot Wind
A Dylan fan? I was going to call myself "Napoleon in Rags," but it's too long.
Anyway, maybe the (blogmaster?) will start a thread where we can discuss Behe's blog.
Comment by Randy — July 23, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Hi Idiot,
Maybe Behe isn't interested in addressing EVERYONE'S criticisms with his book. Don't you feel it proper and sufficient that he IS replying to prominent opposition?
It is a "surprise" that you don't seem to be impressed that he is doing enough to support his ideas.
But even if an argument could be made, I don't blame him - with how tactless some of his critics are (you not appearing to be much different) I think it would be best to not bog down the discussions with people more interested in insulting his character and intelligence.
Take care, idiot.
Comment by Doug — July 23, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Maybe Behe was hoping to have some substantive discussion outside of the blogosphere. It is disheartening how little substance he was able to find among his critics in the respectable sphere of science journals. Maybe he should open it up to postings from the general public. It might be a little more interesting.
Comment by Randy — July 23, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
TP,
I had a brief look at your blog. I'm dumbfounded and a little lost, so be patient with me. I might have a comment or two.
Comment by Randy — July 23, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
"Maybe Behe isn't interested in addressing EVERYONE'S criticisms with his book. Don't you feel it proper and sufficient that he IS replying to prominent opposition?"
He has indicated that he is not becoming involved either directly or indirectly in the debates over his book in blogs and forums. Only with reviewers in legitimate magazines/publications. This is very prudent given his limited time, which could be saturated with the horde of prejudiced critics. Hence his Amazon.com blog is primarily a vehicle for presenting his response to the "legitimate" reviewers. It probably will be his only vehicle. This is because most of these journals are unlikely to publish his responses in their own pages.
Comment by magnan — July 23, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
magnan:
His blog initially accepted comments but many, if not most of them, were personal criticisms rather than critiques of Behe's ideas.
Comment by Bradford — July 23, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Randy:
Let's be honest here. It's hardly surprising that Behe doesn't agree with his critics in the science journals who trash his arguments. That doesn't mean the critiques have no substance. If all the major science journals trash a book, it's a fairly safe bet (but by no means certain of course) that the book is trash. Wouldn't you agree?
Comment by Raevmo — July 23, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Is it just me?
I'm only seeing Bilbo's Blog on the blogroll. Cleared cache/cookies and there's still only that one blog showing.
Just FYI.
Comment by Rob R. — July 23, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Hi Rob R.
Excuse the confusion. My blog is listed under "teleology". I just said "blogroll" because I was lazy. Sorry.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 23, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Hi Randy,
Thanks for taking the time to look. Please feel free to ask questions. Any feedback is better than feeling ignored.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 23, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Hi MikeGene,
Thanks again for the advertisement.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 23, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Hi TP,
Thanks, I do see them now. I assumed they'd be under blogroll because of:
Perhaps the "blogroll" is reserved for TTbloggers only. No biggie, I was just curious and wondered if it was on my end. I've still have never seen that alleged edit button either.
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — July 23, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Yeah, I only see my blog on the blogroll list, also. Hmmm, I better post something new there.
Comment by Bilbo — July 23, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Raevmo:
If the major science journals have decided ahead of time that ID is not science, then we can safely predict that they will trash Behe's book, regardless of what he has to say. Now when Behe answers his major critics, and they don't continue the debate, it's a fairly safe bet that they know they've been refuted, and just don't want to admit it. Wouldn't you agree?
Comment by Bilbo — July 23, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Bilbo:
No. If you honestly think Behe's critics believe their critique has been refuted, then that's just wishful thinking I'm afraid. It's obvious you just *want* to believe Behe's scientific claims, even though most experts in the field dispute his claims. Fine with me, but your blind faith isn't going to accomplish much.
Comment by Raevmo — July 23, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I think this is an accurate summary; The faith-based approach has no real problem with continuing to believe in every one of Behe's arguments long after the mainstream research has rigorously investigated every one of his claims.
For example, I've yet to hear any IDer 'fess up that Behe get it dead wrong about bacterial flagellum. There does now seem to be a mountain of well-received research which addresses the issue of bacterial flagellum evolution.
I'm quite happy for IDers to continue using these old arguments; I'm even more delighted when they re-frame the whole debate as a sort of pseudo-scientific passion-play with the lone persecuted scientist against the corrupt the pharisee-like "establishment".
Comment by salimfadhley — July 23, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Why not evidence of actual evolution in the direction of a bacterial flagellum. Conceptual pathways are too easy.
Comment by Bradford — July 23, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
So arguments based on majorities render opposing views not simply erroneous but based on blind faith as well?
Comment by Bradford — July 23, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 1:13 am
No, not really. First off, it is individual contributors to those journals that are critiquing Behe's book. While I would agree that those journals have a pro-Darwinian bias in their editing departments, I would not agree that all of their contributors shine on Darwinism. So no. It's just a popular game in the science journals to trash what has already been predetermined to be "anti-science." I've seen how these things go.
Comment by Randy — July 24, 2007 @ 1:13 am
July 24th, 2007 at 6:31 am
That's the point - Behe essentially says that it is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary pathway that will result in a structure like a bacterial flagellum, hence his claim that they are irredcably complex. Many subsequent papers have demonstrated that there are a number of plausible evolutionary precursors and evolutionary routes for flagellum, and even gone so far as to specify what these might be.
It's not just a majority by voting numbers, but a majority of informed opinion on a very specialist topic. There does seem to be a strong consensus amongst the people who have published papers on the topic. Since Behe originally published Darwin's Black Box his ideas have not gained traction in the world of science, if anything they are considered less credible now than when Behe originally published them.
There really is a great deal of kudos to be earned in science by proving a previous theory wrong. If convincing claims for something that conflicts with the theory of evolution were presented it would be seriously investigated. Heck, scientists invested a lot of good time investigating Behe's unconvincing claims.
Science is no so dogmatic that it eschews scientific revolution. ID is not a scientific revolution.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 24, 2007 @ 6:31 am
July 24th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Why not evidence of actual evolution in the direction of a bacterial flagellum. Conceptual pathways are too easy.
That's your spin on what he wrote in DBB. He was making an empirical point in showing that pathways are conceptual rather than demonstrable for IC systems.
Conceptualizing possibilities is easier than testing them.
Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2007 @ 8:58 am
July 24th, 2007 at 9:12 am
If you are refering to Matzke's paper, it is not without its own presumptions. Either way, the above quite nicely demonstrates the inconsistency of what counts as evidence to the ID critic. If the darwinists conjure up speculation, then suddenly mere speculation turns into hard evidence!
Comment by Jean — July 24, 2007 @ 9:12 am
July 24th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I think you miss the point - Behe claims that there are no plausible evolutionary paths which lead to a flagellum, hence his definition of "irreducibly complex" - a way of claiming that no known evolutionary process can possibly account for the complexity of said structure. This of course is just Behe's opinion and not "hard evidence".
It is however a very interesting claim, and one which a number of biologists took very seriously. All you have to do to show that structures that Behe considered to be un-evolvable really can evolve is to show that plausible evolutionary pathways exist between precursor and modern structures.
This has been done for all of the systems that Behe claimed were irreducibly complex, and this is why no biologists take Behe's IC ideas particularly seriously. It's true that some systems that Behe thought to be un-evolvable are actually eminently evolvable - the biological challenge is not so much to prove that they can evolve but which of the many possible evolutionary path-ways evolution most probably took.
Even ideas within ID such as "Front Loading" make the notion of IC largely redundant.
I'd like to address the notion that there is a conspiracy that keeps mainstream biologists from recognizing the true worth of Behe's research. The sad truth is that all of his claims were rigorously studied with a great deal more attention than far more worthy scientists usually receive, and his claims were found to be meritless.
Plainly, he got it wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...
Comment by salimfadhley — July 24, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Behe could have cited systems that are much more challenging although they might not have been as well suited for popular consumption.
Actually most of these "pathways" are not worthy of the name. They are vague and tend to stop with the mention of homologies and very general descriptions.
Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
So why didn't he? Perhaps it is as you suggest, his intended audience was the general public, ID clubs and theological seminaries rather than evolutionary biologists and geneticists. Despite this, biologists have investigated his claims and after careful scrutiny have found them to be false.
We only need to show that a single pathway can exist in order to discredit Behe's claim that no pathways can possibly exist.
There is no conspiracy against him, Behe just got it wrong.
Don't take it as a personal insult. I'm sure you know that secular "materialist" scientists get it wrong from time to time. Fortunately science has evolved a very good process for weeding out weaker ideas.
Unfortunately for Michael Behe, IC is an evolutionary dead-end.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 24, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Behe, like other authors featured in book stores, has a bottom line interest. Biologists are not even in a position to declare false the most basic IC system of all- the cell itself. All evolutionary scenarios are predicated on its existence for which there are no pathways.
Actually most of these "pathways" are not worthy of the name. They are vague and tend to stop with the mention of homologies and very general descriptions.
Unless we dispense with experimental results in favor of imaginative pathways your claim is hollow. Pathways I'm fond of have identifiable enzymes, substrates, identified AAs and their sequencial order, steps delineating reactions and available descriptions of coding genes. Best of all the pathways themselves can be observed and outcomes confirmed. You repeatedly state that Behe claimed no pathways can possibly exist when his actual claims are focused on the inadaquacy of conventional pathways. Why not quote directly from his book to support your point?
Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Bradford:
If you're so fond of that "pathetic level of detail" (in the legendary words of Dr Dr Dembski), then supply some of your own details regarding the process of ID. You may not like imaginative pathways for something that happened billions of years ago, but until you come up with a mechanistic model of your own, your words are utterly hollow and betray your dishonesty.
Comment by Raevmo — July 24, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Raevmo:
How is pointing out imaginary pathways dishonest?
Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
You know what I mean, my friend. You demand an impossible level of detail from you opponents, while not supplying any of your own. That's dishonest in my book. Give us your mechanistic model of how the Intelligent Designer dunnit. If you don't, then we know you are clueless and we can leave it at that.
PS I'm off to bed now, so no instant replies to your detailed model.
Comment by Raevmo — July 24, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
First, the expectation that a pathway contain details is not just reasonable, it is responsible as well. I did not force anyone to use the term pathway for what amounts to depictions of gene homologies. Second, I'm not demanding anything. Rather, I'm calling a spade a spade. If you have a belief by all means state it. Just don't embellish a claim with pathways that are speculative in nature.
Tell me how I typed this message. Was it with two hands, two fingers or some other way? Did someone type it for me? A hallmark of intelligence is choice and choice entails options. The evidence that the message itself is intelligently designed lies in the alphanumeric coding symbols, not in the mechanism. Similarly, evidence for design lies with the genetic code and its symbolic details. The possible mechanisms are many and varied but unlike opposing theories, ID is not represented by a blind watchmaker.
Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Raevmo:
Behe's critics are the ones who aren't continuing the debate. If you think they've refuted him, you are the blind one.
Behe's claim regarding IC systems, is that no direct Darwinian pathways exist. He always admitted that there may exist indirect pathways, but that such pathways become more and more improbable, the more steps are needed, especially if such steps are not selectable.
Comment by Bilbo — July 24, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Bilbo:
It would seem rather useless to point that out to a critic whose reference is the talkorigins faq! It's par for the course for the darwinist critic to point to a supposed 'skeptic' resource which considers the matter resolved, and then claim this settles it.
Comment by Jean — July 24, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Is Behe suggesting that "indirect" evolutionary pathways are impossible or merely improbable?
I'm not aware that Behe or anybody else has seriously addressed any of the proposed accounts of immune-system evolution with any specificity. Indeed, at the Dover trial Behe claimed not to have been aware of much of the literature concerning the evolution of immunity.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...
Biologists do not currently consider Behe's theories to be "controversial". His ideas are considered to be entirely discredited - not because of their association with ID or any kind of conspiracy but because they were investigated and found to be bogus.
jean:
I think the talk-origins report I linked to is a very good summary of the regard in which Behe's theories are currently held by mainstream biology.
My expectation was not that it would change your mind, but to show you that Behe's claims have been taken seriously, were understood, but had been found to be bogus by precisely the audience that would have the best skills to verify his claims.
Why is it that you think a great many highly qualified biologists fail to find validity in Behe's IC hypothesis? It has been many years since Behe first proposed the idea of IC, and yet this idea has been remarkably unsuccessful.
Do you perhaps believe that the majority of biologists simply failed to understand his arguments? Perhaps you think that as committed materialists they were unfairly biased against his claims. Or maybe you believe that Behe and his supporters failed to communicate his ideas effectively - perhaps you have some other theory that explains why the biological consensus is so strongly against Behe's ideas.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 25, 2007 @ 11:40 am
July 25th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Salimfahdley:
Why is it that you continue to engage Behe with pointless rhetoric, when even an 11th grader can spot the fallacy you are perpetuating? Consensus science is not necessarily 'true', nor does your appeal to authority deal with Behe's actual arguments. There are plenty of examples in the literature where scientists could not accept data because it didn't fit their prejudices. Given the materialist vision of many in the biological science, resistance to Behe's ideas does not come as a surprise.
Obviously pointing this out to you does not prove Behe's ideas, but the criticisms leveled against him so far are weak. But then again, since you seem to be pretty fond of Dawkins, I guess that settles the matter regardless. Behe must be a sucker because Dawkins says so, eh.
Comment by Jean — July 25, 2007 @ 11:48 am
July 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Jean:
As a lawyer, you are probably not an expert on the scientific subject that Behe addresses, and if so you are therefore not really qualified to judge the scientific arguments on their merits. So why should you give more weight to Behe's expert opinion than to that of his numerous peers that disagree with him? I think because you like Behe's conclusions, not his arguments. You might argue that Behe's numerous peers are biased, but what is your evidence for that, and why do you think (if in fact you do) that Behe is not biased? It was Behe who testified that in his view astrology is science.
Comment by Raevmo — July 25, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Raevmo:
You have to be kidding me. Obviously I'm no expert on biochemistry, I suspect many of Behe's critics (exspecially the more rabid and raving ones on blogs like Panda's Thumb) are not either. I am however quite qualified to recognize bluster, misrepresentation and pointless rhetoric when I see it.
And the matter of the fact is that Behe's critics employ a lot of the latter, which makes their 'scientific' arguments suspect. What you're basically arguing is that Dawkins et al are right, people just don't understand what they are saying because they lack understanding of the biology involved. I think that is a very poor argument.
As for Behe testifying that astrology (right now, here in 2007) is ''science", that is complete bunk and an utter misrepresentation of what Behe did say during the Dover trial.
Comment by Jean — July 25, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Jean:
I don't have to, and I wasn't. Are you kidding?
You're dodging. As you well know, I wasn't talking about *all* of Behe's critics. I was very specifically talking about his scientific peers. If you're no expert, how do you decide that their arguments carry less weight than Behe's? I put it to you that you just don't like their conclusions, regardless of how they arrived at them. If I'm wrong, please tell me why Behe's arguments are more convincing than those of his peers.
I take your word for that.
No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that you have chosen sides not based on the quality of the arguments (which you admit you cannot properly judge), but based on what you think are the religious implications of their conclusions.
Maybe you're right, but you are just making an assertion. Why is it bunk?
Comment by Raevmo — July 25, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
First, to answer Salim's question, Behe considers the evolution of IC systems to be improbable, not impossible.
Salim wrote:
I'm not aware of any Darwinian explanations for the evolution of any of Behe's examples of IC systems that have been in peer reviewed publications. Since the peer reviewed publications would love nothing better than to refute Behe, the absence of such articles speaks volumes.
Comment by Bilbo — July 25, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Hi Bilbo,
What about the articles referenced here which show the evolution of an IC gated ion channel?
Comment by Aagcobb — July 25, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
The post you linked to links to an old post at ARN. If you read it, you'll come across Nelson Alonso quoting Mike Gene: http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/...
It's not clear to me that we have a counter-example to IC.
Comment by Bilbo — July 25, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
In the first link, Art writes:
I've emphasized Art's use of "analogous" for a reason. If it is only analogous, then it may not be IC "in exactly the same way that Behe asserts…."
Comment by Bilbo — July 25, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Hi Bilbo,
As, indeed, its not clear what IC is. IMHO, the unevolvability of ICness is an unfalsifiable concept, because regardless of what structures scientists show have evolved, IDists will always claim there is some other structure that is really IC for which scientists have not yet demonstrated a mutation-by-mutation evolution. Thus ICness is useless as anything other than a DI anti-evolutionary propaganda point.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 25, 2007 @ 11:21 pm