Behe 'replies' to TREE review

Why does Behe still bother? Has he just dug himself so deep that he feels he might as well keep digging and see if he comes out the other side, or is he just that out of touch with reality that he still believes he's right? Bit of a waste of a scientific career really. All his replies (when he actually bothers to give one that is) just consist of "I'm saying this, therefore it must be right".

No surprize here, considering that people like Ray Martinez also think in terms of absolutes rather than ever look at things objectively. If someone does not WANT to understand reality, you can't force him to.

I appreciate you taking the time to critique Behe's work. I agree with what Rob said, it just seems like a waste of scientific effort. After all, what would it mean if Behe was correct? That some "intelligence" has a hand in or creates biology? How is that helpful? It doesn't get us any closer to Christianity or even a tri-omni God. Perhaps a Deist God but is that what IDers want?

Oh Nick, don't you understand creationist-speak yet after all this time? The "substance" isn't the scientific content. Never has been. It's window dressing, pseudosci gibberish to make the rubes' eyes glaze over and convince them it's all scientifickal and stuff.

No, the real "substance" is whether you accept the philosophical underpinnings uncritically, the way any good fundy should. I.e., since you have not received The Truth and therefore prostrated yourself before the Almighty, you have not addressed the "substance."

Two points:

1) It seems like this discussion of the origin of resistance is assuming that the resistance alleles arose after (i.e., implicitly in response to) the application of chloroquine (chlororquine?). This is a common misconception. It implies that the selective force induces the mutation: a Lamarckian idea. In fact, application of a selective force simply changes the selective coefficients of alleles that already exist in the population. Any large population of organisms possesses a 'bank' of variation (NO implication of foresight intended!). Many of these alleles are/may be slightly deleterious under current circumstances, but this position can change when circumstances change. I predict that if you could look closely at malaria parasites that have never been subjected to Chloroquine, you would find the requisite resistance alleles at low frequency.

2) On 'randomness'. Creationists, seem to use the word differently than 'we' do. To us, 'randomness' describes the nature of the variation in populations (i.e., not dependent on need). It seems that creationists (How can this structure evolve randomly?!) use it in to mean 'unguided', a sense in which we might say 'random walk', which is a very different idea. In discussions with creationists, we need to spell out clearly what the term means. (Of course, the endpoint of any 'random walk' is extremely unlikely, so their argument from incredulity fails to the anthropic principle [or some similar principle applied to Insects, fungi, whatever.)

Well, Prof. Behe has at least wised up in one respect. He has disabled comments on all 3 parts of the reply in his Amazon blog.

Prof. Behe has wised up in one regard, at least. He has disabled comments on all 3 parts of the reply in his Amazon blog.

Yes, but they were disabled before but posting was still possible. Was this Behe's doing or Amazon? I prefer to believe the latter. Nevertheless many good comments once again were "censored"

When Behe starts off his reply with a reference to

a former-head-of-the-Pennsylvania-Liquor-Control-Board-appointed-judge

it makes me just sad. Why can't this guy just address the subject and let the by now well known and rehearsed earlier assignment of judge Jones' lie?

It seems to me Behe treats science with the same kind of respect that we are accustomed to from astrology and other ID-related sciences.

Rolf,

As you probably know, Behe even admitted under oath at the trial that to accommodate ID, the rules of science would have to also include astrology.

As you say, Behe deems it necessary to start the review with a reference to Jones' position as LCB head, as well as how his decision was "copied almost word for word," even though that's completely irrelevant to Nick's claims. Yet, he finds it necessary to start his review with "Like almost all reviews by Darwinists, [Matzke's] begins with a genuflection to the Dover trial..."

I used to call Dembski the king of chutzpah, but I think Behe has dethroned him.

Olorin,

Now that Behe has disabled comments on his blog, I guess he will show up here, right?

Noting PvM's comment I should say "Now that Behe or Amazon has disabled comments on his blog..."

Either way, he's welcome here, where comments will not be disabled.

What I find particularly sad about Behe is that, by virtue of having academic tenure, he is a genuine waste of educational resources. I certainly wouldn't want to be taught by a professor who, despite all evidence to the contrary, persists in clinging to an interpretation of biological data that is neither logically tenable nor scientifically acceptable.

The fact that he refuses to address the substantive criticisms of his work, and refuses to engage in any kind of rational scientific debate about it, indicates that what he is doing ain't science.

When was Darwin's Black Box published? The late '90s IIRC. In the last 8+ years, how much data has Behe's lab turned out based on his ID "science"? None at all.

He's just a waste of space.

Nigel D: The fact that he refuses to address the substantive criticisms of his work, and refuses to engage in any kind of rational scientific debate about it, indicates that what he is doing ain't science.

Stanton:

You're right. I should have said "... is one of several things that indicates what he is doing isn't science."

But I stand by my last sentence: Behe is a waste of space.

A far more productive researcher could use the money he is wasting, and the University office space he occupies, to actually teach students some worthwhile biology.

Not to sound spiteful, but, I agree. Is Behe even the least bit interested in renewing his tenure, or is he content to rot on his misbegotten laurels at the DI?

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

I started a thread entitled "Re: The TREE review of The Edge of Evolution, etc." in the Customer Discussions area of The Edge of Evolution on Amazon. Feel free to post comments related to Nick Matzke's review or Behe's responses over there.

http://www.amazon.com/Re-TREE-review-Edge-Evolution/forum/Fx3M6U1ZSNZ1FVG/Tx3NJOA8XKZTAZM/1/

what happened to freedom of speech. the editors continue to make the fiat decision to remove anything i have to say regarding the topics at hand. what a bunch of prejudiced individuals. you have absolutely minimal evidences (no matter how you want to construe the reasonable definition of scientific processes towards working toward supporting you hypothesis regarding chemicals to living ecosystems)to support you vastly qualitative wishful thinking personal agenda driven assertions (on the public tit) in order to continue your "livelyhood" regardless of what real evidence demonstrates!!!!!! you pack of illegitimate social-suckers!!!!! I dare you to post this you mental midgets!!!!!

Having fun over at Telic Thoughts:
http://telicthoughts.com/historical-claims-require-evidence/

To be fair, there's perhaps little point in Behe answering 4) if he thinks he's answered 3). But ignoring fully half of all your points is still pretty dismal. Especially damning is his avoidance of the two points on flagella, given how central an example he's made it for so long.

I've wondered before, and I still wonder:

Could Lehigh U actually sack Behe for, y'know, not actually doing his job?

I wonder if his job description mentions such radical concepts as "teaching biochemistry to students" or "conducting scientific research"? He seems to devote far more time to his career as an antiscience writer than to either of these items.

Could Lehigh U actually sack Behe for, y’know, not actually doing his job?

Could Lehigh U actually sack Behe for, y’know, not actually doing his job?

— Nigel D

Torbjorn, those are good points.

I think, at the end of the day, it comes down to the precise wording of Behe's contract with Lehigh. I have no idea how such things are done in the USA, and I'm not a lawyer, but, if the contract stipulates such things as research and teaching and he is demonstrably not doing such things, then he is in breach of contract.

Of course, if Lehigh did sack him, you can just imagine how much fuss the DI will make of it: "the only ID advocate with a relevant tenured position sacked for his personal opinions - it's another example of the liberal lefty pinko Darwinist conspiracy".

BTW, for the record I think that selling out to pseudoscience even after getting tenure is morally wrong. But like deliberately misreprsenting evolution in Sunday School, which I also find reprehensible, it is legal, and probably must be in a free country.

In discussions with creationists, we need to spell out clearly what the term means.

his mistaken but obsessive-held view that evolution is “random” in a metaphysical sense meaning “purposeless.”

I think some people don't understand tenure. The whole point of tenure is to protect professors who advocate unpopular views. People like Behe in other words. Sure, giving someone tenure includes the risk that you give them the lifetime job of advocating crank views, which is why getting a tenured position is so hard and why considering whether or not someone is a crank is a perfectly good thing to take into account when deciding to award a tenured position.

But there is no way to take away Behe's job without nuking the whole tenure system. In fact, everyone should positively support his right to do what he is doing. Kevin Padian has said the same thing repeatedly.

(Plus, I think he teaches general biochemistry, so it's not like he does nothing. Even when you have tenure there are various other things you have to compete for -- lab space, merit-based pay raises, etc. I imagine Behe hasn't done so well with those given lack of research. But that's a different issue.)

Official Disclaimer My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.

I DO LOVES ME SOME BEHE!

In my haste I managed to forget Behe is tenured.

I guess one could have a discussion whether tenure should protect what can be positively identified as anti-science. But as Nick says it doesn't matter because the purpose with tenure is to have a bullet-proof system to protect people from others actions, regardless if they have a basis for them or not. Conflicts have a way of ruining work and reputations, and people may take advantage of that. As I understand it, the system works well compared to previous systems, or is at least assumed to do so.

Now I remember that last time this discussion surfaced, someone noted that it is quite a trick to first become tenured and later come out as a denialist crank. We won't see many Behe's, so we might as well enjoy the ones we have. :-P

The whole point of tenure is to protect professors who advocate unpopular views. People like Behe in other words. Sure, giving someone tenure includes the risk that you give them the lifetime job of advocating crank views,

— Nick Matzke

We won’t see many Behe’s, so we might as well enjoy the ones we have.

Out of curiosity I checked out Behe's RateMyProfessor page. He's only go 7 comments, mostly pretty average. But for BIOS295, I found the following two comments:

"Easy, almost trivially so, with little to no intelectual rigour in the material. Very dull class and Prof. Take this if you are a fan of self-obssesed psuedoscience, otherwise steer clear."

"This is an easy writing intensive- one short paper (2 pgs) a week, and a 5 page midterm and final. the catch? its not controversies on biology... its controverSY in biology... all you talk about is evolution"

I think it's clear that he's pushing ID rather than science, at least in this class. Does this count as "fulfilling his teaching obligations"?

I wonder if he tells his students about Pandas Thumb?

chunkdz weighs in with his usual total lack of relevance and coherence.

SSDD.

Stanton: The fact that he [Behe] hasn’t bothered to physically do any scientific experiments, using or not using Intelligent Design...,

Raven, don't forget Behe believes in angels: "...a Darwinist cannot invoke angels...because the angels are on OUR side." Michael Behe, Calvary Chapel, March 6th, 2002.

an ectoplasm meter, godometer, angelimiter, ID detector or other similar instruments

One wonders if Behe is being treated like those who questioned the Darwinists who claimed the human body had 25 vestigial organs; or those who questioned the Darwinists belief that the ceolcanyth was a cross-over between land and water, until a live one happened to be found. Or maybe those that questioned the human fetal growth pictures that made it look like humans went through stages looking like fetal pigs, cows, etc.

Funny how time made the non-believers the ones who were right and the darwinists the ones who were completely mistaken.

Makes you wonder if the Darwinists of their day were just as sure of themselves.

I don't think Behe has made any argument as stupid and uninformed as the darwinists of Darwins time.

Evolutionists who make dumb guesses about what really occurred with macro-evolution have noone but themselves to blame not believeing i evolution because they made ridiculous claims that have been subsequently proven to be as ridiculous as God created many 5,000 years ago.

Sure current day Darwinists want to excuse all those mistakes, and say, believe us this time...were really not making it up this time.

Bach the creo troll: One wonders if Behe is being treated like those who questioned the Darwinists who claimed the human body had 25 vestigial organs;

One wonders if Behe is being treated like those who questioned the Darwinists…

Bach the creo troll: Funny how time made the non-believers the ones who were right and the darwinists the ones who were completely mistaken.

Bach--

I don't have a clue what you mean by "Darwinist" but nobody tries to pretend all Darwin's ideas were correct. The difference between scientists studying evolution and creationists is that when scientists are proven wrong, they correct their mistakes-- while creationists go on making the same false charges over and over again, no matter how many times they are corrected.

For probably the thousandth time-- no, finding living coelacanths did NOT disprove the hypothesis that coelacanths are related to the first land animals. (That's the same dumb creationists charge as, if humans are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?) In fact, scientists weren't upset when living coelacanths showed up; they were thrilled. You can easily check this, so there is no excuse for ever repeating that idiotic charge again. (But will that stop you? I suspect not. At least, next time, will you please spell coelacanth right?)

"""The word “random” does not appear in the Origin of Species. Search for yourself. Darwin based his theory on natural selection, which is nonrandom. """

Natural selection of what??

What was 'naturally selected' was not randomly generated?

If species create several random traits and one of those traits is naturally selected, it is by definition adoption of a random trait.

Perhaps darwin had not eveolved to the point of using a term like random...maybe he used something more pedestrian like...'accidental'.. Ohh, gee look, he used 'accidental' like it was going out of style!!

I love how all the smart, brilliant evolutionists immediately, with no evidence label me a bible thumping creationist. I am not. I believe in Evolution, I just don't believe evolutionist extremists have all the answers they claim to have and that history had proven alot of the original claims to be bogus. Scientists types should be more careful.
Evolutionist mistakes make a lot of great ammunition for the other side, then the great scietists are reduced to name calling......
i luckily am not one (a scientist) so I can go on blissfully unaware of my outstanding superior intelligence....

I think we have a misunderstanding of the word "random" here. In science or math, the word "random" has a very specific meaning, different from, say, "chaotic." To the ID crowd, I suspect that "random" is nothing more than the opposite of "purposeful."

Are these not the words of a evolutionist:

Peter Forey, Nature Magazine:

The discovery of Latimeria raised hopes of gathering direct information on the transition of fish to amphibians, for there was then a long-held belief that coelacanths were close to the ancestry of tetrapods. ...But studies of the anatomy and physiology of Latimeria have found this theory of relationship to be wanting and the living coelacanth's reputation as a missing link seems unjustified.""

If I am wrong, just let me know then call Peter. And just how far off were the scientist on when the ceolacynth went exinct? 80 Million years. Close enough for evolutionary work...

I have a very simple question...where are all the intermdediate forms in the fossil record?

Darwins theory requires a process of extermination which acted on an enormous scale, so to the number of intermediate varieties, which must have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Even today, geology does not show any finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection to evolution theory.

Keep in mind, for darwin to have been right, the internediate forms must have existed.

Are these not the words of a evolutionist: Peter Forey, Nature Magazine: "....But studies of the anatomy and physiology of Latimeria have found this theory of relationship to be wanting and the living coelacanth’s reputation as a missing link seems unjustified.”

If I am wrong, just let me know then call Peter. And just how far off were the scientist on when the ceolacynth went exinct? 80 Million years. Close enough for evolutionary work…

ceolcanyth was a cross-over between land and water,

the living coelacanth’s reputation as a missing link seems unjustified.”

where are all the intermdediate forms in the fossil record

What was ‘naturally selected’ was not randomly generated?

IANAB, so I was not entirely general enough:

"Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition." (Wkipedia.)

Bach says:

"I love how all the smart, brilliant evolutionists immediately, with no evidence label me a bible thumping creationist."

You know, if you don't want to be labeled a bible thumping creationist, it's not such a hot idea to repeat all of their old, disproven claims. Why don't you spend some time on TalkOrigins looking up coelacanths, transitional forms, and Haeckel's drawings of embryos before you throw out the same old, boring creationist garbage that's been answered a thousand times?

And while you're at it, you might want to learn how science in general operates. The fact that scientists admit it when new data shows their previous conclusions wrong is the great strength of science. The reason the theory of evolution is highly unlikely ever to be discarded isn't because Darwin was blessed with some revealed truth from God; it's because Darwin's ideas have been tested over and over again. What he got wrong (for instance, funghi being more closely related to plants than animals) has been discarded. The holes in his theory (exactly how inheritance is passed down) have been, and continue to be, filled in. What he got right (descent with modification driven by natural selection) has stood through tens of thousands of tests and challenges. The silliness coming out of the creationist movement (and that includes intelligent design) hasn't even come close to a real challenge to evolution.

So, when you keep pointing out that some assumptions biologists have made were later discarded-- as if that were a black mark against science!-- yeah, you do sound like a bible-thumping creationist. If you don't like that label, change your own behavior to a serious attempt to understand modern evolutionary theory, and I can absolutely guarantee you, the creo label will go away.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Even today, geology does not show any finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection to evolution theory.

The living coelacanths of the genus Latimeria are not considered "missing links." They are more appropriately considered to be "living fossils," given as how they resemble larger versions of their nearest known relatives, the coelacanths of the Cretaceous genus Macropoma.

People mistakenly think of Latimeria as being a "missing link" because coelacanths happen to be the closest living non-tetrapod relatives of Tetrapoda (the vertebrate lineage containing amphibians and amniotes). However, coelacanths were on one branch of Sarcopterygia, lungfish were on another branch, and the Tetrapods were an offshoot of a third branch.

Having said this, there are countless examples of "intermediate" or "transitional forms." The only problem, Bach, is that you just need to know what you are looking for, AND what you are looking at.

Transitional forms can include a primitive form that contains traits shared by more advanced species, as well as traits from other groups, such as the early Devonian placoderm, Brindabellaspis, which, despite having jaws and paired fins like other gnathostome vertebrates, has skull and brain anatomies similar to that of the armored jawless fish Cephalaspis. Or, one can consider an entire lineage to be a series of "transitional forms," in that you observe and document the changes, and trends that have occurred in that lineage's history, such as the immense fossil record of the oyster genera of Ostrea and Crassostrea, which stretch way back somewhere within the middle of the Mesozoic Era.

Now that I've said this, do realize, Bach, that creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have absolutely no interest in answering questions of any sorts. Creationists and their respective websites allege that "intermediate/transitional forms do not exist" and when shown examples, they either dismiss the evidence out of hand, or go through grotesque mental contortions in order to disqualify the evidence for some piddling (and false) reason. It's true, this one creationist website had a page where the author went through a list of prehistoric proboscideans, and dismissed every one of them, from Moeritherium and Phoima to Mammuthus as being "different kinds of elephants."

You have to realize that the proponents of Creationism do not seek answers, they seek to keep their flocks stupid and wholly unreceptive to outside ideas. Really, you shouldn't go around accusing us of "name-calling," especially when you invent the made-up term "evolutionist extremist" without an obvious intent of defining it. Furthermore, scientists make mistakes all the time, but, only creationists seek to use these "mistakes" as "weapons," to use as metaphorical dung with which to smear in the face of their enemies. This speaks volumes about the fact of Creationism's scientific sterility. Scientists use their mistakes to learn from them, in order to glean any possible insight from them.

One more thing, Bach, if you do not want to be labeled, wrongfully or rightfully, as a "bible-thumping Creationist," it would behoove you to not talk like one. What sort of questions of yours have "evolutionist extremists" not been able to answer? You do must realize that Science can only answer questions about the observable Universe, and not the supernatural, and that Evolutionary Biology in the process of answering questions that directly relate to the descent and modification of generations of living, and once-living organisms.

One more thing, Biology is wholly unconcerned with philosophy, so, trying to scold and berate biologists for not answering "What's the meaning/purpose/point of Life?" is as absurd as spitting a curse on the Ancient Jews for not having written cheesecake recipes into the Bible.

And Noah had a Big Boat full of dinosaurs and disobedient children [...]

Stanton: """You do must realize that Science can only answer questions about the observable Universe, and not the supernatural"""

What a crock, its the scientist that insist on bringing up the Bible and the supernatural everytime you try to have a simple discussion. You'd think they knew the Bible like the back of their hand. If scientists know nothing about the Buible, and don't concern themselves with the supernatural, why do they feel so compelled to comment on it all the time??

""""Mike Elzinga said:
Bach Wrote:
''''Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Even today, geology does not show any finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection to evolution theory.''''

This is a tactic of the ID/Creationists. They set up claims about what the evidence must be (strawmen), pretend to “refute” those claims, and then pretend that they are speaking as legitimate scientists who see all the “faults” with evolution but are being repressed for speaking out. """"

Good one Mike, quite the comeback. In fact I have admitted I am not a scientist and are thus not capable of looking down on my fellow humans as complete idiots. My point was that the evolution scietists types simply jump to conslusions and attack everyone as ID/creationists who dares question their theories.

By the way, it is interesting you thought my quote above was a TACTIC of ID/creationists.
THE QUOTE WAS NOT ENTIRELY MINE, I WAS ACTUALLY 'QUOTING' DARWIN, FROM A LITTLE BOOK CALLED EVOLUTION OF THE SPECIES. YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF IT.
But its nice tio know even Darwin is now considered an ID/creationist for daring to question his own theories.

Well done Mike. thanks for playing.

Stanton said:"""you invent the made-up term “evolutionist extremist” without an obvious intent of defining it. """

I thought the definition was obvious, its an evolutionist who would even claim Darwin himself was an ID/creationist for having dared to question evolution theory.

Which, by the way, Mike, the evolution extremist, just did in the last post. Please follow along in your hymnal...

But you still hven't answered why so many scientist, who say lay people can't possibly grasp all the complicated details of evolution, are perfectly at home claiming they can devine all the details of ID/creationism, which they admit, they haven't even studied.??

""The fact that scientists admit it when new data shows their previous conclusions wrong is the great strength of science""

No, it shows they finally have to cope to it when the evidence against them is overwhelming. Try to get a scientist working evolution today to admit he may be as wrong as other scientists were 100 years ago. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN MY FIREND.
Of course the scietists from 100 years ago, thought the same thing....ohh sure those guys in the 1700s were idiots, but in 1870, why were modern scientists, we've got this down pate.

Bach wrote:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Even today, geology does not show any finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection to evolution theory."

Regardless of who wrote this or when, the question is, do you think that this is an accurate description of the fossil record today? If you do, you are sadly mistaken, as the other Stanton has already pointed out.

There is indeed no requirement for "every stratum full of such intermediate links". Depending on your definition, that requirement is either completely absurd or easily met. However, there are certainly many examples of "finely graduated chains". This observastion alone is enough to completely falsify any "poof" scenario. The fact is that the fossil record is entirely consistent with the predictions of the theory of evolution. If you disagree please describe why. If you are not a scientist, why do you presume to tell profesional scientists how to interpret the results in their own field of expertise?

By the way, evolutionary biologists admit that they were wrong about lots of things. Why do you not think that this is strength for science? Do you think that it would be better if they never admitted that they were wrong? How could that even be a possibility if science is driven by data? Scientists admit that they were wrong when new data becomes available. If you never do any research you never get any new data. However, that cannot be reasonably interpreted as evidence that you were never wrong.

Bach: Stanton: """You do must realize that Science can only answer questions about the observable Universe, and not the supernatural""" What a crock, its the scientist that insist on bringing up the Bible and the supernatural everytime you try to have a simple discussion. You'd think they knew the Bible like the back of their hand. If scientists know nothing about the Buible, and don't concern themselves with the supernatural, why do they feel so compelled to comment on it all the time??

Bach said: But you still hven’t answered why so many scientist, who say lay people can’t possibly grasp all the complicated details of evolution, are perfectly at home claiming they can devine all the details of ID/creationism, which they admit, they haven’t even studied.??

Bach: ""The fact that scientists admit it when new data shows their previous conclusions wrong is the great strength of science"" No, it shows they finally have to cope to it when the evidence against them is overwhelming. Try to get a scientist working evolution today to admit he may be as wrong as other scientists were 100 years ago. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN MY FIREND. Of course the scietists from 100 years ago, thought the same thing....ohh sure those guys in the 1700s were idiots, but in 1870, why were modern scientists, we've got this down pate.

David Stanton: By the way, evolutionary biologists admit that they were wrong about lots of things. Why do you not think that this is strength for science? Do you think that it would be better if they never admitted that they were wrong? How could that even be a possibility if science is driven by data? Scientists admit that they were wrong when new data becomes available. If you never do any research you never get any new data. However, that cannot be reasonably interpreted as evidence that you were never wrong.

you can’t have random selection

coelacanths were on one branch of Sarcopterygia, lungfish were on another branch, and the Tetrapods were an offshoot of a third branch.

In fact I have admitted I am not a scientist and are thus not capable of looking down on my fellow humans as complete idiots.

If Nick is not too busy and is paying attention, Bach should be headed for the Bathroom Wall fairly soon.

By the way, it is interesting you thought my quote above was a TACTIC of ID/creationists. THE QUOTE WAS NOT ENTIRELY MINE, I WAS ACTUALLY ‘QUOTING’ DARWIN, FROM A LITTLE BOOK CALLED EVOLUTION OF THE SPECIES. YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF IT.

trrll says:

""""So if you are not an ID/creationist, you have the dubious distinction of rediscovering one of their most notorious debating tactics""""

No trrll, my quote was a complete thought of Darwin and not out of context. I just wanted to see how long it took the closed minded evolution extremists to label Darwin an ID/creationist based on his own writings...thus proving my point.

This was a completely scientific experiment. the test was not weighted. Darwin actually thought his theory could be mistaken if alot of transitional forms aren't found in the fossil record...but, hey, nice try.

It seems evololutionist extremist spend more time trying to identufy and label ID/creationists then actually trying to prove their theories.

"""Stanton said:
David Stanton: By the way, evolutionary biologists admit that they were wrong about lots of things. Why do you not think that this is strength for science? Do you think that it would be better if they never admitted that they were wrong? """

I thought I did address this. My problem is not that scientists FINALLY admit when they are wrong. My problem is that they are so darn sure of themselves before future facts prove them wrong. Darwin was not that way, he actually questioned the validity of his own theory and was open to evidence proving him wrong.

Anyway, you may not believe it, but I actually believe in evolution, I just think some people are a little to smug and self assured of their own brillance, when history should teach scientists to be a little more humble in their pronouncements.

Kind of like the meterologists that predicted higher levels of hurricanes these last two years after Katrina. They were dead wrong..of course they will give you all kinds of excuses why that happened they just won't say..look, we don't have the data to accurate make predictions that we shouldn't be making in the first place, except for our own arrogance.

Anyway, I have to run..but you all have proven my point. Your so blinded by feeling you have to be on the lookout for ID/Creationists you've closed your minds to any other possible reasoning. Tragic really.

Its similar to how the media has to label every piece of information, ohh, this proves global warming, or that proves evolution. Some things simply don't prove anything and just are.

You may want to ponder why you fear ID/creationists so much that they must be search out, punished and banned for heresy.
Do you really have so much to fear from so crazies crying in the wilderness?? Sorry to question the Orthodoxy of the Evolutionary Church. Please don't send the Bishops to punish me....

Mike says: ""If you were really here to learn, the above condescending comment is uncalled for."""

Your kidding right? I was immediately labelled a nut job ID/Creationist. I did not personnaly attack anyone.

Its funny this entire post is about attacking a fellow scientist named Micheal Behe, about how stupid he is, even posts about getting him fired or taking away his tenure, and yet I'm the one who's making uncalled for comments.

I know what you'll say, he's a heretic and he desrved all the torture we can meat out on him...but were good scientists and you shouldn't question us no sir.

So you all gang up on Behe and while one holds him down and another kicks him in the nuts, I get called on the carpet for questioning your tactics...hmmm.

GHere's a bit of what has been said about Behe on this site, a actual scientist. Please compare it to my generalizations about scientists through history:

- Behe is obsessed with making money
- Behe is constantly lying about everything.
- Behe couldn’t possibly believe anything he writes, nobody could be that stupid.
- Behe’s job is to be a liar.
- Behe keeps lying no matter what,
- Behe does not care that every sane person knows he’s a liar.
- Behes customers are the god-did-it everything-is-magic creationists .

Pot, meet kettle.

"""Darwin based his theory on natural selection, which is nonrandom. The source of variation was unknown."""

Again I ask, the selection of what? And wasn't the 'what' random, or as darwin called it 'accidental'.

If something was selected, that something had to exist, why did it exist. If the building blocks of the flagellum were naturally selected, what created them in the first place?

And I suppose each building block had to be a 'trait' that would be passed down, for some unknown reason. I guess darwinists would say, God, made the traits be passed down so he could build a flagellum.

Otherwise, you would have to conclude that the creation of of the flagellum was in fact accidental, or random, in that natuaral selection occurs after construction.

as an amateur scientist I enjoy reading Panda's Thumb. I also enjoy reading opposing views. Bach's views are not opposing, they are irritating. Please don't respond to this idiot, he will just fill this thread up with garbage. DON'T RESPOND!

Bach wrote:

"My problem is not that scientists FINALLY admit when they are wrong. My problem is that they are so darn sure of themselves before future facts prove them wrong."

So you actually have no problem with science or evolution, you just think some scientists should be more humble. Agreed. However, the whole point is that science is driven by evidence, so every real scientist must be humble in exactly the right way. They must all bow to the evidence. That is the only thing that is really important and that is the thing that creationists don't do, ever. It is creationists who are so arrogant as to believe that they have all the answers and are never wrong. If you want something to complain about, try that.

Other have accused you of being a trol. Since you failed to respond to even one of my questions regarding the actual scientific evidence, I am afraid I must agree. Several of us have tried to discuss science with you, but you have not responded. You can criticize scientists as arrogant or anything else, but the real issuse is the evidence. If you don't like scientists, just go away. Reality will still be there whether you like scientists or not.

And by the way, criticizing real scientists for being arrogant and then defending someone who you admit abuses science by deliberately lying is hypocritical in the extreme. Behe deliberately ignores all evidence, that is the very worst form of arrogance. If you would rather discuss personality traits than science, how about the pathological lier who denies any evidence when it proves him wrong? What do you think the response of the scientific community should be when this charlatan tries to force his personal religious views down children's throats at taxpayer expense? Do you really think our treatment of Behe here is uncalled for?

You did at least respond to one scientific issue regarding selection. The answer to your question is that random variation is selected on. The variation exists because it arose in the population randomly. Selection can act on intermediate stages, so cumulative selection can be responsible for the production of complex structures. The entire structure need not arise in one step as you imply. As others have noted, claiming that you believe in evolution and then using creationists arguments against it is not evidence of honesty. You can't really believe in evolutioon unless you at least understand the basics. Scientists may not have all the answers, but assuming they have none is even more arrogant than a scientist assuming he does have all the answers.

Bach said: ...my quote was a complete thought of Darwin and not out of context. I just wanted to see how long it took the closed minded evolution extremists to label Darwin an ID/creationist based on his own writings…thus proving my point.

I thought I did address this. My problem is not that scientists FINALLY admit when they are wrong. My problem is that they are so darn sure of themselves before future facts prove them wrong.

...history should teach scientists to be a little more humble in their pronouncements.

You may want to ponder why you fear ID/creationists so much that they must be search out, punished and banned for heresy. Do you really have so much to fear from so crazies crying in the wilderness?? Sorry to question the Orthodoxy of the Evolutionary Church. Please don’t send the Bishops to punish me….

Here’s a bit of what has been said about Behe on this site, a actual scientist.

Please compare it to my generalizations about scientists through history:

Pot, meet kettle.

Again I ask, the selection of what? And wasn’t the ‘what’ random, or as darwin called it ‘accidental’.

If something was selected, that something had to exist, why did it exist. If the building blocks of the flagellum were naturally selected, what created them in the first place?

Otherwise, you would have to conclude that the creation of of the flagellum was in fact accidental, or random, in that natuaral selection occurs after construction.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record

Bach says:

"Try to get a scientist working evolution today to admit he may be as wrong as other scientists were 100 years ago. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN MY FIREND [sic]."

You know, for once Bach has made a good point. It's true that no scientist working today thinks he is " 'AS' wrong as other scientists were 100 years ago." Because of the progressive nature of science, a lot of points that were open questions 100 years ago are now settled facts.

For instance, the scientist today knows genes are made of DNA, whose molecule is shaped like a double helix.
Scientists 100 years ago were just rediscovering Mendel's work on genes, and had no idea at all what genes were made of. (Until 1943, their best guess was protein.)

The scientist today also knows how to date fossil-containing formations by using the half-lives of radioactive isotopes. 100 years ago, scientists were just discovering atomic energy. Before then, they assumed the sun couldn't have existed for billions of years, because no fuel they knew of could burn that long.

Today, scientists admit they are still struggling to understand abiogenesis. They are still working their way through mountains of data from genome studies. The field of evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology) is still coming up with surprising new findings on practically a daily basis. So scientists know that some of their best guesses today will be wrong.

But scientists also know they have narrowed the field of uncertainty. They know what a gene is. They know how to get an accurate idea of the earth's age. They know that radioisotope data, fossil sequences, and molecular data all tell the same story. So, is there any chance they could be AS wrong as scientists a hundred years ago? To quote (with spelling correction) Bach-- NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, MY FRIEND.

Good job hoary puccoon,

While it is true that scientists today believe they know so much more than those of 100 years ago, the question would really be how much more? Do we know 50% or do we know 5%?

And 100 years from now, will we look back and say, gee, look how rudimentary our thinking was. All I'm asking is that they not look as stupid by summarily rejecting any thought outside of their little piece of the puzzle.

Often times, puzzles are solved not by those diligently laboring in the laboratory with set theories on how things had to work, but when you riding in your car with you kids, or drinking a beer with your buddies and suddenly a thought comes to you because you were open to ideas.

I've had my best insights regarding my work, when I'm not actually doing the work. Lighten up, open your mind and be tolerant...is that too much to ask?

I’ve had my best insights regarding my work, when I’m not actually doing the work. Lighten up, open your mind and be tolerant…is that too much to ask?

Bach: Often times, puzzles are solved not by those diligently laboring in the laboratory with set theories on how things had to work, but when you riding in your car with you kids, or drinking a beer with your buddies and suddenly a thought comes to you because you were open to ideas.

Bach asks--

"100 years from now, will we look back and say, gee, look how rudimentary our thinking was?"

Unless the entire scientific enterprise gets shut down, you'd better believe that in 100 years our descendants will look back and say, "gee, was their thinking ever rudimentary back then."

But I once heard a chemistry professor say, "A day in the library is worth a week in the lab." Sure, ideas are going to come from people who hang loose and 'think outside the box.' But first, they to have to understand where the box is! The new ideas aren't likely to come from people who don't understand current knowledge well enough to build on it.

Look back at what people (including me) have written above. We're not threatened by the challenges you're bringing up; we're bored. We've heard the old coelacanth 'problem' over and over and over again. Every time, people take the time to correct the misunderstanding. I have yet to see a creationist, IDer, or whatever you want to call yourself, who has acknowledged he was wrong or that his knowledge was incomplete or based on a misunderstanding. It's the creationists who never seem to be willing to think outside of THEIR box.

Why don't you try it, Bach? Why don't you take some time to understand modern evolutionary theory before you start criticising? Ask some honest questions, and see how fast people jump in to be helpful. And don't worry about being put down for being stupid because you don't know it already, or because you have to have some terms explained in everyday language. People who are learning and expanding their knowledge always look bright.

Again I ask, the selection of what? And wasn’t the ‘what’ random, or as darwin called it ‘accidental’.

Trrll wrote: "The lack of respect genuine scientists have for ID/creationists is...due to the fundamental dishonesty."

Let's start a new catch-phrase: ID stands for "intellectually dishonest."

That's very catchy, Paul.

Behe has a new post up at his Amazon blog, in which he promises to address Ian Musgrave's open letter which appeared on PT a while back.

I must have just caught him posting it, because when I first opened it, the comments were enabled. So I typed a comment, hit the "submit" button, and when the page reloaded, my comment was not there, and comments were disabled.

Whatta wanker.

Albatrossity: Behe has a new post up at his Amazon blog, in which he promises to address Ian Musgrave's open letter which appeared on PT a while back. I must have just caught him posting it, because when I first opened it, the comments were enabled. So I typed a comment, hit the "submit" button, and when the page reloaded, my comment was not there, and comments were disabled. Whatta wanker.

Dear Bach,
In case you didn't know, ten years ago Behe denied that the fossil evidence for the evolution of cetacea (whales, porpoises) from land-based mammals was convincing. He also questioned some basic biochemical evidence pointing to the evolution of human beings from apes. He didn't necessarily deny all evidence for common ancestry at that time, since he accepted both the vast age of the earth and stated that even theistic evolution made sense to him. However, he was expressing doubt of some specific aspects of the evidence for common ancestry.

Now that ten years have passed since Behe's first book, he has written that he accepts that fossil evidence for cetaceans from land-lubbing ancestors exists, and accepts the biochemical arguments in favor of humans evolving from apes.

Yet you bring up "gaps in the fossil record" apparently without having read either Behe's acknowledgements of the major arguments in favor of common ancestry, and perhaps without even having studied the fossil record, and it's orderliness and general progression over time and biogeographical space.

"""Paul Burnett said:
Trrll wrote: “The lack of respect genuine scientists have for ID/creationists is…due to the fundamental dishonesty.”

Let’s start a new catch-phrase: ID stands for “intellectually dishonest.”"""

Then I guess we would say the same for those that gave us 25 vestigial organs and the celocantyh debacle.

Then I guess we would say the same for those that gave us 25 vestigial organs and the celocantyh debacle.

Bach asks: Lighten up, open your mind and be tolerant…is that too much to ask?

Bach, it would help your misbegotten charade if you were to learn how to organize your thoughts, do some research before you make accusations, and most importantly, learn how to spell correctly.

”Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Even today, geology does not show any finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection to evolution theory.”

Feh. Who did NOT know this was from Origin of Species, since it is second only to the "eye" passage as a favorite nugget from the cretinist quote-mine.

Bach is such a classic troll! "Not a creationist"!? Lying is second-nature to them.

Thanks to trrll for this
"The lack of respect genuine scientists have for ID/creationists is not due to their departure from accepted theory–it is due to the fundamental dishonesty. And you with your distortions of Darwin’s words, appear to be following along this sad path."

Bach seems to think that a person like Behe is criticized for not "believing" an orthodoxy of evolution. This is just no way to define this situation. His science is being criticized to the point that it can not stand up as science.

The big argument that Stein et al and our friend Bach, is that they want to sell to the general public (read as less scientifically educated than scientists) is that Science is persecuting them. Expelling them. Belittling them. Conspiring to eliminate their faith. Where does this paranoia come in? I know its part biblical to feel that the true faithful must be persecuted, but why pick on science?

I for one am forever grateful to the Science and what it has done for me personally (career and health) as well as inspiring me (any thing to do with the Hubble telescope fills me with awe.) These folks just need to stick with Dyson's two windows idea. Both religion and science look at the same world from different points of view. God does not have to be proved. Believe or don't. Just quit trying to distort science to serve your religious ends. Leave it at that and say good evening to Mr. Bach.

-- sigh-- I feel like Charlie Brown, trying to kick the football.

I suppose it's remotely possible there was a "celocantyh debacle." I have no idea what a "celocantyh" is, so I really couldn't say. But finding living coelacanths was certainly no debacle, as numerous people pointed out to Bach. You would think he could have at least been polite enough to correct his spelling, to show that he had read what people took the trouble to explain to him.

He started out the same way all the creo trolls do-- pretending to be interested in learning something. But no. His mind is made up, and no amount of sweet reason will change it. He doesn't understand evolution, and he doesn't understand how science operates. And he doesn't want to understand.

He doesn't understand, either, what Jesus of Nazareth was trying to teach people about honesty, humility and respect for others. But I suppose that's not our problem.

I have no idea what a “celocantyh” is,

To get back to Behe's tenure status at Lehigh. Tenure is so important to the free propagation of ideas that we have to be prepared to tolerate a few screwballs. During my more than 30 year career in academia I have met some of those:
A Holocaust denier who made detailed calculations of the duty cycle of crematory ovens
An anthropologist who thought the main purpose of his discipline was to undergird the literal truth of the bible
Three or four young-earth creationists in the physics department (including one who taught astronomy!)
A guy who thought -- and freely told his classes -- that sexual relations between a professor and his student were not only proper but desirable
A chemist who thought he had revolutionized elementary-particle theory with his theory of triondynamics
A chemistry professor who published articles showing how the movement of women into the workplace was the cause of most of the evils of society
...and several more I can't even remember.
All in all, these folks stick out like sore thumbs but constitute a small minority of faculty members. I suppose they can be compared to the small number of unfortunates who have sickle-cell anemia as a consequence of the evolution of malaria resistance in a much larger population.