Behe takes the stand in Dover

GoSeminoles! · Oct 19, 2005

From the NY Times;

HARRISBURG, Pa., Oct. 17 - Michael J. Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, has spent the last eight years traveling to colleges promoting intelligent design as a challenge to the theory of evolution.

On Monday Mr. Behe brought his lecture and slides to a closely watched trial in federal district court, where a judge will decide whether the town of Dover, Pa., violated the boundary between church and state when it required students to hear a statement about intelligent design in a high school biology class.

...Asked whether intelligent design is religion, or "based on any religious beliefs," Mr. Behe said, "No, it isn't." "It is based entirely on observable, physical evidence from nature," he said.

...For three weeks, the plaintiffs called expert witnesses, including a biologist, a theologian, a paleontologist and two philosophers, who testified that intelligent design did not meet the definition of science because it could not be tested or disproved. They said that intelligent design proponents had not published scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals and that most scientists did not question evolution's basic tenets.

Mr. Behe testified that intelligent design was science and that it made testable claims. Mr. Behe said he had been able to publish only one article on intelligent design in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, a piece he co-wrote in Protein Science in 2004.

I was not aware of even this one. Apparently, Behe is referring to:
Behe M.J., Snoke D.W. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci13:2651-2664.

Does anyone know what this article says?

Robert Muise, a defense lawyer, asked Mr. Behe, "Do you perceive a bias against publishing articles on intelligent design in peer-reviewed journals?"
Mr. Behe said he did. "My ideas on intelligent design have been subjected to a thousand times more scrutiny than anything I've written before."

And why would they not be? If I write an article saying my falling apple experiment resulted in an apple falling to the ground, it will be treated in a ho-hum manner by those reviewing submissions to the scientific journals. But if I report that instead of falling, the apple appeared to fly around the meadow on its own power before jetting into space, then I imagine my article would be reviewed much more skeptically.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Mr. Behe. Neither you nor anyone else has supplied any (haven't read your Protein Science paper, though).

Mr. Muise then asked whether natural selection could "explain the existence" of DNA, the immune system or blood clotting. Mr. Behe said no.

Behe is woefully wrong on this one. This guy is an academic hack.

Fortunately, I have good news. Not only did I save a lot of money on my car insurance, the judge's body language suggests he's not impressed by Behe:

As Mr. Behe's responses grew increasingly long and arcane, Judge John E. Jones III slumped in his chair. When Mr. Muise asked the judge whether he should stop for the day, Judge Jones sat up and agreed, saying, "We've certainly absorbed a lot, haven't we?"

Body language seldom lies.

Unfortunately, there is also this from the Washington Post:

More school boards are considering mandating mention of intelligent design. Randy Tomasacci, a school board member from Shickshinny, north of Harrisburg, said his board is debating whether to require teachers to spend a few days on intelligent design. "We're thinking about it," he said. "But we don't want to get sued out of existence."

Meanwhile, South Korea takes the lead in stem cell research. If we eschew real science in our public schools, what will it mean for our economic future? The primary economic advantage the US enjoys, for now, is being the world's engine of science and technology. If we disrupt the supply of home-grown scientific talent by yielding even a millimeter to pseudoscientific wackjobs, then this advantage will evaporate within a generation.

notto · Oct 19, 2005

http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps.04802904v1

It seems like the research he referenced doesn't really make any testable claims of design. He seems to be using the same old 'we don't know, therefore design' or 'here is a very specific problem that current understanding of evolution doesn't completely account for, therefore design'.

A quick scan of the paper doesn't reveal any testable claims or conclusions about design.

I think that Behe is confusing articles he has published with articles he has published on intelligent design.

TeddyKGB · Oct 19, 2005

How should high school science classes spend "a few days" on intelligent design? Maybe I could get my AP class through the biochemistry of blood clotting. Maybe. (Which would of course require that I know it backwards and forwards, which I absolutely do not).

What about my regular classes?

"This guy thinks structures X, Y and Z are too complex to have evolved. Lesson over."

Loudmouth · Oct 19, 2005

GoSeminoles! said:
I was not aware of even this one. Apparently, Behe is referring to:
Behe M.J., Snoke D.W. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci13:2651-2664.

Does anyone know what this article says?

You can read a critique of the paper, Theory is as Theory Does, at PandasThumb. Behe and Snoke tried to show how hard it is for something to evolve if one of the steps included a neutral, or non-selected, mutation. They produced these large numbers that were meant to suggest that it is impossible for evolution to include a non-selected mutation. However, using BnS's very calculations, we would expect this to happen every microsecond amongst bacteria. From the critique linked above:

And while this does seem prohibitive for large, multicellular eukaryotes, its actually easily achievable for bacteria. A population size of 109 is what one would find in a very small culture growing in a lab; even small handfuls of dirt, or the average human gut, will contain populations in excess of this number. Bacteria reproduce quickly; under optimal conditions for E. coli, 108 generations will occur in less than 40,000 years, a geological blink of the eye. Given that there are about 5x1030 bacteria on Earth (Whitman et al. 1998), we should expect the evolution of novel MR features to be an extremely common event an average of many times per microsecond even if we accept Behe and Snokes unrealistic assumptions.

I also noticed that BnS have written a rebuttal of the above critique but no abstract is available and the full paper requires a subscription. Anyone have access to it?

Lycaenidae · Oct 19, 2005

This is such a joke. I can't even believe it went to trial. If I was the judge I would have laughed them out of court and told them to take their supersticions back to the cave.

Dr.GH · Oct 19, 2005

I was not aware of even this one. Apparently, Behe is referring to:
Behe M.J., Snoke D.W. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci13:2651-2664.

Does anyone know what this article says?

Yeah, I read it last year. The debunking is on Panda's Thumb, Theory is as Theory Does. by Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright.

I think that John Lynch has an article in press with Protein Science with another critical take down.

I quess I am behind the curve on this one. I'll see if I can locate a copy.

GoSeminoles! · Oct 19, 2005

New stuff from the NY Times:

HARRISBURG, Pa., Oct. 18 - A leading architect of the intelligent-design movement defended his ideas in a federal courtroom on Tuesday and acknowledged that under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design.

This is will probably be a key piece of reasoning the court uses when it rules in favor of the plaintiffs. In Edwards v Aguillard the courts accepted a rigorous definition of a scientific theory provided by a brief from the NAS (I think). Astrology cannot meet the Edwards criteria and would therefore not be considered a scientific theory. If ID's scientific frontman uses a definition that equates it with astrology, then ID will also not meet the Edwards standard.

Other Behe tidbits:

The cross-examination of Professor Behe on Tuesday made it clear that intelligent-design proponents do not necessarily share the same definition of their own theory. Eric Rothschild, a lawyer representing the parents suing the school board, projected an excerpt from the "Pandas" textbook that said:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."

In that definition, Mr. Rothschild asked, couldn't the words "intelligent design" be replaced by "creationism" and still make sense? Professor Behe responded that that excerpt from the textbook was "somewhat problematic," and that it was not consistent with his definition of intelligent design.

Mr. Rothschild asked Professor Behe why then he had not objected to the passage since he was among the scientists who was listed as a reviewer of the book. Professor Behe said that although he had reviewed the textbook, he had reviewed only the section he himself had written, on blood clotting. Pressed further, he agreed that it was "not typical" for critical reviewers of scientific textbooks to review their own work.

This should not be surprising since ID proponents have been so remiss in their application of the scientific method to ID.

Listening from the front row of the courtroom, a school board members said he found Professor Behe's testimony reaffirming. "Doesn't it sound like he knows what he's talking about?" said the Rev. Ed Rowand, a board member and church pastor.

This is why some people should not be allowed on a school board. A candidate ought to have at least a college edjumacashun from a place more rigorous than a Bible college.

Jimmy The Hand · Oct 19, 2005

Behe was pwned!

Jan87676 · Oct 19, 2005

TeddyKGB said:
How should high school science classes spend "a few days" on intelligent design? Maybe I could get my AP class through the biochemistry of blood clotting. Maybe. (Which would of course require that I know it backwards and forwards, which I absolutely do not).

What about my regular classes?

"This guy thinks structures X, Y and Z are too complex to have evolved. Lesson over."

You're a teacher?

HEHE_I CAN say whatever i want to you now, and you can't do anything about that. What about them apples?

_Paladin_ · Oct 19, 2005

Jimmy The Hand said:
Behe was pwned!

How so?

GoSeminoles! · Oct 19, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
How so?

Well, putting ID in the same boat as astrology was not exactly a well thought-out scheme on Behe's part.

_Paladin_ · Oct 19, 2005

GoSeminoles! said:
Well, putting ID in the same boat as astrology was not exactly a well thought-out scheme on Behe's part.

Ok good point.

Sadly though for the evolution side, I heared Miller got owned pretty bad too. I am gonna try to find the link. Not with his human ancestry argument, but when he took the stand saying ID unscientific.

Dr.GH · Oct 19, 2005

The best commentary I have found on the paper by Michael Lynch, and the response by Behe and Snoke is "BS Model Gets "Lynched."

What totally puts me into the "open access" mode is that journals charge outragous prices while demanding we authors provide free content. We even have to pay to read our own papers. Publishers are all just a bunch of otherwise out-of-work English Lit' majors. Grrrrr

Loudmouth · Oct 19, 2005

What totally puts me into the "open access" mode is that journals charge outragous prices while demanding we authors provide free content. We even have to pay to read our own papers. Publishers are all just a bunch of otherwise out-of-work English Lit' majors. Grrrrr

Or even worse, they charge the authors page fees. At least reprints are free, sort of.

Dr.GH · Oct 19, 2005

Mike Argento's newpaper item today "Behe's 15th-century science" is great reading. I can't wait for the transcripts. The new DI fluff puffer, Casey Luskin, has posted this bit of puffery. Warning, disconnect all irony meters. I am not responsible for lost brain cells.

Dr.GH · Oct 19, 2005

Loudmouth said:
At least reprints are free, sort of.

Not even reprints any more. I get a freaking "free" PDF these days. Even author's book discounts are only the wholesale price.

Loudmouth · Oct 19, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
Ok good point.

Sadly though for the evolution side, I heared Miller got owned pretty bad too. I am gonna try to find the link. Not with his human ancestry argument, but when he took the stand saying ID unscientific.

I had the complete opposite impression. We all have our biases so perhaps you could give highlights of the actual testimony so we could all judge for ourselves and discuss. You can find the transcripts here.

michabo · Oct 19, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
Not with his human ancestry argument, but when he took the stand saying ID unscientific.

Just saying it is unscientific probably doesn't look good (even though it is correct). Can you point to the exact portion of the testimony that you thought was the worst?

_Paladin_ · Oct 19, 2005

michabo said:
Just saying it is unscientific probably doesn't look good (even though it is correct). Can you point to the exact portion of the testimony that you thought was the worst?

If I found the script I was reading a while ago of the discussion I will.

Split Rock · Oct 19, 2005

GoSeminoles! said:
Well, putting ID in the same boat as astrology was not exactly a well thought-out scheme on Behe's part.

At least he was being honest.

Behe takes the stand in Dover

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Legend

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Doc WinAce fan

GoSeminoles!

Guest

I Have Been Complexified!

Shoot first, ask questions later

Senior Member

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Senior Member

Doc WinAce fan

Contributor

Doc WinAce fan

Doc WinAce fan

Contributor

reason, evidence

Senior Member

Conflation of Blathers

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency