The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe

[Loudmouth]

Thank you. Arguing over design with an atheist is often like arguing over common descent with a creationist. It's hard to come to a common understanding if your frames of reference are so radically different. And I don't mean agreeing on every single point, I mean coming to an understanding of the other side and why they believe what they believe.

The ID argument rushes right by the evidence and right to the conclusion. That's the problem. What evidence led you to the conclusion that a specific system was intelligently designed? Just saying "it looks designed" is not an argument. It is a belief.

I personally think that philosophical naturalists might be so committed to their beliefs that they will judge Behe from the start, before even giving his arguments a fair hearing.

The irony is that we understand Behe's arguments better than you do. We have gone through them bit by bit. We have actually studied Behe's work. He relies on several logical fallacies including false dichotomies, arguments from incredulity, and the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. As you read "Edge of Evolution" or even "Darwin's Black Box" I would be happy to explain what these fallacies are and why they invalidate his argument.

What Behe's argument boils down to is "I don't understand how evolution could produce that, therefore God." What Behe fails to understand is that reality is not limited by his knowledge or imagination. Just because Behe can't think of how IC systems could evolve does not mean that they can't. Even if we currently don't have a complete history for the evolution of a specific system it is not evidence that this system can not evolve. It merely means that it is still an open question. We still don't know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, but that doesn't lend credence to the claim that he is circling the Earth in a UFO. You don't get to insert whatever you want into a gap in our knowledge. That isn't how it works.

You also claim that we rule out design from the beginning. That isn't true at all. What we keep asking for is evidence that would rule it in. That is how science works. You look for positive evidence for your hypothesis, not negative evidence for other theories. If you want us to consider an argument you need to bring evidence in support of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As has been mentioned, there is no dis-confirming evidence. Lack of evidence is different than dis-confirming evidence.

Lack of evidence is only dis-confirming evidence when someone claims an event happened that definitely would have left some sort of evidence. For example the lack of evidence of almost 6 miles of water falling from the heavens and bursting up from the ground is evidence against the Flood myth. Evidence of smaller and older floods while there is no evidence at all of Noah's Flood is evidence against the Flood myth. When it comes to this sort of evidence, evidence that should be there, it is found to support the theory of evolution in spades.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am more interested in pointing out the holes in the current theory.

You are doing ID no favors. Even if evolution is false it does not demonstrate that ID is true. This is why ID supporters are not taken seriously.

Why can't someone point out the arrogance involved in holding the current theory together despite the dis-confirming evidence while excluding all alternatives?

What is this evidence that you are talking about?

"The idea that science is a uniquely self-critical institution is, of course, preposterous. Scientists are no more self-critical than anyone else. They hate to be criticized and they never criticize themselves….The popular myth of science as a uniquely self-critical institution and scientists who would rather be consumed at the stake rather than fudge their data; I mean, that's ok for a PBS special, but that's not the real world. That's not what's taking place. People fudge the data whenever they can get away with it." - David Berlinski

How much scientific research has Berlinski done?

 

[Split Rock]

"The idea that science is a uniquely self-critical institution is, of course, preposterous. Scientists are no more self-critical than anyone else. They hate to be criticized and they never criticize themselves….The popular myth of science as a uniquely self-critical institution and scientists who would rather be consumed at the stake rather than fudge their data; I mean, that's ok for a PBS special, but that's not the real world. That's not what's taking place. People fudge the data whenever they can get away with it." - David Berlinski

Sorry, but this is wrong. Scientists are human.. scientists can be wrong... there are scientists with big egos who don't like to be proven wrong. However, as a scientists you learn to accept criticism. Science is a self-critical methodology because other scientists are quick to critisize their fellow scientist. That is where the criticism works, not so much with the ability to criticize yourself. Also, I disagree that scientists "fudge the data whenever they can get away with it." I would love to see this guy back that assertion up with some evidence.

 

[Skaloop]

Lack of evidence is only dis-confirming evidence when someone claims an event happened that definitely would have left some sort of evidence. For example the lack of evidence of almost 6 miles of water falling from the heavens and bursting up from the ground is evidence against the Flood myth. Evidence of smaller and older floods while there is no evidence at all of Noah's Flood is evidence against the Flood myth. When it comes to this sort of evidence, evidence that should be there, it is found to support the theory of evolution in spades.

Absolutely agreed. Lack of evidence can be dis-confirming, but it's not necessarily so.

 

[Yoder777]

Yoder, what disconfirming evidence? In your first video he claims 50,000 changes that he supposedly recognized himself. Now, I am not saying there aren't that many changes. But he gave no clue as to his methodology of getting that number. When creationists don't give a methodology you can be pretty sure that they don't have one. The first video was merely an argument from ignorance, with a little bit of dishonesty thrown in. We have calculated the number of changes from our common ancestor with chimpanzees and the number is not overwhelming. It was done earlier in this thread. A lot of creationists make the mistake of thinking of evolution as a linear process of one individual when it is the population that evolves as a whole. The whole population is generating changes in the genome, not just one line.

Berlinksi is not a creationist. He doesn't even believe in God. Like I've said before, a common tactic of philosophical naturalists is to conflate criticism of naturalistic evolution with creationism.

There are basically two kinds of skeptics. There are those who disbelieve seemingly unlikely things due to a lack of evidence. I respect that kind of skepticism. Then there is pure contrarianism, which disbelieves something no matter what evidence is presented. Berlinski seems to be one of those honest skeptics who, despite not believing in God, refuses to believe the evidence provided for neo-Darwinism is adequate for explaining the complexity and diversity of life. It's not because he has a creationist stick up his butt. He's just trying to be intellectually honest.

And for your second video. Near death experiences!? Are you kidding me? All religions experience the same near death experiences, that is indicative that it is a physical process and not a spiritual one. Otherwise religions that don't believe in Christ would not go to heaven, at least according to other Christians, and Christians would not go to paradise according to the competition either. They have learned how to induce this feeling in the laboratory, it is not "real" in the sense of going to heaven.

What you are displaying is reductionist ignorance. Howard Storm was an atheist before having his NDE. His near death experience began in hell, not a Biblical lake of fire, but in a place of total darkness filled with lost souls. When he prayed for God to save him from this darkness, he was freed, spent a time with angels and Jesus, was revealed many things about the natural and spiritual worlds that the average person would never know, and then was sent back to his body. He was legally dead for hours.

It's only reductionist ignorance that would reduce his vivid and detailed experience to a biochemical process, considering that he didn't believe in God, let alone hell, in the first place, and the fact that he became a United Church of Christ minister after his experience.

Reductionists like to think that if you give a college kid mushrooms in a laboratory and it induces what feels like a spiritual experience, then all spiritual experiences must be solely due to chemical processes in the brain. Haven't you thought perhaps that when people have real spiritual experiences that they may act on the same part of the brain?

 

[Loudmouth]

Berlinksi is not a creationist.

Then why does he work at the Discovery Institute which is pushing creationism?

He doesn't even believe in God.

So who does Berlinski think the designer is?

Like I've said before, a common tactic of philosophical naturalists is to conflate criticism of naturalistic evolution with creationism.

We just note the high correlation between creationists and failed criticisms of evolution.

There are basically two kinds of skeptics. There are those who disbelieve seemingly unlikely things due to a lack of evidence. I respect that kind of skepticism. Then there is pure contrarianism, which disbelieves something no matter what evidence is presented. Berlinski seems to be one of those honest skeptics who, despite not believing in God, refuses to believe the evidence provided for neo-Darwinism is adequate for explaining the complexity and diversity of life. It's not because he has a creationist stick up his butt. He's just trying to be intellectually honest.

Perhaps you could show us why the evidence is not convincing.

 

[Yoder777]

Sorry, but this is wrong. Scientists are human.. scientists can be wrong... there are scientists with big egos who don't like to be proven wrong. However, as a scientists you learn to accept criticism. Science is a self-critical methodology because other scientists are quick to critisize their fellow scientist. That is where the criticism works, not so much with the ability to criticize yourself. Also, I disagree that scientists "fudge the data whenever they can get away with it." I would love to see this guy back that assertion up with some evidence.

Scientific objectivity is a myth. The only thing that fallible humans can hold onto in this discourse is interpretations of the evidence, and whether or not they can provide rational arguments to justify their interpretations or reject someone else's. Since I am trying to make a basic point, not win an argument, I will quote Wikipedia:

Based on a historical review of the development of certain scientific theories in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientist and historian Thomas Kuhn raised some philosophical objections to claims of the possibility of scientific understanding being truly objective. In Kuhn's analysis, scientists in different disciplines organise themselves into de facto paradigms, within which scientific research is done, junior scientists are educated, and scientific problems are determined. The implicit social hierarchy of a scientific paradigm ensures that only scientists who are thoroughly immersed in the intellectual construction of the paradigm acquire the reputation and status to pronounce authoritatively on matters of dispute, and those scientists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (which confers on them this de facto position of authority).[citation needed]
When observational data arises which appears to contradict or falsify a given scientific paradigm, scientists within that paradigm have not, historically, immediately rejected the paradigm in question (as Sir Karl Popper's philosophical theory of falsificationism would have them do), but instead they have gone to considerable lengths to resolve the apparent conflict without rejecting the paradigm. Through ad hoc variations to the theory and sympathetic interpretation of the data, supporting scientists will resolve the apparent conundrum. In extreme cases, they may even ignore the data altogether.[citation needed]
Thus, Kuhn argues, the failure of a scientific revolution is not an objectively measurable, deterministic event, but a far more contingent shift in social order. A paradigm will go into a crisis when a significant portion of the scientists working in the field lose confidence in the paradigm, regardless of their reasons for doing so. The corollary of this observation is that the primacy of a given paradigm is similarly contingent on the social order amongst scientists at the time it gains ascendancy.[citation needed]
Kuhn's theory has been criticised by scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Alan Sokal as presenting a profoundly relativist view of scientific progress.[citation needed] In a postscript to the third edition of his book, Kuhn denied being a relativist.[citation needed]
Objectivity (science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientific objectivity is a myth. The only thing that fallible humans can hold onto in this discourse is interpretations of the evidence, and whether or not they can provide rational arguments to justify their interpretations or reject someone else's. Since I am trying to make a basic point, not win an argument, I will quote Wikipedia:

Can you show that evolution is not justified by the evidence? Can you show us evidence that disproves evolution?

 

[Yoder777]

Then why does he work at the Discovery Institute which is pushing creationism?

David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American educator and author. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1]

Berlinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."[12] Berlinski is a scathing critic of "Darwinism", yet, "Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."[12]

In his 1996 article, The Deniable Darwin, published in Commentary magazine, Berlinski says he is skeptical of evolution for a number of reasons, including the appearance "at once" of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion, the lack of major transitional fossils transitional sequences, the lack of recent significant evolution in sharks, the evolution of the eye, and (in his view) the failure of evolutionary biology to explain a range of phenomena ranging from the sexual cannibalism of redback spiders to why women are not born with a tail.[14] The article was described by historian of science Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory", and was ridiculed by philosopher Daniel Dennett as "another hilarious demonstration that you can publish bull—t at will—just so long as you say what an editorial board wants to hear in a style it favors."[15]
David Berlinski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't even know why I am still posting on this thread. The only reason why I posted here in the first place is because I felt that Behe was being unfairly treated as a buffoon and that, unlike others, I'd like to give his book a fair hearing before rejecting it.

For all you know, he could be one of the most brilliant biochemists of recent times or maybe just a mediocre college professor who happened to point out some obvious holes in neo-Darwinism that the prevailing paradigm cannot or does not want to see. Either way, he doesn't need me to defend him. He seems a happy enough man as it is.

Arguing over possible design in living systems with a naturalist is like arguing over common descent with a creationist. It's like herding cats and it gets frustrating or boring after a while. It would be a much more fruitful discussion if it were between two people who already accept both universal common descent and the existence of God.

 

[Yoder777]

Can you show that evolution is not justified by the evidence? Can you show us evidence that disproves evolution?

Why are you being so dense? Haven't I already made clear that I accept evolution? Why must you go on and on conflating criticism of naturalistic evolution with denial of evolution itself?

 

[Tomk80]

I don't even know why I am still posting on this thread. The only reason why I posted here in the first place is because I felt that Behe was being unfairly treated as a buffoon and that, unlike others, I'd like to give his book a fair hearing before rejecting it.

And as people have pointed out, he has been given a fair hearing. After the fair hearing, people quickly came to the conclusion that he had no evidence to bring to the table. Exit Behe.

For all you know, he could be one of the most brilliant biochemists of recent times or maybe just a mediocre college professor who happened to point out some obvious holes in neo-Darwinism that the prevailing paradigm cannot or does not want to see. Either way, he doesn't need me to defend him. He seems a happy enough man as it is.

For all you know, he could be a mediocre college professor who stumbled on absolutely nothing and has not produced anything of value since he started investing his time in that nothing.

Do you at least see that that is a possibility as well?

Arguing over possible design in living systems with a naturalist is like arguing over common descent with a creationist. It's like herding cats and it gets frustrating or boring after a while. It would be a much more fruitful discussion if it were between two people who already accept both universal common descent and the existence of God.

Ah, of course. If everybody would just agree with you, that would make discussion so much easier.

 

[Tomk80]

Why are you being so dense? Haven't I already made clear that I accept evolution? Why must you go on and on conflating criticism of naturalistic evolution with denial of evolution itself?

Fine, let me rephrase the question:
"Can you show that naturalistic evolution (whatever the hell that is) is not justified by the evidence? Can you show us evidence that disproves evolution?"

And let me add another:

Do you understand that pointing out a gap in understanding about "naturalistic" evolution does not negate the evidence in favor for it, and therefore does not disprove it.

And another:
Do you understand that pointing out a gap in understanding about "naturalistic" evolution does not show your pet-theory to be correct. That to do that, you have to show evidence in favor of said pet-theory?

 

[Yoder777]

Do you at least see that that is a possibility as well?

Of course, which is why I have nothing to lose if Behe's analysis of neo-Darwinism proves to be faulty. I believe in universal common descent either way, as does Behe. I believe in an intelligent purpose to common descent either way, as does Behe.

After the Edge of Evolution was first published, instead of seeing how his arguments might have improved after Dover, his critics pointed out his acceptance of UCD, as if he had to make an about face after being publicly humiliated. The fact of the matter is that he's accepted common descent since before even writing Darwin's Black Box.

I think that the position Behe takes as a Christian scientist is pretty basic, understandable, and logically consistent, regardless of whether or not he can "prove" it in a lab. If you are a theist who accepts that God directed the course of evolutionary history, you would expect to see either signs of God's design in living systems or at least features within living systems that make purely natural explanations unlikely.

At least Behe accepts evolution from the start, albeit strongly questioning blind nature's ability to solely account for the complexity and diversity of life. Aren't you glad that he's at least not arguing for Last Thursdayism or some other creationist bullcrap?

 

[Yoder777]

As a side note, I find it offensive to be accused of denying evolution. The Catholic priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin stated best the true meaning of evolution:

[Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow — this is what evolution is. —Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Quite simply, evolution is the purpose of life. God created the necessary conditions for intelligent life to evolve so that, someday, our spiritual nature would evolve as well, that God's kingdom would come to earth as it is in heaven. While our physical nature is very advanced, we've only just begun our spiritual and mental development as a species. The endpoint of evolutionary history on this planet is an era of world peace in which humanity is one with divinity.

The Urantia Book teaches that, after we die, the soul evolves over millions of years, being reborn into higher and higher worlds, each more perfect and spiritual than the last, until we meet God face to face in Paradise. Each moral decision we make in this life contributes to the soul's spiritual progress in the next.

 

[sfs]

Then why does he work at the Discovery Institute which is pushing creationism?

Berlinski is something of a professional crank (that's his own word for himself, I gather). I see no reason to doubt that he's an agnostic -- but I also see no reason to take his objections to evolution very seriously. There are many, many people who are more qualified than he is to judge the evidence and who don't find them persuasive.

 

[Yoder777]

Berlinski is something of a professional crank (that's his own word for himself, I gather). I see no reason to doubt that he's an agnostic -- but I also see no reason to take his objections to evolution very seriously. There are many, many people who are more qualified than he is to judge the evidence and who don't find them persuasive.

What makes him a crank? A crank by what definition?

 

[46AND2]

@Yoder777,

I have a couple questions for you:

Clearly, you believe that a God who is capable of creating the universe is also capable of creating a system (evolution) which is self sufficient, correct?

Why would he create a system which needs constant tweaking?

 

[Yoder777]

@Yoder777,

I have a couple questions for you:

Clearly, you believe that a God who is capable of creating the universe is also capable of creating a system (evolution) which is self sufficient, correct?

Why would he create a system which needs constant tweaking?

Why build a car that needs maintenance and repair? Here's a reason I can give from my own beliefs and you can take it or leave it. According to the Urantia Book, there are many types of angels, and they progress mentally and spiritually just as we do. There are angels assigned to implanting life on a given planet and guiding the evolutionary process. These life carrier angels benefit personally from the work that they do. I really have no interest or intention of building a scientific theory to prove these angels exist, yet I am interested in whatever dis-confirming evidence there may be to blind nature being solely responsible for the diversity and complexity of life.

As for Intelligent Design never having been published in peer-reviewed journals, I am not sure if that's entirely fair and correct:

Criteria 3: "(3) criticism of all or most methodologies underpinning current scientific evidence for the evolution of life, without presenting for peer review any competing theory of origins"

Firstly, ID proponents do not question all of the claims of Neo-Darwinism. For example, Michael Behe accepts common descent, and William Dembski concedes common descent is a possibility. However, the most interesting aspect of this criteria is the requirement that ID proponents do their work "without presenting for peer review any competing theory of origins." In reality, ID proponents have subjected their ideas about ID to peer review.

In 2004, Stephen Meyer published an article entitled “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239 (2004)) which specifically advocated that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of biological information in the Cambrian explosion. This example alone causes ID to fail Forrest and Gross's criteria (3).

The history of ID proponents presenting their ideas for peer review extends before Meyer's 2004 article. In 1998, William Dembski laid the groundwork for detecting ID in the peer-reviewed The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press). More recently, Jonathan Wells explicitly employed ID predictions to investigate the nature and behavior of centrioles in his “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?” (Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, 98:71-96 (2005)). Additionaly, Michael Behe and David W. Snoke tested some of ideas about irreducible complexity in protein-binding interactions in their “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues” (Protein Science, 13 (2004)).

Incidentally, even if none of these peer-reviewed works by ID proponents had ever been published, ID would still fail Forrest and Gross's criteria (3). This is because their criteria does not require publication, but merely "presenting for peer review." In fact, ID proponents have submitted their ideas to mainstream journals only to see them turned down. This is because of the immense bias faced by ID proponents in getting their ideas published. Sometime before August 5, 2000, Michael Behe submitted for peer review for publication in a mainstream scientific journal, 'Obstacles to gene duplication as an explanation for complex biochemical systems.' In "Correspondence w/ Science Journals Response to critics concerning peer-review," Behe recounts how a paper he wrote was rejected by reviewers because it was unorthodox. Below is what the editor and reviewer wrote: Dear Mike,

I'm torn by your request to submit a (thoughtful) response to critics of your non-evolutionary theory for the origin of complexity. On the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive. But on the other hand we have fixed page limits for each month's issue, and there are many more good submissions than we can accept. So, your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that would be extending the current paradigm. In a final letter back, the editor writes: I would like to encourage you to seek new evidence for your views, but of course, that evidence would likely fall outside of the scientific paradigm, or would basically be denials of conventional explanations. You are in for some tough sledding. The important point here is that Behe presented his ID-related work for peer-review publication in mainstream scientific journals. This alone causes intelligent design to fail Forrest and Gross's 3rd criteria. However, as recounted at "An Anonymous Review Of A Paper By Behe, one reviewer rejecting Behe's submitted paper stated the following: "Consistently to use the phrase “intelligent design” instead of God is almost cheating, since this use has an ambiguous relation to the presence in the universe of a sort of intelligence that, except perhaps in a pantheistic sense if one wishes to think so, has no implication regarding the existence of a God. ...

"Of course science has its limits, but they are surely not where Behe places them; they are not, indeed, in the realm of biological evolution. The perception of science’s limits will evolve as science itself evolves, and the limits won’t furnish an argument in favor of intelligent design in the sense of a design imagines by a universal “person.” The argument will be in favor of the finiteness of the analytical powers of the human mind. The limits of science will probably be recognized as being, in part, imposed by the position in the universe of the intelligent (human) observer. Whatever God’s role in the universe, if any, biology will be understood without reference to him. That is implied by the essence of science." However correct the reviewer may (or may not) be in his arguments, he refutes only a straw man. This argument rebuts nothing close to what Behe was arguing, as Behe was arguing about the inability of Darwinian mechanisms to account for the origin of certain biochemical systems, and didn't mention "God" or even intelligent design. But the important point here is clera: Behe unequivocally has submitted his ideas for publication in peer-reviewed journals, even if they were misunderstood and ultimately rejected because of Kuhnian-paradigm-protection. As Darwinist Don Lindsay concedes, "Michael Behe has submitted some of the ideas from "Darwin's Black Box" to peer-reviewed scientific journals." This fact alone causes ID to fail Forrest and Gross's 3rd criteria for creationism.

It seems clear from these examples that ID proponents have published their work in peer-reviewed scientific forums, and have at least attempted to do so, thus failing Forrest and Gross's 3rd criteria for creationism.
FAQ: Is intelligent design just creationism (or creationism "in disguise")?

 

[46AND2]

Why build a car that needs maintenance and repair? Here's a reason I can give from my own beliefs and you can take it or leave it. According to the Urantia Book, there are many types of angels, and they progress mentally and spiritually just as we do. There are angels assigned to implanting life on a given planet and guiding the evolutionary process. These life carrier angels benefit personally from the work that they do. I really have no interest or intention of building a scientific theory to prove these angels exist, yet I am interested in whatever dis-confirming evidence there may be to blind nature being solely responsible for the diversity and complexity of life.

As for Intelligent Design never having been published in peer-reviewed journals, I am not sure if that's entirely fair and correct:

We build cars which require maintenance because we are incapable of building ones which don't.

By using that analogy, you are putting human limits on God which he allegedly does not have.