Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

I guess there’s one thing to be said about inviting people with false ideas to the show: It offers an opportunity to review ones arguments.
That said, without having seen the book there wasn’t much there. I was somewhat baffled to see how bluntly that tired old ‘God of the Gaps’ stratagem is still played today as if it were an Ace or a Joker.
First the claim that Darwinians don’t know, or don’t know enough, and next comes enlightenment: An intelligent designer made it happen. You can almost see Behe hopping up and down: “Nana nana naa naa!”
Supposedly, as he says in closing, his goal is to “evaluate how much Darwinian processes can do” - obviously in hopes to hit upon something that cannot be accounted for by mutation and natural selection. But this lazy strategy has one big problem: it provides no real mechanism to effect anything - a Deus Ex Machina doesn’t count. By contrast, its demonstrated mechanism is exactly what makes the New Synthesis so explanatorily powerful.
If you want to have some fun reading I suggest to go to some of the acerbic reviews on Amazon re “The Edge of Evolution”. Lots of discussion there, and Dr Behe also gets a word in edgewise, for what it’s worth.
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t/103-7479516-9966220

One last thought: I resent the dark insinuation that some sociological peer pressure is keeping scientists from joining the ID club. It’s reminiscent of the folks who religiously believe (against all evidence) that 9/11 was an inside job and explain away the fact that nowhere on this earth have any ‘alternative’ theories about the WTC collapses made it to or through peer review. One afflicted aquaintance of mine says the CIA must have infiltrated the editorial boards; Behe says, in essence, they’re all peeing in their pants. How interesting!

If DJ Grothe’s intent was to give Behe enough rope to hang himself he did an excellent job. I especially liked the part where Grothe asked Behe about his testimony in the Kitzmiller trial, and Behe said “Well, personally, myself, I thought my testimony went great.”

The presiding judge had a different opinion. Then again, apparently Behe doesn’t think much of the judge’s qualifications. “I, uh, went over all of the points I wanted to, and I thought I made them clear enough that even a former liquor control board head, uh could, uh, could understand it.” Then Behe agreed the reports his testimony did not go well were just “bad PR.”

What a maroon.

Behe’s accusation that 90% of Judge Jones’ opinion was written and submitted by the plaintiff’s lawyers is a biggy!  Can someone at CFI follow up on that? 

Also, I want to address D.J.’s final question about the ethics of the hypothetical “Designer.” All people die.  If we didn’t die, there wouldn’t be enough room for all of us, so death is necessary.  And something bad is needed to stop a body from living.  If it’s not malaria, then it’s cancer.  if it’s not cancer, then it’s being hit by a truck.  In my opinion, if there is a “Designer,” then it would not be unethical of the Designer to design things such as malaria.  There has to be *some* agent of death in this world.  Malaria is as good or as bad as anything else.

J. D.

<>

Zarcus, you can download a PDF of the Kitzmiller decision here. All 136 pages. Very interesting reading. Here’s a snippet from the judge.

Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.

Could Professor Behe have been disingenuous while Grothe interviewed him?

<>

D.J. did a wonderful job, he not only gave Behe room to pull enough rope, but he led him to the gallows where Behe pulled the lever himself!

The malaria question was the “coup de grace”.

I have to comment on the general inappropriateness of good and bad scientists to use an academic credentials to comment on anything, Behe earned his credentials in biochemistry, but I have never heard or read anything publicly authored in his field.

I am particularly sensitive to the topic of Medicine, EVERYBODY feels they know better! I am particularly offended by Philosophy PhDs that like to render opinions in other topics beyond the realm of thought/reason.

Also, I want to address D.J.’s final question about the ethics of the hypothetical “Designer.” All people die.  If we didn’t die, there wouldn’t be enough room for all of us, so death is necessary.  And something bad is needed to stop a body from living.  If it’s not malaria, then it’s cancer.  if it’s not cancer, then it’s being hit by a truck.  In my opinion, if there is a “Designer,” then it would not be unethical of the Designer to design things such as malaria.  There has to be *some* agent of death in this world.  Malaria is as good or as bad as anything else.

J. D.

According to most religions, it is possible to have a place without any death, and therefore no agents of death.  A place big enough for all people who have ever lived as well.  And apparently, such a place will be a reality in the age to come.  Pretty poor designing in my opinion that makes a world too small, and therefore must create agents of death and torture to clear out room for the next generation...especially when the designers’ apparent original intention was to create immortal beings, who only became mortal after they picked the fruit.

I actually read this book this summer, and found it extremely dissatisfying.  It was my first reading on evolution besides Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” and I wanted to read it before “Blind Watchmaker” which I read right after, just to see what someone would be reading having little knowledge of the other writings on the topic - I kind of think many people that will read Behe’s book have probably not read anything by Dawkins.  (That’s an assumption based on my church days where books on science by authors like Dawkins would not have been worth reading, since we all knew they were ‘wrong’ anyways.)

I felt Behe spent a LOT of time belabouring analogies that seemed completely irrelevant to me.  He would make his point that the cell was too complex, and then rather than giving more proofs or citing studies he had done, he would start explaining the concept of complexity - likening it to old men jumping up stairs where every third and fourth stair was missing, etc.  Large portions of text were devoted to numbers and math, trying to prove that there hasn’t been enough time, or enough generations for human cells to evolve through random mutation to the point that they have. 

He spent a lot of time discussing malaria and how the population of malaria cells is exponentially greater than that of humans, and that since malaria has had only a few helpful mutations in overcoming our drugs and mutations, in the relatively small population of humans there is no chance we could have developed to where we are today through random mutations which, he says would be far too rare in occurance, never mind selecting between them for usefullness. 

I found definite undertones of religion in the book, even in the subtle underlying assumption that in order for evolution to be ‘right’, humans must come out on top.  As if because we haven’t beaten malaria yet, evolution is somehow failing.  But without the belief that an intelligent designer who created humans as the crown of creation, it is of course quite arrogant to think that the laws of evolution are ultimately going to be in our favor for now and forevermore amen.  I can’t remember exact quotes, but I do recall a number of times where I had to stop and think about this because it kind of got snuck in there. 

I was excited to see this week’s guest, and enjoyed the interview!

Behe’s accusation that 90% of Judge Jones’ opinion was written and submitted by the plaintiff’s lawyers is a biggy!  Can someone at CFI follow up on that? 

J. D.

I remember hearing about this some time ago and seeing extensive discussion.
Finally found link: positiveliberty.com/2006/12/the-legal-culture’s-intellectual-standards.html#more-1996

Here is a snippet (sorry, it’s missing the live links):
-------------------------
Larry Moran has a long post here reflecting on the DI’s portrayal of Judge Jones as a plagiarist. At first, Moran felt that Jones had really done something wrong, but he appears to have taken to heart the explanations here and elsewhere that judges are expected to follow the proposed findings of fact of the party whom they find most convincing. It seems like a simple, innocent misunderstanding. But Moran goes on to make comments that seem like criticisms of the legal culture’s standards of ethics and “standards of brilliance,” that I think deserve some discussion.
-------------------------

So basically it’s just another sort of ad hominem attack, only this time against the legal system as a whole. Definitely a sign of desperation on their part.

-------------

I think DJ was at his best in this interview. Calm, penetrating questions, not getting bogged down in debate. Behe was totally unprepared for the final question about the Problem of Evil.  Of Malaria he says “sickness an unintended side product.” Something God made has unintended side effects??? He’s got to be kidding! It almost seemed like DJ bailed him out of that one by putting less embarrassing words in his mouth: “so it’s all part of God’s plan.”

Richard

Does anybody know if the transcripts of the trial are available anywhere online? 

Regarding the claim that the plaintiffs wrote much of the text found in the decision: that’s not irregular at all; it’s very common.  Attorneys for the party in the suit simply submit to the court a “proposed” ruling about the facts presented, applicable law, and the judgment rendered.  These proposals are just a regular court filing.  The judge frequently uses the proposal like a rough draft and makes his or her changes to it to draft the final judgment.  Behe represented it pretty fairly in the interview, imo.  He didn’t suggest there was anything underhanded about the plaintiff’s hand in the wording.  Behe was maybe suggesting the judge was gullible to the plaintiff’s arguments, but not that the judge was malfeasant.

<>

Never mind about the transcript.  I found them at talkorigins.

Zarcus, I think Behe is convinced he’s right and that his side’s evidence disproved the other side’s evidence.  He’s convinced that the judge had to have agreed with Behe, believing his side’s case was so strong.  The judge didn’t, and Behe complains the judge was somehow fooled by the other side.  I agree with you there.  Probably close to 100% of all defendants in this situation would do just about the same.

But Behe didn’t claim the judge and plaintiff had something underhanded going on between them.  He lost, he’s simply whining about the judge; I think that’s kind of expected.  Some on the other side would predictably do the same if decision went against them.

<>

I was a little upset that DJ didn’t address the whole “reshaping the groundwork of science” issue.  That is, Behe admitted that his definition of science would include astrology during Dover.  What about alchemy?  To include these would be a re-shaping of the definiton of science as being nature-bound.  I’d love to hear more of his foot-in-mouth attempts to explain this and still admit he is pro-science.

Also, as to whther ID concepts should be taught in public schools: DJ didn’t address the fact that Behe’s main claim (irreducible complexity) requires a level of study that is beyond the middle/high school curriculum.

Lastly, addressing the plaigarism claim: I would be curious to know if Phillip Johnson ever engaged in the process of drafting a ruling for a judge in his carrer as a lawyer.

Otherwise, I think DJ’s content and process rocked.

I just finished listening to the interview on my iPod.  Overall I thought it was very well done, although there are some points where Behe could have been nailed a little harder.  This is the main one, though:

Behe’s accusation that 90% of Judge Jones’ opinion was written and submitted by the plaintiff’s lawyers is a biggy!  Can someone at CFI follow up on that?

Behe lied.  90% of Judge Jones’ OPINION was not cribbed from the plaintiff’s lawyers.  90% of the FINDINGS OF FACT section was taken directly from the “proposed findings of fact” submitted to him by the plaintiff’s lawyers.  That section is about 20 pages out of a 139-page ruling (15% of the ruling).  As far as I have heard, the other 85% is all Jones’ own original writing.

In a legal confrontation, both sides typically submit a proposal for findings of fact, hoping the judge will find their proposal as indicative of the true facts.  Jones did.  He adopted the Kitzmiller proposal almost verbatim, while taking nothing at all from the defendants’ facts.  As one blogger (I forget who) pointed out at the time, raising a big stink about this is tantamount to the Discovery Institute complaining “HEY!  The judge completely agreed with our opponents and didn’t accept our story AT ALL!  That’s not fair!”

Apart from that issue, one other area I would have liked to hear more ass-kicking would have been when at the beginning of the interview, when Michael Behe claimed “Lots of the leaders in the ID movement are just doing pure science, and didn’t start with any preconception that the designer is God.  Like me and Bill Dembski and Jonathan Wells.”

This is total bunk, but it’s easily demonstrated bunk when it comes to Jonathan Wells.  Wells is a Moonie, a disciple of the ultra-right wing reverend Sun Myung Moon, and he started working towards a biology degree BECAUSE he wanted to undermine evolution for religious reasons.

http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm

Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

“Father” in this context is a description of Reverend Moon.

However, as I said before, good interview overall.  I liked it when DJ made Behe stammer over the question of whether this was just an anti-evolution book and not pro-anything.  Also at the end, DJ got Behe talking about God, and Behe was eager to defend the “unnamed designer” (wink wink) as always good.  I’m curious, though.  Behe says that malaria is “an unintended side effect of something that is, when you look at the big picture, good.”

An unintended side effect?  WTF?  This sounds like an awfully bumbling omnipotent creator.  Oh wait, I forgot, it’s not God.  The designers purposes must be seen as “good” regardless of how they appear.  But it’s not God.

It was clear from the interview that Behe is a very clever man. I find it hard to reconcile that with his opinion that resorting to susperstition is not unscientific.

Imagine, some bloke, called say ... Isaac Newton, sitting in an orchard. suddenly he his hit on the noggin by a falling apple.  He ponders this for some time, pacing back and forth in the orchard, running equations in his mind to try and explain what makes the apple fall..... When suddently EUREKA!!!!!  GOD DID IT!!!  he puts down his quill and notebook, safe in the knowledge that the question is answered, and studies no more.

What a loss to the world that would have been.

Why did the bacteria in this petre dish die?  could it have been some chemical we could use to treat infections? .... no .... GOD DID IT!  end of study.

All development in science is based on study of measureable things.  When Behe can measure god, then he can include it in science. Until then, he is either lying, or an idiot.

Ski.

Behe lied.  90% of Judge Jones’ OPINION was not cribbed from the plaintiff’s lawyers.  90% of the FINDINGS OF FACT section was taken directly from the “proposed findings of fact” submitted to him by the plaintiff’s lawyers.  That section is about 20 pages out of a 139-page ruling (15% of the ruling).  As far as I have heard, the other 85% is all Jones’ own original writing.

Thanks for that answer!  I feel better now.

J. D.

I finally listened and I got a good laugh out of his staying that Mt Rushmore was created by Intelligent Design.  Please!  Humans put the presidents’ faces into the mountain, not some god.  Now if you are saying humans are gods, well… They were great artists, I will admit that.

However, after listening to him on PBS and PoI, I can only say one thing- The man is a nut!

Behe’s accusation that 90% of Judge Jones’ opinion was written and submitted by the plaintiff’s lawyers is a biggy!  Can someone at CFI follow up on that?

It’s NOT a biggy.  For an explanation of why not see Refutation of plagiarism charge

Behe’s accusation that 90% of Judge Jones’ opinion was written and submitted by the plaintiff’s lawyers is a biggy!  Can someone at CFI follow up on that?

It’s NOT a biggy.  For an explanation of why not see Refutation of plagiarism charge

That’s dated almost a year ago and Behe is still following the loser’s scripted PR talking points?  I used to think creationists save the spin for folks who aren’t inclined to check out a single thing they say.  But this inclines me back to the “robot” idea.  They just repeat what they’re told, and don’t even check up these things for their own sakes.

I agree with a lot of what has been stated previously in this thread.  Mainly, I think DJ did an extremely fine job of handling a most difficult topic and an even more difficult guest. 

I especially liked his question to Behe regarding peer-review.  Behe successfully managed to completely avoid giving any answer of substance.  It’s been my experience when I talk to someone who is a proponent of ID and creation “science” that when I bring up the subject of peer-review and the lack thereof in the ID camp, the person I am speaking with usually offers up the supreme cop-out that the “scientific elites just won’t publish our work”.  Nothing gets me more heated than this little urban legend. 

Scientists as a whole are not elitists, and there isn’t some good ‘ole boys club waiting to wield the hammer on those $#% christians.  Science, the field in which scientists work, is a ruthless, take no prisoners, no holds barred endeavor to get at the essence of natural phenomena.  Science, and the scientific method, really could care less in the end whether the person submitting the work is from the Discovery Institute or the Discover Card.  As long as there is an hypothesis that can be tested with valid and reliable experimental methods and shown to be either true or false based on the data obtained, then eventually said agency or party should be able to publish their scientific findings in a peer-reviewed journal, period.  None of this, “Well, we couldn’t get peer-reviewed because no one would listen to us” holds any weight whatsoever.  This type of argument is at best being disingenuous, and at worst, downright deceitful. 

I will choose to think the former of Mr. Behe, and simply ask that if he has such problems with the theory of evolution then PLEASE come up with alternative SCIENTIFIC theories that can be tested and get them published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Participate in the scientific method like everyone else in science has to. 

As Stephen Colbert says in his new book, “There are no free rides!”, so I say to Mr. Behe, with the caveat, “and NO loitering around the express science train!”

Behe’s accusation that 90% of Judge Jones’ opinion was written and submitted by the plaintiff’s lawyers is a biggy!  Can someone at CFI follow up on that?

It’s NOT a biggy.  For an explanation of why not see Refutation of plagiarism charge

That’s dated almost a year ago and Behe is still following the loser’s scripted PR talking points?  I used to think creationists save the spin for folks who aren’t inclined to check out a single thing they say.  But this inclines me back to the “robot” idea.  They just repeat what they’re told, and don’t even check up these things for their own sakes.

Sadly, I think they still use these arguments because they spread very effectively, are easy for people to remember and difficult to refute in one simple sentence. The argument appeals to persons who fall for conspiracy theories and are led to believe that they are a persecuted minority. It is effective propaganda and shows that they have an “ends justify the means” mentality in which the “ends” are religious.

Richard

I will choose to think the former of Mr. Behe, and simply ask that if he has such problems with the theory of evolution then PLEASE come up with alternative SCIENTIFIC theories that can be tested and get them published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Participate in the scientific method like everyone else in science has to. 

As Stephen Colbert says in his new book, “There are no free rides!”, so I say to Mr. Behe, with the caveat, “and NO loitering around the express science train!”

I would like to raise a question. Is behe (and his ilk) actually interested in science? At the root of it, they are after power, influence and wealth. If this was not the case, they would simply be happy to believe whatever they choose and keep to themselves. So, to achieve influence over the masses, do they need to have a valid scientific hypothesis? Clearly, no they do not. A large proportion of people in the US (and the UK for that matter) are scientifically illiterate, especially when it comes to evolution. All the ID’ers need, is something that ‘looks science’ to add to the perceived validity of their ideas, and they have something they can use to deceive the public.

Will they develop their ideas into a scientifically testable hypothesis? No, because they won’t want to risk being wrong.

Ski.

I will choose to think the former of Mr. Behe, and simply ask that if he has such problems with the theory of evolution then PLEASE come up with alternative SCIENTIFIC theories that can be tested and get them published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Participate in the scientific method like everyone else in science has to. 

As Stephen Colbert says in his new book, “There are no free rides!”, so I say to Mr. Behe, with the caveat, “and NO loitering around the express science train!”

I would like to raise a question. Is behe (and his ilk) actually interested in science? At the root of it, they are after power, influence and wealth. If this was not the case, they would simply be happy to believe whatever they choose and keep to themselves. So, to achieve influence over the masses, do they need to have a valid scientific hypothesis? Clearly, no they do not. A large proportion of people in the US (and the UK for that matter) are scientifically illiterate, especially when it comes to evolution. All the ID’ers need, is something that ‘looks science’ to add to the perceived validity of their ideas, and they have something they can use to deceive the public.

Will they develop their ideas into a scientifically testable hypothesis? No, because they won’t want to risk being wrong.

Ski.

I think people like Behe also have too much at stake personally. He’s too deep into it to back off and say he was wrong, though he did recently admit to being wrong about HIV:

“Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV.”

-- http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/11/mr-owl-how-many-days-does-it-take-to.html

Here’s an interesting link: “Oddly, Hypocrisy Rooted in High Morals”
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/071114-cheating-basics.html

--- e.g. having too much a sense of moral superiority ironically can lead to unethical acts.

Richard

I’ll join the chorus of congratulating DJ for a very polite and respectful interview of someone who clearly is a strong spokesperson for our “cultural competitors.” It was a great opportunity to hear the strengths and weaknesses of the other side, and I really respect DJ for avoiding the talk radio sort of hostile interview there’s all too much of elsewhere. We should be better than that, and clearly he was.

I also agree that Behe hung himself quite handily with the rope provided, though I doubt most believers, or even neutral non-scientists, would think so. Hence the challenge. I think Behe has created a position that is beyond any rational challenege or contradictory evidence. According to his statements:

1) If you’re not a scientist (like the judge in Dover who Behe says got snowed by the opposition on the immunology point because “what would a judge know about immunology"), then you only disagree with ID out of ignorance.

2) If you are a scientist, you disagree with ID because of your atheist, materialist philosophical bias and Darwinolatry, not because of a considered understanding of the evidence.

3) If you’re a Christian and you agree with ID, it’s not because of any philosophical bias in favor of a designer god (since his Catholicism had nothing to do with his position on evolution) but because of a considered understanding of the evidence.

Such impregnable castles of belief are infuriating to those of us with a rational, scientific approach to epistemology since they are impervious to evidence but function very effectively to defend a specific position in a way that appears rational while really just being an apologia for an a priori conviction.

The timing for this podcast was good for me as I’m reading Philip Kitcher’s Living with Darwin right now. Some strong arguments against ID, though I do wonder if science can really afford the time and energy to research and disprove each individual point people like Behe makes. Even if we close a lot of the gaps in which they’re finding god, there will always be more, and I think science has more practical and iprotant things to do.

I finally listened and I got a good laugh out of his staying that Mt Rushmore was created by Intelligent Design.  Please!  Humans put the presidents’ faces into the mountain, not some god.  Now if you are saying humans are gods, well… They were great artists, I will admit that.

However, after listening to him on PBS and PoI, I can only say one thing- The man is a nut!

Hi Mriana.  with respect, I think to be fair it should be pointed out that Behe certainly didn’t claim that Mt. Rushmore was created by “God”.  He stated that when you look at Mt. Rushmore you are instantly aware that it was made by an intelligent cause, not just random wind, rain, erosion and time.  Actually your post makes a strong case for Behe.  If you were to come to earth a thousand years after the last human had died and there was no record to tell you how Mt. Rushmore was made, would you believe that it was randomly caused by natural processes or that some intelligent entity must have carved it out of the rock?  The answer is obvious.  When Behe investigates the bacterial flagellum motor for instance, with it’s multiple tuned parts & symmetry, random mutations and natural selection cannot logically or scientifically account for this complexity.  The “bio-pump” often touted as a “stepping stone” to the motor only accounts for 10 of the some 40 parts of the flagellum motor.  Where did the other parts come from since they all to be present at the same time for the structure to function?  Natural Selection is blind to a non-functioning system that is missing parts.  Darwinian Evolution cannot be the sole cause for this system...perhaps some aliens came and....

the bacterial flagellum motor for instance, with it’s multiple tuned parts & symmetry, random mutations and natural selection cannot logically or scientifically account for this complexity.  The “bio-pump” often touted as a “stepping stone” to the motor only accounts for 10 of the some 40 parts of the flagellum motor

Wrong.

1) The precise mechanism for how this system evolved haven’t been elucidated, but that’s not evidence natural selection can’t explain it. The only basis for claiming that natural selection cannot make such things is your own difficulty imaging how, which is just another form of the argument from design for god.

2) Your use of the word “random” is misleading, intentionally or not. Mutations are random. The development of new structures through evolution is not. It is guided by differential reproductive success (via natural selection), the necessity of building new things out of existing things rather than creating them intact from scratch, and other such factors.

Each time a gap in the Darwinian explanation is cited by an anti-selectionist to claim the theory as a whole is a failure, I have to point out a) all the things Darwinian theory does explain successfully, b)the things previous thought to be inexplicable by natural selection and modification with descent (like the vertebrate eye) which have since been clearly demonstrated to, in fact, be possible to develop in steps as the theory suggests despite their complexity, and c) the utter absence of an alternative explanation. “Design” just means “it looks like somebody did it to me so somebody must have.” It doesn’t lead to any further understanding or any heuristic predictions. And it begs the questions of why things are imperfectly designed (how many people a year choke to death because of the arrangement of the airway and GI tract in the back of the throat), why almost any anatomic or biochemical feature of one organism can be shown to be a modified form of a similar feature in a related organism, and many others. Darwinian theory, on the other hand, gives cogent explanations for these facts.

I suggest reading Kitcher’s book I referenced above, which demonstrates the falalcies behind the so-called “irreducible” complexity argument Behe puts forward.

My understanding is that Mt. Rushmore was a sacred Native American mountain with some animistic significance before the presidents faces were carved on top of it.  Is it possible that this is evidence that there was an earlier creator the proceeded our creator? 

I finally listened and I got a good laugh out of his staying that Mt Rushmore was created by Intelligent Design.  Please!  Humans put the presidents’ faces into the mountain, not some god.  Now if you are saying humans are gods, well… They were great artists, I will admit that.

However, after listening to him on PBS and PoI, I can only say one thing- The man is a nut!

Hi Mriana.  with respect, I think to be fair it should be pointed out that Behe certainly didn’t claim that Mt. Rushmore was created by “God”.  He stated that when you look at Mt. Rushmore you are instantly aware that it was made by an intelligent cause, not just random wind, rain, erosion and time.  Actually your post makes a strong case for Behe.  If you were to come to earth a thousand years after the last human had died and there was no record to tell you how Mt. Rushmore was made, would you believe that it was randomly caused by natural processes or that some intelligent entity must have carved it out of the rock?  The answer is obvious.  When Behe investigates the bacterial flagellum motor for instance, with it’s multiple tuned parts & symmetry, random mutations and natural selection cannot logically or scientifically account for this complexity.  The “bio-pump” often touted as a “stepping stone” to the motor only accounts for 10 of the some 40 parts of the flagellum motor.  Where did the other parts come from since they all to be present at the same time for the structure to function?  Natural Selection is blind to a non-functioning system that is missing parts.  Darwinian Evolution cannot be the sole cause for this system...perhaps some aliens came and....

Oh brother.    If they are intelligent, they would know that people were here before them and not blame it on an invisible deity.  BTW, it would be nice if you introduced yourself in the intro area.  It would be nice to know a little about you.

Greetings, thanks for the response.  To begin with I said nothing to imply that natural selection does not work or is “random”.  I apologize if I gave that impression.  I was specifically discussing the flagellum motor and the completely unsatisfying answer or lack thereof that Darwinian Evolution gives for this structure.

“It is guided by differential reproductive success (via natural selection), the necessity of building new things out of existing things rather than creating them intact from scratch, and other such factors.”

None of which are satisfying explanations for the flagellum.

“The precise mechanism for how this system evolved haven’t been elucidated, but that’s not evidence natural selection can’t explain it.”

This sounds surprisingly similar to what Creationists say to me..."we’ll, we don’t know how this came about but I’m sure God must have done it somehow.” Both sides seem pretty dependent on faith.

“The only basis for claiming that natural selection cannot make such things is your own difficulty imaging how”

Or perhaps anyone’s inability to explain it through said natualistic processes.

“building new things out of existing things rather than creating them intact from scratch”

And in the case of the flagellum that existing structure(s) would be?

“claim the theory as a whole is a failure”

Uh…gee, I never did this.

“why almost any anatomic or biochemical feature of one organism can be shown to be a modified form of a similar feature in a related organism”

Could you please point out what these are for the flagellum motor?

“the things previous thought to be inexplicable by natural selection and modification with descent (like the vertebrate eye) which have since been clearly demonstrated to, in fact, be possible to develop in steps as the theory suggests despite their complexity.”

Would you cite references for this please.

“all the things Darwinian theory does explain successfully”

If a theory successfully explains certain situations it is a logical misstep to assume that that theory can be applied universally because of that fact alone.

“And it begs the questions of why things are imperfectly designed”

And yet with all that “imperfection” do we know of any more complex and well-working machine in the cosmos (man-made or otherwise) than the human body?

I am arguing from a “god-neutral” worldview and letting the evidence lead where it may.  If you are arguing from a worldview that gives no possibility of a “god” or the possibility of any metaphysical existence then the issue has been “pre-ruled-out” and of course there will be no “alternative explanation”.  I am also seeking an “alternative explanation” for what was there BEFORE the Big Bang and having a great deal of difficulty getting any answer besides “we don’t know”.  And if we don’t know is it fair to rule out any explanation that has credible evidence?

Oh brother (on my end)...I didn’t invoke any “god”.  I merely pointed out that you misquoted Behe (which you did) and that you or anyone would recognize the intelligence in the building of Mt. Rushmore and not attribute it to “natural” causes...I certainly meant no insult.  And considering the rather acerbic responses I’ve received to my initial posts I’m not sure I want to introduce myself…

OK you called me out specifically twice on two different threads, what I want to know is what board or forum that we met?  There are a few of them, but it would be nice to know which one, so I know who I’m addressing- obviously you are going by a different handle.  Thus, why I say it would be nice if you introduced yourself in the intro section of the board. Please do, so that we can get a better idea of who you are.

I apologize.  It’s not intentional, I just read your posts and found them interesting.  I apologize if it seems I’m calling you out.  I don’t believe we have met on another forum as rarely post to forums because they end up being a cheerleading squad for whichever side is hosting them and seldom actually attempt to gleen any truth or conclusions.  I am a 39 year old white male Mensa member with interests that range from music and science to history and archaeology.  I am what I call a “Radical Centrist” politically and an open-minded skeptic on most other issues.

Oh ok.  Mensa, huh?  Very interesting.  You found my posts interesting?  Not sure what for.

They caught my eye as I perused the site...nothing more.

Surely there are far more challenging people here.  I mean, for someone who is mensa material, I’m not much to debate.

On the contary, I really enjoyed “speaking” with you.  I think it’s the “more challenging” types who are often the first to pounce and the least open-minded.  I’m probably guilty of “pouncing” myself on occasion because I’m usually debating the “more challenging” types and you tend to build up a defensive wall...unfortunate.  Anyway, enjoyed “debating” with you!

You’re actions were curious.

Let’s hope wezx is not a synonym for T-R-O-L-L

I’m laughing cynically to myself because it never fails that when you try to present some ideas for discussion, maybe even play devil’s advocate, to perhaps get some answers or at least different points of view from people immediately your motives are questioned and you’re insulted (thanks fotobits).  Whatever happened to discussing the issue at hand instead of acting like I’ve disrupted your delicate forum.  I’m willing to examine my own beliefs even at the point of discomfort...are you?  I’m not sure what a T-R-O-L-L is supposed to be, but it sure as hell doesn’t sound complimentary.  This is exactly why I don’t try posting to forums.  The people on the “religious” forums do the same thing.  The hypocrisy is stifling in both camps.  You folks can have your forum back...have a nice life.

Wikipedia will give you a good idea about what trolls are all about. Being a MENSA member, you probably knew that already!! nes pa?

wezx,

As far as the flagellum, I’ve already said that the precise steps leading to its development aren’t yet understood. However, this is not the same thing as saying that Darwinian evolution is unable to explain it, only that it hasn’t yet. This is clearly different from the religious explanation which says “god did it, no further explanation is necessary.” Because Darwinian selection has so successfully explained so many other things, it is reasonable to suppose that it may also be able to explain the flagellum. If it cannot when the detailed study of the problem is made, then you may have a point, but right now you are simply arguing that because every detail of this (or any other complex structure) has not yet been traced to its evolutionary antecedents, Darwinian theory cannot possibly explain the phenomenon, and that is fallacious reasoning.

The evolution of the vertebrate eye is a similar case, in which all the parts must function together to make the organ useful, so the anti-selection argument has been made that it could not have evolved by successive steps. See HERE for the wikipedia summary of current evidence on how this evolution worked, or read Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins or Vision Optics and Evolution in Bioscience, 39, 1989, 298-307. It is clear that the parts of the eye or their antecedents each had functions and evolutionary advantages for their possessors, and that the process of natural selection allowed the complex organ to develop over long periods of time from modifications to the antecedent organs. There is no evidence I’m aware of, though you are free to present some, that suggests the same logic is fundamentally not appplicable to the bacterial flagellum, though the details are not yet clear. The idea that our lack of complete understanding in this case example is somehow evidence that it could not have developed by natural selection is just you assumption based on incredulity, not in fact evidence. Science is based on always having questions to answer and problems to solve, so the fact that such exist in evolutionary biology is not evidence that the field has somehow failed to justify its claims. If a theory explains many things, it may not be true that it can explain everything, but it is also a logical mistep to say that whatever it hasn’t yet explained it can’t ever.

The human body is a wonderfully complex thing, but so are lots of other organisms, so are lots of non-living things (the atom, for example). None of this implies design. Darwininan theory provides a very satisfying and reasonable explanation for how the human body came to be, without positing the existence of a designer. You are adding something unecessary to the story. And my point was that if there was a designer, especially an omniscient, omnipotent, and loving one, why would the body be designed suboptimally? Evolution explains why (the necessity of working with pre-existing structures, the random nature of genetic mutations, etc), whereas design theory doesn’t.

I don’t rule out the possibility of god (see my sig quote), but I don’t consider the complexity of the human body or the bacterial flagellum evidence for one, and I don’t consider the incompleteness of scientific knowledge evidence for one. There have been many things we couldn’t explain which were attributed to the supernatural and which we now can explain without such an attribution. I am comfortable with not knowing everything. The main difference between us seems to be that you want to believe there is more than nature, there is some “metaphysical existence” and you seize on any gap or flaw in scientific materialist explanation as evidence for this. I would love it if there were such a thing (especially if it meant I would get to live forever), but I don’t see any sign of it. Ultimately, a designer could, as Behe put it, sign his name to the flagellum and be done with it if he wanted to, and there wouldn’t be many agnostics or atheists. Maybe he didn’t want to, but theorizing why the designer of the universe chooses to obscure his existence seems less logical and parsimonious than theorizing that it’s hard to find convincing evidence of his existence because he’s not there.

When Behe investigates the bacterial flagellum motor for instance, with it’s multiple tuned parts & symmetry, random mutations and natural selection cannot logically or scientifically account for this complexity.  The “bio-pump” often touted as a “stepping stone” to the motor only accounts for 10 of the some 40 parts of the flagellum motor.  Where did the other parts come from since they all to be present at the same time for the structure to function?  Natural Selection is blind to a non-functioning system that is missing parts.  Darwinian Evolution cannot be the sole cause for this system...perhaps some aliens came and....

Check out the animation of the b.f. contained here : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_08_056.html , and the discussion which follows.

Note that by your own admission, the flagellum motor is “reducibly complex” since you’ve acknowledged yourself one clearly isolatable stepping stone found within it.

There is plenty of online info about possible routes of evolution for the bacterial flagellum. For example, HERE and HERE. But in general, appeal to cases like the flagellum are perfect instances of the God-of-the-gaps fallacy, or what Neil Tyson would call ”the perimeter of our ignorance”. No matter where we are in the great advance of science, there will always be some features and facts that remain unexplained.

There is plenty of online info about possible routes of evolution for the bacterial flagellum. For example, HERE and HERE. But in general, appeal to cases like the flagellum are perfect instances of the God-of-the-gaps fallacy, or what Neil Tyson would call ”the perimeter of our ignorance”. No matter where we are in the great advance of science, there will always be some features and facts that remain unexplained.

I’d add to those flagellum references this one (large PDF).  Note that it has the virtue of being testable, and in fact since it was first published on the web at least one of its predictions has been tested and corroborated.

RBH

It is good to have representatives of the other side on the show, as it only reveals the astonishing weakness of their positions. Francis Collins did a great job of illustrating this point a few weeks ago, and now Michael Behe offers his own contribution.

To my mind, it really boils down to a very simple question: what lines of inquiry, what new methods, what productive hypotheses does ID offer? The answer is: nothing. It offers nothing productive. If it were adopted as the mainstream approach, it would shut down evolutionary science overnight.

This feature it has in common with all pseudoscience, along with all the rest: the “common-sense” arguments appealing to the uninformed mind; the claim of a clubbish exclusivity among real scientists to explain why ID work doesn’t appear in Nature or Science any of the other peer-reviewed journals; the related claim to persecution and vcitimhood; the vaguely self-righteous attitude of its proponents; and so on. It’s all there. ID is pseudoscience, plain and simple, and we can only thank Judge Jones in Dover, PA for seeing this so very clearly.

Also, I want to address D.J.’s final question about the ethics of the hypothetical “Designer.” All people die.  If we didn’t die, there wouldn’t be enough room for all of us, so death is necessary.  And something bad is needed to stop a body from living.  If it’s not malaria, then it’s cancer.  if it’s not cancer, then it’s being hit by a truck.  In my opinion, if there is a “Designer,” then it would not be unethical of the Designer to design things such as malaria.  There has to be *some* agent of death in this world.  Malaria is as good or as bad as anything else.

J. D.

According to most religions, it is possible to have a place without any death, and therefore no agents of death.  A place big enough for all people who have ever lived as well.  And apparently, such a place will be a reality in the age to come.  Pretty poor designing in my opinion that makes a world too small, and therefore must create agents of death and torture to clear out room for the next generation...especially when the designers’ apparent original intention was to create immortal beings, who only became mortal after they picked the fruit.

J.D. this was a really interesting and insightful comment.
Thanks.

Greetings, thanks for the response.  To begin with I said nothing to imply that natural selection does not work or is “random”.  I apologize if I gave that impression.  I was specifically discussing the flagellum motor and the completely unsatisfying answer or lack thereof that Darwinian Evolution gives for this structure.

“It is guided by differential reproductive success (via natural selection), the necessity of building new things out of existing things rather than creating them intact from scratch, and other such factors.”

None of which are satisfying explanations for the flagellum.

Others have been responding directly to this point. I would mention that this flagellum stuff is discussed in detail in Behe’s earlier book Darwin’s Black Box, and if one is not a biologist and just reads this book it is fairly convincing.  However, as others have noted here he doesn’t have his facts correct.  In fact the flagellum had been discussed in the journal literature and Behe should have been aware of it (unlike us non-biologists). 

This is why Behe needs to publish his arguments in peer-reviewed journals and convince other experts. And he needs to listen to other experts.

I found D.J. Groethe’s cat-and-mouse-style interview with Michael Behe to be delightful.  Prof. Behe’s arguments were appropriately decorated with the tell-tale chuckle at the end, and frankly it was merciful that D.J. spared the professor further foot-in-mouth opportunities.

I am strongly opposed to teaching ID in h.s. science classes simply because there’s not one iota of reproducible evidence to support ID.  I don’t see irreducible complexity as a particular hurdle; the basic concept can easily be explained to school children.  Show them a car and ask how it runs if you remove the wheels ?  Or show them Haley’s watch, Lennox’s factory or Behe’s Mt. Rushmore as you will.  The common fallacy behind all of those arguments is that cars, watches, factories and mountains are not alive, do not reproduce with variation and thus do not evolve.  The real challenge we have is to give children full exposure to the overwhelming volume of archaeological, anthropological, cellular, genetic, biochemical and other empirical evidence, all of which clearly demonstrates Darwinian evolution.  If we want to teach them they’re descended from an ancestor who was pulled ready-made out of a hat like the proverbial rabbit, we should find another venue.  Sunday school perhaps.

Of course, we do need to teach “ID” with respect to GMO’s, cloning, gene therapy and other man-made biotechnologies.

As for the plagiarism issue, I was impressed listening to the interview with Judge Jones that’s available on the Nova “Judgment Day” web site.  I’m convinced the judge has a clear, deep, insightful understanding of the issues and that he made and enunciated his own decision.  He is to be highly commended for not letting any preconceived notions or outside pressures stop him from rendering the correct decision. 

Keep up the good work POI !  D. Thomas (My first post here; any feed back appreciated)

This was a good interview in which DJ did the proper probing.  I admit I was very disappointed with the free-pass handling of Francis Collins.  Thank you, DJ, for insisting Behe explain his beliefs.

There is something that I’ve never been able to understand with creationists/ID-proponents. They have such a hard time accepting the theory of evolution and must attribute, in whole or in part, the existence of life and moreover the universe as we know it to some creator or designer, yet they have no qualms accepting that this designer was not created or designed him/her/itself. Granted, it ends up being an infinite regression issue of “who created the creator” and then “who created that creator” and so on, but they are the ones postulating it, so it is only fair to ask where the designer came from as well. After all, they are the ones claiming there are gaps that cannot be explained. So where did the designer come from? I don’t know if it’s just me, but I’m fine accepting that the universe, in one form or another, always has and always will exist without having to invoke god.

During the entire interview, I kept wondering why this university professor was making an argument from ignorance as to “the gaps” in evolutionary theory. His argument about something having the appearance of design sounds awfully subjective. Since something hasn’t yet been explained, it does not follow that “the intelligent designer” made it happen. Does he truly believe that if we as humans cannot explain something, or haven’t yet the proper tools or mental capacity to understand something, then it can never be explained? That viewpoint would only lead to a lack of research instead of more research. Imagine if a crime scene was investigated this way. In fact, some probably are in order to fit what the investigator wished to find. I’m sure people would be outraged, and rightfully so.

I’d hate to take one of his exams.  You could miss one question, and he could justify giving you a ZERO. 

Thanks for pointing that out, Majestyx. You put your finger on something that has long made me lose the respect for theologians and narrow ideologists:

They keep regurgitating the same tired old arguments ad infinitum. If some pimply teenager would state them he’d be rebuffed in an instant. But once you got academic ‘credentials’ (or a clerical collar!) people are awed by them.
The truth is that a huge pile of philosophical arguments are dead and decomposed, and here’s a prime example. It should also be noted that ID proponents know this full well. In some cases their leaders have encouraged people to acquire degrees in biology (typically at low ranking religious institutions) in order to wave a PhD in front of an audience and purport to speak from a position of legitimate insider knowledge. Shame on them.

Hmm…

I suspect I will be decried as a “troll” for saying this, but I read “The Edge of Evolution” and thought it was brilliant.  As I commented to a co-worker, it actually contained more evidence for the theory of evolution than I had seen in my collective reading of Sagan, Darwin, Pennock, my high-school biology books and dozens of issues of Scientific American.  Behe gave a more thorough explanation of the mechanisms by which natural selection works than I had ever read before and did a good deal to convince me of its ability to bring about biological change.  Very educational.  (Let the denouncements of my ignorance roll forth.  Just make the insults creative so they aren’t boring to read.)

Obviously I’m not going to convince anyone here that ID is valid, and I’m not going to try.  But I will ask one question and make one point, both inspired by themes that seemed consistent throughout this thread.

Question: What is this “rope” so many people have mentioned with which Behe hanged himself?  I thought he did a fine job defending himself.  Which of his words were the pulling of this gallows lever?  I didn’t hear the click.

Point: Behe’s argument is not “god of the gaps,” and I think that anyone who claims it is has failed to understand it.  Behe is not saying that a designer did those few fleeting things that evolution has not accounted for.  He is saying that evolution accounts for nothing.  He is denouncing it.  He is saying that it’s all one huge gap from start to finish.  His contention is that no biological system can be accounted for by random mutation plus natural selection and that a designer is needed to explain all of them.  Now, you might say that’s an amazingly stupid claim, but it isn’t “god of the gaps.”

Hmmm ... so how is this:

Behe gave a more thorough explanation of the mechanisms by which natural selection works than I had ever read before and did a good deal to convince me of its ability to bring about biological change.

consistent with this:

Behe is not saying that a designer did those few fleeting things that evolution has not accounted for.  He is saying that evolution accounts for nothing.  He is denouncing it.  He is saying that it’s all one huge gap from start to finish.  His contention is that no biological system can be accounted for by random mutation plus natural selection and that a designer is needed to explain all of them.  Now, you might say that’s an amazingly stupid claim, but it isn’t “god of the gaps.”

I’m sorry to say that you’ve left me thoroughly confused. Perhaps a short synopsis of what you see as Behe’s argument would be in order.

I’m confused as to why you’re confused. 

Behe’s claim is that random mutation filtered through natural selection is not able to build systems of any complexity.  In “Edge” he claims that everything from complexes of two cellular proteins on up is too complex for Darwin to account for and gives pretty detailed reasons why he thinks so.  Claiming that all biological systems require design is not “god of the gaps.”

He also spends a lot of time on what Darwinian processes have been proven to do.  For instance, he explains in brief detail how malaria acquires resistance to human drugs and how humans acquire resistance to malaria, through the preservation of advantageous mutations in both cases.  Educational.  (Behe contends that these examples show the upper threshold of what Darwin can do.)

I hope that answers your question, although I’m not really sure what it was.

EDIT: Oh, wait, I think I see it.  You perceive a conflict between his convincing me that Darwinian processes cause change and his saying they don’t build systems?  Well, “change” and “build” are not synonyms.  They are two distinct ideas.  Behe helped to convince me that natural selection causes organisms to change over generations, but he also helped convinced me that these changes are unable to construct new systems.

You perceive a conflict between his convincing me that Darwinian processes cause change and his saying they don’t build systems?  Well, “change” and “build” are not synonyms.  They are two distinct ideas.  Behe helped to convince me that natural selection causes organisms to change over generations, but he also helped convinced me that these changes are unable to construct new systems.

What’s the difference between “change” and “build”?

What do you mean that these changes are unable to construct new systems? How does Behe define a “new system”?

I have the impression Mr. Tweedy is in the wrong Forum.

He may be as confused as Mr. Behe!

Change: Hurl Molotov at building.  Building burns.  Loose pigeons on building.  Building collects poo.  Subject building to cold.  Pipes in building contract with an eerie creaking sound.  In each case, the building is somehow different, but these differences are not inherently related to the structure of the building nor do they contribute to its overall functionality.

Build: Cute down tree.  Melt sand for glass.  Bring wood and glass to building site.  Measure and cut wood.  Nail cut pieces into frame.  Score and snap glass to fit frame.  Assemble glass and frame.  Nail assembly into hole in the side of the building.  Apply caulk.  Apply trim.  Apply external shingles.  Paint.  Apply internal curtains.  The building now has a new window, a part that is inherently related to and ads to the functioning of the building as a whole.

Change: Hurl Molotov at building.  Building burns.  Loose pigeons on building.  Building collects poo.  Subject building to cold.  Pipes in building contract with an eerie creaking sound.  In each case, the building is somehow different, but these differences are not inherently related to the structure of the building nor do they contribute to its overall functionality.

Build: Cute down tree.  Melt sand for glass.  Bring wood and glass to building site.  Measure and cut wood.  Nail cut pieces into frame.  Score and snap glass to fit frame.  Assemble glass and frame.  Nail assembly into hole in the side of the building.  Apply caulk.  Apply trim.  Apply external shingles.  Paint.  Apply internal curtains.  The building now has a new window, a part that is inherently related to and ads to the functioning of the building as a whole.

Yes, I know what the words mean in ordinary language, but how do these relate to biological evolution?

Like I said, Doug, I don’t intend to argue for ID here.  I know it won’t work and I know what arguments you’ll use.  You’ll claim that changes can add up to systems.  I’ll point out that any system (like, say, the one that unzips DNA, makes RNA from it, shuttles the RNA out to Golgi apparatus and generates proteins from it) would require numerous discrete steps to be built, most of which would not be beneficial of themselves and hence would not be preserved by natural selection.  You will point to an example of another system that bears some similarities to the one we’re talking about and claim that the similarities somehow prove you point.  I will point out the huge number of unlikely steps to get from to the other.  Ultimately, you will appeal to ignorance, saying that no one really understands how whatever system we’re talking about came to be, but we will find out eventually.  I should believe in evolution in the meantime.

There, I already lost.  ID is defeated again.

I do still have my question, though: What, specifically, did Behe say that was so stupid?  And my point: Behe is not arguing god of the gaps.

Wrong post. Sorry.

Some reviews of Behe are summarized and linked to HERE. Also apparently Behe claimed that blood clotting proteins were irreducibly complex, a claim which was proved wrong in this paper. Further, Behe’s testimony was essentially shredded by Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller trial: “Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. ... We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”

Irreducible complexity is precisely a claim of the God-of-the-gaps. It claims that there is a complex system the evolution of which we do not yet understand, and that therefore God must have created it. The fact that Behe may see large numbers of these gaps rather than fewer makes no salient difference to the structure of his argument. It also makes no difference that he mendaciously claims not to be referring to God as the creator of these systems. That is simply a rhetorical ploy for political ends.

Hmm…

I suspect I will be decried as a “troll” for saying this, but I read “The Edge of Evolution” and thought it was brilliant…

Obviously I’m not going to convince anyone here that ID is valid, and I’m not going to try.  But I will ask one question and make one point, both inspired by themes that seemed consistent throughout this thread.

Question: What is this “rope” so many people have mentioned with which Behe hanged himself?  I thought he did a fine job defending himself.  Which of his words were the pulling of this gallows lever?  I didn’t hear the click.

Point: Behe’s argument is not “god of the gaps,” and I think that anyone who claims it is has failed to understand it.  Behe is not saying that a designer did those few fleeting things that evolution has not accounted for.  He is saying that evolution accounts for nothing.  He is denouncing it.  He is saying that it’s all one huge gap from start to finish.  His contention is that no biological system can be accounted for by random mutation plus natural selection and that a designer is needed to explain all of them.  Now, you might say that’s an amazingly stupid claim, but it isn’t “god of the gaps.”

I think Behe himself has indicated that the explanation he favors is an intelligent designer (see the Amazon.com editorial review in the link below), and from my perspective the fundamental flaw in his approach is the mistaken logical path
a. he can’t explain an observation in nature.
b. he assumes no one else can and no one else ever will—he convinces himself (but no consensus of scientists) that one thing or another is ‘irreducibly complex’ and that this means it cannot arise naturally.
c. Therefore God did it.

I bought his earlier book [ Darwin’s Black Box] and was ultimately disappointed as I read more broadly and found that there was a lot of information contradicting Behe’s claims about the flagellum being ‘irreducibly complex’.  etc. etc.  [ This amazon.com page actually has a blog by Behe allowing him to defend himself against criticism on other WWW sites. He also gives a plug for the Point of Inquiry interview.]

His recent bo