The plain and simple truth is that everything that Behe insists requires intervention of an intelligence is more than adequately explained by the action of unguided natural forces. Since a “creator” serves no scientific purpose, it clearly is added merely to provide personal psychological comfort. However, this moves his work from science to fantasy.

Without, at minimum, scientific evidence for the existence of a being with the requisite abilities (i.e., either “God” or an alien with advanced technology), neither Behe or intelligent design will ever be accepted by science.

I have read the various book reviews of The Edge of Evolution, but most of those are polemics that don’t get into any details. I’m looking for something a bit more scholarly and reasoned.

As for ID, since its proponents choose to ignore scientific principles, to say that it will never be accepted by science is merely stating the obvious.

However, no one is going to bother to publish a paper or a book refuting Behe’s book point by point, as it were. It would be as silly as refuting astrology point by point.

However, at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol27/5699_citethe_edge_of_evolutionc_12_30_1899.asp there is a good review that goes over Behe’s main points. Some of it a touch technical, but you have the option of simply accepting it or researching further on your own.

There are some very good basic “getting started” postings on www.talkorigins.org. You need to have grounding to be able to understand that there really is much more to understand than you might think.

My article:
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html

Of course, Behe said I was right, but that the evolution was still ‘pathetic’. He was also wrong about that:
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/11/quick-translation-for-laymen-ii.html

Behe should have been aware of all of this information as a PhD in biology. He was not. I dont see how this book will ever put out a second edition. It needs massive revisions.

First of all, a mousetrap is not a complex physiological process. There is a difference between mechanical and biological systems. Somehow I’d expect a biologist to know that.

Second, a biologist ought to know that, in their most basic configuration, the function of a visual system is to detect light, and the function of an auditory system is to detect vibrations. A biologist would understand why any animal would find that having at least these systems in place performing at this basic level would be far superior to an animal with none at all.

Third, a biologist (or any scientist) wouldn’t use the phrase “perform their specific functions without all components in place” because it’s a phrase that has no meaning. What specific function? Sensing light? Black and white vision? Color vision? Distance vision? How far? At what focus? Same for hearing. There are different levels of hearing, from mere sensitivity to vibrations to the echo-location. There are animals living today who run the spectrum of these in sight and hearing.

Your claim to being a biologist simply doesn’t hold up. You may have some sort of basic degree, you may even have held a job or jobs in which the department you worked in or your job title had “biological” or “biology” in it, but unless you can provide details of your education and experience that allows to to claim to be a biologist, your claim is unbelievable. You’re simply another Christian creationist promoting ignorance because you consider evolution to be a threat to your god.

I took some time to read through your critique. The first thing I noticed is that you seem to be defining “significant” differently than Behe. (I’m just a layman, but that’s pretty obvious even to me.) As Behe said in his response, “I’m concentrating on the biochemical machinery of the virus, while Smith is more concerned with epidemiological factors.” As for the facts of the matter, I’ll have to take some more time to read and study before I can form an opinion.

Ronald Cote said: “[Behe’s] only contribution to Creationism is the irrefutable evidence of design in so much of life.”

Yeah, that’s because Behe is not a Creationist. He’s a proponent of a particular brand of Intelligent Design. The hardcore Creationists won’t have anything to do with Behe because they consider him a heretic.

GalapagosPete said: “no one is going to bother to publish a paper or a book refuting Behe’s book point by point, as it were. It would be as silly as refuting astrology point by point.”

That’s what I was afraid of. It’s too bad, too, because it smacks of trying to win by default. Those who object to ID claim they don’t have to respond to it because it isn’t science. Maybe that’s the right strategy; maybe Behe and ID will just fade away. But if not, then eventually somebody is going to have to respond.

THEN he said it was ‘pathetic’.

Thats why Creationism is unfalsifiable.

Jew, thanks for the review in spite of the fact that it has taken me a week to read it with all the Christmas festivities going on. It is an interesting topic and I doubt we’ve heard the end of the matter.

I do wonder why many scientists seem to feel they must reject God and religion outright. I do see plenty of reasons why humankind rejects Christianity, yet I have a hard time understanding why people (and logical scientists in particular) reject the general idea of a supreme being. Biology aside for the moment and turn to physics; where did matter/energy come from in the first place? Did it not logically start somewhere? Is it beyond possible that that somewhere is a supreme being?

I won’t speak for ERV, but many people consider Intelligent Design (ID) to be nothing more than Creationism in a Clown Suit, and refuse to draw a distinction between the two. I can see that point of view. Both ideas refer to some form of power higher than the natural workings of the world.

On the other hand, Behe’s ID is so repugnant to most Creationists that they won’t have anything to do with him. So there is a difference. It’s a subtle difference, and for someone who utterly rejects ID and Creationism, it’s a distinction that probably isn’t meaningful.

The difference, as I understand it, is this: Creationism starts with the biblical account and seeks to reconcile the scientific data with a literal interpretation of Bible. Intelligent Design starts with the scientific data, and notices that there are gaps in our understanding which (according to ID) can only be explained by the presence of an unknown Designer. The difference between ID and Creationism is the starting point: ID starts with science and infers a Designer; Creationism starts with the Bible and interprets science in light of the Bible.

Now, properly understood, ID doesn’t speculate as to the nature of the Designer. But many people go ahead and do that anyway–and end up with the God of the Bible. So ID generally ends up at the same place where Creationism starts–except that ID takes a non-literal interpretation of the Bible whereas Creationism takes a literal interpretation.

Behe is the one IDC proponent that concedes to common descent and a last common ancestor. However, all other major ID figures (Wells, Dembski, etc) believe in Special Creation. I recently read their new textbook, ‘Design of Life’, and found numerous YEC claims from 1985. (as well as attempts to cover up copyright infringement, but thats a different story)

‘Oh ID isnt Creationism!!’ claim is used to try to convince normal people who accept theistic evolution that IDC is also acceptable.

As to evolution and acceptance of deities, my evo professors in college were theists, and Christians. They were heavily involved with their churches and on campus groups AND wonderful professors and mentors. I wouldnt ask why scientists reject gods– thats a personal choice and different for every individual. I would ask why virtually all Christian (and Muslim, and Buddhist, and atheistic) scientists accept evolution, are productive in their labs, and are wonderful mentors for their students, while ID advocates cannot do any of those things.

I see your point, but we must be careful not to conflate the terms with the ideas. The fact that some people use the terms incorrectly (and disingenuously) doesn’t mean that there aren’t two distinct ideas and schools of thought.

The search-and-replace incident with Of Pandas and People is unfortunate, and I believe the whole idea behind the book is misguided. I don’t want religion taught in schools even if it’s dressed up as science. Of Pandas and People, however, is not at all the same thing as Behe’s presentation of Intelligent Design. Of Pandas and People promotes novelty creationism (i.e., special creation) whereas Behe’s presentation of ID specifically denies that view of events.

Of Pandas and People featured significantly in the Dover trial, which is unfortunate because I believe it to be a flawed and just plain wrong presentation of Intelligent Design. If you use that book as your textbook for Intelligent Design, of course it’s going to be the same thing as Creationism.

Maybe it really comes down to one’s definition of terms. I guess you could define ID so as to make it synonymous with Creationism. That doesn’t change the fact that what Behe advocates is substantively different than a Creationist (i.e., literal interpretation of Genesis) model. So maybe I should refer to Behe-style ID, to distinguish it from other definitions.

The only reason evolution is ‘losing ground’ as an idea is because the education system is failing (in N. America at least, definitely not in the more enlightened Europe). This is worrying indeed for a 21st century military superpower. Europe is currently gaining ground against the US in terms of social equality, technology investment, environmental protection and the education of its citizens (especially in the sciences).

Among the scientific community, evolutionary theory has done nothing but gain ground and will continue to do so. Science after all is a progressive field, one that examines and tests its own outputs repeatedly. Darwin’s ideas are not about to go away, because we keep finding more and more evidence to back them up! Fact, not fiction.

The National Academy of Sciences released the following on January 3rd 2008 (i.e. 4 days ago). If you think you can challenge this institution, then you should perhaps consider nominating yourself for the Nobel prize!

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876

Religious belief, in contrast, does nothing but stagnate in Iron Age dogma. And your ‘truth’ is just that, superstitious dogma.

Ironically, the Discovery Center issued a reply to the NAS report suggesting it was strong on assertion but weak on evidence. Funny, but I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever for a divine being that preordained human dominance in the universe.

This is more than merely a philosophical debate. This is an extremely important and worrying issue.

As I see it, we have a simple choice as a species.

1) We accept and actually embrace the evidence-based facts that reveal we are NOT at the center of the universe, and celebrate the fact that science has consistently provided the means of social progress and will continue to do so if supported (whether we’re talking about environmental pollution control, climate change, disease burden reduction or an improved understanding of our place in the natural world).

OR

2) We continue to erode the education system, regard science as a optional subject (with evidence-based facts for evolution remaining largely unknown by the majority), allow the rise - resurrection? - of primitive ideologies that have done nothing but hold us back as a species and revert back to barbarism (because ultimately, the three main Abrahamic faiths are mutually and aggressively exclusive, at a time when we have at our disposal weapons of mass destruction).

So, is evolution losing ground Ronald? Of course not, evolutionary processes will continue long after we’re extinct. However, clearly the education system in the US is losing ground and the religious movement is gaining ground…..sadly and worryingly.

There are other nations on this Earth that are ruled by religious doctrine, they include places like Iran and Pakistan. Do you really want to see America going down that road, towards Iron Age ignorance?

Again, I ask, who is it really that is losing here?

Right now, with the education system as it is, I fear that it is my daughter that is losing. I already fear for her generation and those that will follow.

CJW

“The discovery and understanding of the processes of evolution represent one of the most powerful achievements in the history of science. Evolution successfully explains the diversity of
life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines.

Evolutionary science provides the foundation for modern biology. It has opened the door to entirely new types of medical, agricultural, and environmental research, and has led to the development of technologies that can help prevent and combat disease.

Regrettably, effective science education in our schools is being undermined by efforts to introduce non-scientific concepts about evolution into science classrooms.”

Exactly… why, just the other day my neighbor evolved into a completely new species. We see macro evolution all the time, come on people! Oh wait…

Farmers and ranchers have been using evolutionary theory for decades, even though some I know resist using the word. Luckily the science works whether you choose to believe it or not!

Don’t worry Ronald, when I find you spreading ignorance and pretending to be a scientist, I’ll continue to correct the damage you are trying to do to education.

tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com