Robert Shapiro on Behe and ID

Q. You recently visited the University of Minnesota, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. You spoke with a University Professor named James Kurzinger? A. Yes, I did. Q. He actually asked you whether the type III secretory system is a subset of the bacterial flagellum, is that right? A. I don't think he said exactly that, but I'm not -- we did talk about the flagellum and the type III secretory system, but I'm not prepared to say exactly how the conversation went. MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. And James Kurzinger is a scientist? A. He identified himself as such. Q. And this is -- this Exhibit 724 is an article in the Minnesota Daily. It's an opinion piece. And it says, Intelligent Design 101, Short on Science, Long on Snake Oil. And it goes on to describe --

Reviewers aren't gods. In the case of a science journal Behe may not have had to take the ID conclusion out of his book. Shapiro would have been required to present a reason for disagreeing. He would have had to be specific enough for the author to respond. If the editor decided in favor of the reviewer or reviewers Behe would have been given a chance to address the issue (since Shapiro found some merit in the work). Since he wouldn't have been able to do this he would have had to modify his manuscript or look for some other place to publish it. For manuscripts that don't make the grade overall the author may have just gotten a polite letter of rejection.

"In an email to me concerning this post, Matt Inlay points out that had Behe's submission been to a scientific journal Dr. Shapiro's review would have forced Behe to either change his conclusion of ID, or remove it entirely."

That's simply asinine. Any competent editor would have asked Dr. Shapiro to explain his assumption that "better science" would necessarily lead to answers from which ID is excluded. Without further explanation, it's merely an unjustified apriorism that fails to detract from a virtually unprecedented effort to define a hypothetical evolution-resistant form of complexity that, according to Charles Darwin himself, would weigh against his theory (thus rendering it falsifiable, i.e., scientific).

After a suitable answer from Shapiro, the editor could, but not necessarily would, have then asked Behe to further refine the concept in question. Only after Behe's response could he have been "forced" to revise his conclusion.

I knew Professor Shapiro wouldn't let me down.

'That's simply asinine.'

I find it interesting that you go on to explain that Shapiro didn't review Behe's book in a fashion comparable to that of a respectable journal's peer review methodology. 'More rigorous' my right foot.

'according to Charles Darwin himself,'

You may find it instructive and educational to learn of science and events after the 19th century.

-Schmitt.

'virtually unprecedented'

And during the 19th century for that matter.

-Schmitt.

DBB is a book, for which "a respectable journal's peer review methodology" is not considered necessary or even appropriate. Because it's a book, the bulk of the "peer review" came after its publication, not before. Again, as regards Inlay's opinion, it is wrong even within its own hypothetical scenario.

(Incidentally, Darwin didn't have much to say about his work after the 19th century.)

DBB is a book, for which "a respectable journal's peer review methodology" is not considered necessary or even appropriate. Because it's a book, the bulk of the "peer review" came after its publication, not before.

And yet, according to the ACLU blog "Behe agreed, when asked by plaintiff's counsel Eric Rothschild if the "peer review for Darwin's Black Box was analogous to peer review in the [scientific] literature." It was, according to Behe, even more rigorous. There were more than twice standard the number of reviewers and "they read [the book] more carefully... because this was a controversial topic.""

Professor Shapiro doesn't seem to be giving it a ringing endorsement and Aitcheson... What reality do you inhabit, neurode?

DBB is a book, for which "a respectable journal's peer review methodology" is not considered necessary or even appropriate.

In the reality I inhabit, Alan, I was responding to Inlay's opinion, which was couched in an alternate universe where books are subject to the same peer review process as journal contributions. My point was that even in Inlay's alternate universe, his opinion is wrong.

As for Dr. Behe's response to the questions asked of him in court, I can't really say what he meant. You'd have to ask him about that. But it seems to me that he may have been thinking in terms of the review process for books rather than papers - which in some instances can be much more heated and thorough than the pre-publication review of journal submissions - while you and Inlay may be thinking of the review process for papers. Again, DBB is a book and not a paper.

Incidentally, even if Dr. Behe did indeed misunderstand one or two of the questions that he was asked in court, do you really consider it appropriate to impugn his honesty over it without even bothering to ask him the score?

In what alternate universe is that an ethical prerogative?

Ron Okimoto said: For manuscripts that don't make the grade overall the author may have just gotten a polite letter of rejection.

Robert Shapiro: "..felt that Professor Behe's book has done a better job of explaining existing science than others of its kind."

Hmmm... What is this "kind" of book Shapiro is talking about? Creationists books, speculative science books?

Robert Shapiro: "..agree with him that conventional scientific origin-of-life theory is deeply flawed."

Which origin of life theory -- the RNA world?
I note that Shapiro didn't say anything about evolution or natural selection at all.

Robert Shapiro: "..I do not support intelligent design theories. I believe that better science will provide the needed answers."

Is Shapiro going out of his way to be nice to Behe?

Neurode's comments make me feel compelled to clarify the purpose of this post. Although, to be honest, I think he is merely attempting to distract from the real matter at hand.

1) Behe claimed a review process for DBB more rigorous than peer-reviewed journals.

2) In the Dover testimony we learn one of those "reviews" was a ten minute phone converstaion so unremarkable to the "reviewer" after the publishing of DBB he hardly remembered whether that was the book he "reviewed."

3) PZ wonders what Dr. Shapiro, another reviewer of DBB, thought of the book.

4) So did I.

5) I emailed Dr. Shapiro, and he graciously responded.

I may have done Matt an injustice by including his quick comment from an email without giving him a chance to flesh out more detail, and for that I apologize to Matt.

Neurode, on the other hand, is in an alternative reality if he still thinks that Behe's claim to a peer review process more rigorous than a professional journal is anything more than a complete crock of bull.

In the reality I inhabit, Alan, I was responding to Inlay's opinion, which was couched in an alternate universe where books are subject to the same peer review process as journal contributions. My point was that even in Inlay's alternate universe, his opinion is wrong.

But it seems to me that [Behe] may have been thinking in terms of the review process for books rather than papers

Q. You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you? A. No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading. Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

I don't see the point of all these pretenders feeling the need to defend Behe for something he doesn't defend himself?

doesn't Behe have a lawyer to defend him?

the only reason i can find is that they aren't trying to defend Behe at all, but themselves, as they themselves feel under attack.

However, they seem to fail to realize that the one attacking their sensibilities is Behe himself, not the rest of us.

Read the damn transcript!

I find Shapiro's response baffling, but since nobody else does, maybe someone can explain why not. Shapiro thinks that "conventional scientific origin-of-life theory is deeply flawed." But evolution isn't an origin-of-life theory at all, and I don't think Behe is saying that it is. I don't think science really HAS any "origin of life theory" to speak of, only some hazy observations of chemical self-organization in some circumstances, which may or may not have been involved originally.

Still, scientific explanations at any level of detail are rarely if ever rejected in a vacuum. Instead, they are found inadequate in comparison to some competing idea. Even given a hopeless paucity of data, science strives to find a "best fit" explanation that is most helpful in suggesting ways of collecting more (and relevant) date from which the explanation can be improved. If science suggested NO possibilities, on the grounds that "we don't know enough yet", it's nearly certain that we would NEVER know enough.

And the implication here is subtle but (at least to me) unmistakeable. Shapiro has SOME competing explanation in mind, but he's being coy about identifying it. Was Shapiro selected because he is a known Christian? I have no idea on what basis any of these reviewers may have been chosen, except that the 10-minute phone reviewer WAS selected on religious grounds, according to the testimony. A point I hope didn't escape the judge.

So Shapiro says Behe's book does a "better job of explaining existing science than others of its kind"? I wonder what is meant by "kind" here - other biology books, or other ID treatises? I could probably agree that if we're considering the universe of religious books, Behe probably inserts more and better science than most...

DBB is a book, for which "a respectable journal's peer review methodology" is not considered necessary or even appropriate.

yeah, Shapiro's response was pretty vague, but perhaps intentionally so?

you could always write him yourself, but Shapiro's opinions were secondary to his clarification of his review of Behe's book, as far as i can tell from the orignal post.

Skip laments: Neurode's comments make me feel compelled to clarify the purpose of this post. Although, to be honest, I think he is merely attempting to distract from the real matter at hand.

Shapiro, I get the impression from his web site, has written plenty of his own on OOL and related matters. If you want to know what his ideas are in this area, read his stuff.

As for the "others of its kind," Shapiro may mean books written for lay audiences.

Hell, you don't have to just stray off topic to suffer excommunication from the blog of the masterful WAD. Just disagree with his holiness. Funny, coming from a guy who once claimed to learn more from his critics than those who agree with him. He and Behe produce more poo than any ranch full of cattle I have yet to see out here in Montana, boy howdy!

With all due respect, folks, I'm not quite sure that I follow your reasoning here.

On the one hand, we have Dr. Behe's sworn testimony that he sent his manuscript to five (5) reviewers. I see no reason to doubt this. It then emerges that Dr. Behe had a ten-minute phone conversation with one of the reviewers (a conversation being a response). That leaves four (4) other reviewers. We then find out that Dr. Shapiro was "another reviewer"; his response has already been discussed. That still leaves three (3) additional reviewers who were duly solicited for their evaluations.

How many informed parties do you think it takes to review a journal entry? If the number surpasses the range 2-5, could you please specify the name of the journal, the interdisciplinary morass it covers, and if appropriate, the alternate universe in which it exists?

If your main point of criticism is Behe's assertion that the review process to which his work was subjected was even "more rigorous" than that, how do you know that he wasn't referring to the extremely intensive review to which his work has been subjected by other scientists since its publication? After all, it's a book, with respect to which extensive post-publication review is the norm.

Did "Tale of Two Cities" undergo peer review?

I think not.

Why then should "Tail of Two Bacteria" be so subjected?

Both works of fiction, one great, one not.

If your main point of criticism is Behe's assertion that the review process to which his work was subjected was even "more rigorous" than that,

how do you know that he wasn't referring to the extremely intensive review to which his work has been subjected by other scientists since its publication?

After all, it's a book, with respect to which extensive post-publication review is the norm.

On the one hand, we have Dr. Behe's sworn testimony that he sent his manuscript to five (5) reviewers. I see no reason to doubt this.

— neurode

That still leaves three (3) additional reviewers who were duly solicited for their evaluations.

— neurode

how do you know that he wasn't referring to the extremely intensive review to which his work has been subjected by other scientists since its publication?

— neurode

On the one hand, we have Dr. Behe's sworn testimony that he sent his manuscript to five (5) reviewers.

How many informed parties do you think it takes to review a journal entry?

"That's simply asinine. Any competent editor would have asked Dr. Shapiro to explain his assumption that "better science" would necessarily lead to answers from which ID is excluded."

Why are IDniks such illogical creatures? Nowhere Shapiro said or even implied such a thing. He simply pointed out that Behe's ID conclusion is unwarranted by his evidence. Simple, yet IDiots don't get it.

Does anyone know who the other three reviewers are?

If you are one of the reviewers, do you want to be identified now?

Ron Okimoto said: For manuscripts that don't make the grade overall the author may have just gotten a polite letter of rejection.

I note another reviewer is given as Dr K. John Morrow, who, interestingly, debated Behe in 1992 here, (the event was sponsored by the Foundation for Thought & Ethics). He doesn't seem to be a creationist or ID supporter although this may have changed since '92. I have emailed Dr Morrow to see if he was interested in making any comment about the review process.

That's simply asinine. Any competent editor would have asked Dr. Shapiro to explain his assumption that "better science" would necessarily lead to answers from which ID is excluded.

Professor Shapiro responded to an email from me to say he will try and comment on this thread but due to pressure of work he cannot reply immesiately. He says he will "get to it".

Incidentally, Prof. Shapiro mentions he's a member of NCSE and reads PT.

Ron Okimoto said: Did Einstein do any experiments? He reinterpreted data and could back up his reinterpretations, not with new data, but a reevaluation of the data. He had new insights and ways to evaluate the data. Behe might have done that. Shapiro would argue that he didn't.

I've received a reply from Dr. Morrow which makes interesting reading.

Hi Alan,

I did review Behe's book for a publisher who turned it down on the basis of my comments, and those of others (including Russell Doolittle who trashed it). When I reviewed Behe's book I was much more polite than Doolittle, who didn't mince words. Eventually Behe found another publisher, so he's right; it was peer reviewed. What he doesn't say is that is was rejected by the first set of reviewers.

I also debated Behe in Dallas in 1992. Once, again, I attempted to be civil, professional and dignified. Behe's response was aggressive, condescending and simply rude.

I will say, unequivocally, I am (as practically every professional working biologist I have every met) convinced by the overwhelming body of evidence that Darwin's concept of evolution, and its subsequent modifications by the last 150 years of investigation, is the correct, and the best explanation for the great cornucopia of living creatures with which we share this planet.

I'm absolutely appalled by Behe's arguments, which are simply a rehash of ideas that Darwin considered and rejected. There is not a shred of evidence to support intelligent design, and a vast body of evidence that argues against it. It is not a scientific hypothesis, it simply the philosophical wanderings of an uniformed (or disingenuous) mind.

At present I'm involved in product development for an immunodiagnostics company, and we are discussing how to approach to Avian flu, and how we can design a test that takes into account the constantly evolving nature of the RNA viruses. Do the intelligent designers want return us to a time when mankind attributed disease to evil spirits, and allow us no tools to understand the ravages of epidemic diseases, and how to design therapies and diagnostics against them?

I believe that the argument is not about science at all, but simply right wing fundamentalists using a different tactic to force religious teaching in the public schools. I thought that Judge Overton had put this case to rest 30 years ago, but apparently not.

Thanks for this opportunity to clarify my feelings on this subject.

Whoa. So the count now is two negative reviews and a ten minute phone conversation that quickly slipped from the mind of the so-called reviewer.

Lehigh University sure has a lot to be proud of in their Dr. Behe. They'd probably consider naming him Dean of Janitorial Sciences, but that would only result in screams of protests from the qualified janitors.

Can't say that's not a critical review, eh?

I don't know Flint. I say the jury is out until we hear neurode's positive spin on it.

I'd like to find out who the other two reviewers are. Unless one of them was Russell Doolittle as Dr. Morrow states!

Alan-

Can you forward me the actual email from Morrow? We need to confirm that this actually came from him. Please forward it to stcynic@crystalauto.com. Thanks.

Whoa. So the count now is two negative reviews and a ten minute phone conversation that quickly slipped from the mind of the so-called reviewer.

I'd like to find out who the other two reviewers are. Unless one of them was Russell Doolittle as Dr. Morrow states!

Ed

Have forwarded as requested. Hope it can be of use.

I'm not sure that the reviews by Morrow and Doolittle count toward the stated number of five reviewers, as that was for another publisher. Behe's original statement on this is not clear.

— Flint

"Behe has ... no method to reinterpret existing data in light of ID ... no quantitative or qualitative measure of design beyond Behe's "purposeful arrangement of parts". ... Any manuscript lacking all of the above is commentary not science. A reviewer would have little difficulty justifying this position."

Perhaps, but his exact level of difficulty strongly depends on the choir to which he's preaching.

A reviewer might instead base his recommendation on the possible scientific relevance of a relationship between resistance to gradualistic evolution, of which Darwin himself hypothetically allowed the possibility, and a certain kind of functional nonredundancy which Behe was able to characterize in an abstract way, but of which he was unable (as we now know with hindsight) to offer a strong example in the biological realm...that is, an example whose individual components lack any conceivable adaptive function at all.

We're talking, of course, about a system from which the subtraction of a single component would disable its overall function. Most of those who reject Behe's work do so on the grounds that natural selection can individually select the components of such a system for independent functions unrelated to the overall function of the system. However, his initial reviewers themselves apparently didn't succeed in spelling that out, and neither they nor their partisans have yet determined or even ballparked the rate at which natural selection actually produces "irreducibly complex" outcomes in the given sense.

To reject the posited relationship out of hand, a reviewer would need to spell out the above objection, and/or explain precisely why it is certain that no unequivocal example of irreducible complexity can possibly exist in biology, thus in effect explaining why evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable on the hypothetical grounds cited by Darwin himself. Until then, the possible existence of such a relationship is a live hypothesis on which the falsifiability of gradualistic evolution arguably depends. That alone warrants its careful consideration.

Nobody could blame an editor for demanding that Behe refine his definitions, further justify his examples, or consider a full range of alternative evolutionary scenarios before inferring ID instead of natural selection. I might have done so myself. However, one could certainly question the neutrality of any editor rejecting his ideas out of hand.

Now, if anybody wants to jump up and down and scream about how badly irreducible complexity sucks and what a total crock of bull ID is, go right ahead. Knock yourselves out. Let your venom spurt like geysers and your righteous contempt ooze onto the screen like thick, poisonous sludge. I'm not emotionally involved.

But as regards the grounds thus far cited by Behe's reviewers, they are clearly inadequate to justify the offhand dismissal and summary rejection of his work.

Which, of course, was the point to begin with.

Surely the points simpler than that, neurode. Behe claimed in court DBB was reviewed more rigorously than normal peer review. The three reviewers named by him either didn't read his work or did not view it favourably. Behe's claim about that rigorous review thus looks weak.

A ten minute phone conversation as the basis of a book review is grounds to question and to reject the validity of the reviewing procedure. A reviewer should in the least read the book. This does not equate with peer-review in any way.

As always, ID, long on talk, short on work.

neither they nor their partisans have yet determined or even ballparked the rate at which natural selection actually produces "irreducibly complex" outcomes in the given sense

w/r/t Dr. Morrow's comments, all I can say is, Goddam.

To reject the posited relationship out of hand, a reviewer would need to spell out the above objection, and/or explain precisely why it is certain that no unequivocal example of irreducible complexity can possibly exist in biology, [blah, blah, blah]...

Until then, the possible existence of such a relationship is a live hypothesis on which the falsifiability of gradualistic evolution arguably depends. That alone warrants its careful consideration.

I'm not emotionally involved.

Let your venom spurt like geysers and your righteous contempt ooze onto the screen like thick, poisonous sludge

Why don't we all just email Behe himself and ask him for the list of the reviewers of DBB? What possible reason would he have to decline unless he simply wanted to forget ever having written the awful thing, save for the wads of cash in his bank account it spawned.

You will find his email on his page here:
Behe

Now be nice boy and girls. He is probably still a little tender over the trouncing he got in Dover.

It wouldn't hurt to start off complimenting his diction, or something.

The one sticking out of his collar, or the other one?

Oooooh, you said diction.
Heh.

To reject the posited relationship out of hand, a reviewer would need to spell out the above objection, and/or explain precisely why it is certain that no unequivocal example of irreducible complexity can possibly exist in biology....

— neurode

Nobody said anything about "proof". The term I used was "explain". And if you think that reviewers don't need to explain their objections, then - to borrow your own phrasing - "you clearly have no experience with scientific peer review."

Give it up neurode
"irreducible complexity"
is dead, it died in the witness stand when the man "Who Thought he Saw God" killed it with his own hands.
Expect some new buzzword to replace it real soon.
Right now your flogging a dead bacterium.

Well, neruode, then please tell us what experience you DO have with peer review. You seem to be speaking from some presumed authority.

I have none. I'm a software developer, so I look to the people on this list who do have experience as practicing scientists to educate me.

How many papers have you submitted to peer-reviewed scientific journals, how many have been accepted for publication, and in what field?

As I said, I have no experience in that area, and so I look to those of you who do for information.

Skip suggested that everyone should e-mail Behe to ask who were the reviewers of DBB.

I suggest another question: Ask him when it is appropriate to invoke supernatural causes to explain phenomena that scientists are studying. In DBB he says it has to be done sometimes, I think he owes a clarification.

there's a decent review of what peer review means and it's general usage on wiki. that review pretty much agrees with my personal experiences, for better and worse.

peer review is an absolute necessity in the publication of any scientific work; weak peer review results in ideas progessing based on faulty assumptions or incorrect methods. it's just that simple.

on the other hand, it also has it's "human" side, in that the more published an author is, typically they have less problems passing peer review, so long as what they are publishing on is pretty much in the area of what they had published on before (i.e., there is a general laxing of peer review when previous peer review has already established the veracity of the author on a particular subject).

There also exist egos, like in any field of endeavor, whereupon some reviewers can be overly critical of new material that conflicts with their own. However, that's why we use multiple reviewers.

Authors also can challenge a particular criticism of their manuscript. I had to do that with at least one of my manuscripts, for example, even after rewriting it no less than 5 times based on reviewer feedback (it had to do with which model was best used to statistically analyze the data, which ended up being difficult due to the way i designed the experiment to begin with - i ended up winning the argument). If your challenge is logical, typically a publisher will go ahead if none of the other reviewers objects.

I'ts also been my experience that even in very busy areas of research, with literally thousands of submissions annually, journal editors will go out of there way to get positively reviewed materials published, though you might have to wait a while.

After publication, further criticism of the published article sent to the editor can also be published as rebuttal notes to the paper, so peer review doesn't even stop AFTER the paper is published.

This pretty much summarizes my personal experience with the peer review system, as relates to journal articles. I know that peer review of books intended to represent summary positions on a subject in science, or textbooks intended for science courses are just as rigorously reviewed, but am not as sure what the process is for texts intended for presentation to the general public (like a "Cosmos" style book, for example, or DBB).

It's my impression that the author's themselves are typically the ones to instigate rigorous peer review in these circumstances, as in most cases, the accuracy of the book is one of the selling points.

However, in the case of DBB, I doubt scientific accuracy was at the heart of Behe's motivations, and this is supported by the trial transcripts, if not by many other sources.

Hope that helps.

I know that peer review of books intended to represent summary positions on a subject in science, or textbooks intended for science courses are just as rigorously reviewed, but am not as sure what the process is for texts intended for presentation to the general public (like a "Cosmos" style book, for example, or DBB). It's my impression that the author's themselves are typically the ones to instigate rigorous peer review in these circumstances, as in most cases, the accuracy of the book is one of the selling points.

"you clearly have no experience with scientific peer review."

I just receiced this email from Professor Shapiro which he asked to be posted, as follows.

Dear Skip and Alan,

As I can't spare the time this week to master Kwick XML formatting, I would be grateful if either of you would post my additional comments (below) on Darwin's Black Box and the origin of life on the Panda's Thumb web site.

Best wishes,
Robert Shapiro

I had seen a significant number of Creation Science books in the previous few years, and Professor Behe's book was better then them, both in his mastery of the basic (non-controversial) biochemical background and the clarity of his exposition. I also disagreed totally with his conclusions, and let the editor know it. My own opinions on the origin of life field can be found on p 234 of Darwin's Black Box or at greater length in my own
book: Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. That book is out of print at the current time, but available in many libraries. Some of the material is also presented in my more recent Planetary Dreams, which is still in print.

I am not expert in evolutionary theory, but have no reason to quarrel with the conclusions of my scientific colleagues who are better informed. I feel however that the origin of life is a topic that is more fundamental to the debate over intelligent design. The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant. My criticisms of the dominant scientific dogma on the origin of life (by which I mean RNA World and closely related theories) are shared by Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve and a number of other prominent scientists who nonetheless are a minority in the field. For a brief, technical summary of my criticisms, see my paper: A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life: IUBMB Life 49, 173-176 (2000). A much more thorough discussion, which also describes a path that I believe will lead to a good scientific solution, will appear in next June's issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology. For those of you who are impatient, and wish a fairly similar point of view, I would suggest
that you consult the books and papers of Professor Harold Morowitz.

As a final comment I will add that I am not a Christian, but an Agnostic. I was selected as an editorial consultant for Darwin's Black Box because the editor was aware that Professor Behe and I are both critics of conventional origin-of -life theories.

Nobody said anything about "proof". The term I used was "explain".

— neurode

To reject the posited relationship out of hand, a reviewer would need to spell out the above objection, and/or explain precisely why it is certain that no unequivocal example of irreducible complexity can possibly exist in biology....[emphasis added]

I'm afraid you've gotten off onto the wrong track again, qetzal. My responses have been addressed to the following statement attributed to Matt Inlay:

"...had Behe's submission been to a scientific journal Dr. Shapiro's review would have forced Behe to either change his conclusion of ID, or remove it entirely."

That's incorrect, as I and others have already explained.

This being understood, I'll now comment on your seeming insistence that as a matter of accepted practice, a nebulous objection by a single reviewer is enough to get somebody's work rejected by the editor of a scientific journal. I have no doubt that this sort of thing happens occasionally; perhaps it has even happened to you, in which case I sympathize. But when it does, it is most likely due to a lapse in judgment on the part of the editor.

As for my choice of modifiers, it was not a mere attempt to "hide behind semantics". The relationship posited by Behe is simple: "If (if IC, then not-NS), then ID." To justify a summary rejection of this thesis, a reviewer must either explain why IC (irreducible complexity) is a biological impossibility, or rule out the implication "not-NS" by explaining how natural selection can produce IC. Otherwise, the author might actually have grounds on which to infer something other than NS.

In other words, if IC occurs in biology, then to show that gradualistic evolution is not thereby falsified, it must be explained how natural selection alone could account for it; conversely, to avoid explaining how NS might account for a form of complexity that would otherwise falsify gradualistic evolution, that form of complexity must be ruled it out in the biological realm.

Dr. Shapiro did neither of those things.

The relationship posited by Behe is simple: "If (if IC, then not-NS), then ID." To justify a summary rejection of this thesis, a reviewer must either explain why IC (irreducible complexity) is a biological impossibility, or rule out the implication "not-NS" by explaining how natural selection can produce IC.

"You still don't get it. It's not incubment on the reviewer to explain why IC is impossible or else fully compatible with NS, simply because Behe hasn't shown IC exists!"

But it obviously does exist. Once again, IC describes any system, the overall function of which is disabled by the subtraction of any part. There are all kinds of machines out there that will not work when a part is removed, absent considerable redesign and reassembly. (Right now, I'm looking at a pair of scissors consisting of three parts: two sides and a screw. Take one of those parts away, and what remains of the scissors won't serve their original purpose.)

Such functionally indecomposable systems are extremely common...so common that the burden of proof rests on anyone who denies that such systems exist in the biological realm. On the other hand, if their biological existence is granted, then the notion that this property constrains natural selection is logically quite sound. The question thus becomes, is this constraint ever enough to stop NS cold, thus implying the involvement of an alternative mechanism?

And that, of course, is the other thing that Dr. Shapiro didn't even touch on.

from

http://www.hubertpyockey.com/

The correct definition of "irreducible complexity" in information science is a computation whose result can be computed for eternity and never reach its final answer. Behe cannot appropriate this term and substitute his own intuitive understanding of the words.

Biology is not irreducibly complex because the bit string in the genome that describes a protein is finite and stops after it produces the protein (so the computation does not run indefinitely).

A summary of another proof of why biology is not "irreducibly complex" is as follows:

As Dr. Yockey's work shows, the genome is digital, linear and segregated. "Digits" in this case means the letters of an alphabet, each one different from the other. The letters of the alphabet of the genome are the 64 codons of DNA and RNA. The letters are in a sequence in DNA and RNA, so they are linear. And they are separate and distinct from one another, so they are segregated.

Claude Shannon showed that information can be measured in any sequence that is digital, linear and segregated. Therefore the information in the genome can be measured. Therefore the genome---the critical element for evolution in biology---is not "irreducibly complex." Therefore, there is no requirement in evolution for an Intelligent Designer

Behe cannot appropriate this term and substitute his own intuitive understanding of the words.

Excuse typo SB "complimenting"

Re "The correct definition of "irreducible complexity" in information science is a computation whose result can be computed for eternity and never reach its final answer."

Like computing all the digits of a transcendental number (such as pi)?

I don't get why Behe's first "definition" of IR could be sensibly considered a problem anyway. Seems to me that extra parts would take energy and resources to make, therefore NS would tend to drop parts that aren't needed. And that would tend to produce things that would break if one of the remaining parts were removed. (Though not being a biologist I might have missed something.)

Henry

"Behe cannot appropriate this term and substitute his own intuitive understanding of the words."

I'm afraid I don't agree. Terms are often coopted for use in different contexts. The terms "irreducible" and "complexity" were in general use in all kinds of contexts for centuries before they were coopted by mathematicians (e.g., Kolmogorov, Chaitin), and as we know, mathematical terms are free game for use in any scientific context whatsoever.

Dr. Behe gave a concise functional definition of IC, and with all due respect to Dr. Yockey, he was under no obligation to check its copyright first ... particularly since his usage does not pertain directly to genetic sequences, but to phenotypic functional systems. Since Behe's hypothesis pertains to natural selection, and natural selection works mainly on the phenotypic level, Yockey's remarks concerning the informational calculus of genetic sequences is not directly relevant.

Of course, given that Dr. Yockey is quite opinionated in general, perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised that he takes such strong exception to Behe's usage.

"Behe cannot appropriate this term and substitute his own intuitive understanding of the words." I'm afraid I don't agree. Terms are often coopted for use in different contexts.

Lenny here keeps on insisting that he be shown a "scientific theory of ID".

As I see it, the main problem with Lenny's demand is that he seems to have no idea what actually constitutes a "scientific theory". That one has managed to get a smattering of work published under that guise is all but irrelevant; one can do or write something that passes for science by imitation alone, merely by following a small collection of cookie-cutter guidelines whose underlying complexities make them highly resistant to justification (and downright opaque for anyone with Lenny's obviously limited powers of comprehension).

In fact, there is a substantial possibility that in the not-too-distant future, what many toilers now proudly consider their scientific output will be seen to constitute "science" in the same way that a medieval physician, packing his leeches and potions and phlebotomy and trephination tools, can be said to have "practiced medicine". This doesn't mean that they aren't making meaningful contributions; far from it. However, as the history of science has repeatedly and sometimes sadly demonstrated, science often advances in such a way that today's "scientists" are tomorrow's bumbling ignoramuses.

As we can easily see from his PT comments alone, there is nothing sufficiently exceptional about Lenny's viewpoint to convince anybody that he'll be the one to change that rule. It follows that his opinions and demands can be safely dismissed, particularly given the astonishingly crude manner in which he seems compelled to word them.

As I see it, the main problem with Lenny's demand is that he seems to have no idea what actually constitutes a "scientific theory".

Russell, I think Neurode's post #54786 translates as "No, I can't".

Think what you like. But while my personal investment in "ID theory", such as it currently may be, is strictly limited, I'll make a couple of simple observations anyway.

In science, the object is frequently to refine more or less nebulous correlations among various phenomena into causal relationships. This process is scientific from start to finish; given the possible relevance of a correlation to some question of scientific interest, observing the correlation alone qualifies as part of the scientific agenda.

Suppose that "ID theory" is simply the observation that there exist correlations between some products of nature and the products of human invention with respect to certain observable (if somewhat poorly defined) forms of complexity. Then given the possible relevance of these correlations to evolutionary causation, their observation and discussion immediately qualify as "scientific" pending explanatory refinement.

Whether you and Lenny happen to believe that these correlations are solid, or are being properly refined into causal explanations, is neither here nor there. At this point in time, you simply don't know enough to summarily evaluate their scientific value. So even if nobody can stop you from pretending that you can, you probably shouldn't take your own pretensions too seriously.

Much in the same sense that Behe had to admit, under oath, that astrology is just as scientific as anything else.

Cheap phentermine xanax valium etc only here

Cheap phentermine xanax valium etc only here