Talk:Michael Behe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re: "In his writings, Behe does not contest Darwinian evolution for animals or plants; his claim is that evolution cannot explain a few subcellular structures."

INSERTED A YEAR LATER: "Behe is a religious scientist who accepts the workings of evolution as they apply to animals and plants, but who believes that the complexities of human molecular design (the way that blood clots, for instance) can be explained only by the work of an intelligent designer." (Publishers Weekly, quoted at Amazon.com) (Hope this distinction helps. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:15, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC))

I think Behe DOES contest Darwinian evolution for animals or plants; his claim is that Darwin's theory assumes gradual change, with natural selection slowly improving life in small steps. Some things, however, can't be improved gradually. But these things are not only a few subcellular structures, but the building blocks of bigger structures, as are animals and plants.

I suggest that paragraph should be eliminated from the article.

Re, Interview with Behe: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_pittinterview0201.htm

You're nitpicking a little, I think. Rather than eliminating the para, could it not be edited to reflect your point. We need to keep the point that Behe does not oppose (say) the evolution of the eye - but rather the evolution of cilia. Martin 20:35, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But that is my point, Behe DOES argue that the Darwin's theory can't explain the evolution of complex structures like the eye, precisely because it can't explain the building blocks of these complex structures. When he explains how the cilia works and why he considers that structure to be irreducibly complex, he does that as an example, not because it's the only thing not explained by Darwin's theory. That's why, IMO, the whole paragraph is false.JP

Behe argues that evolution can't explain irreducibly complex structures, but can explain reducibly complex structures. The eye is a fairly clear example of a reducibly complex system, of the sort that Behe does not context. Martin 21:50, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"He posits that it is easier to explain these "irreducibly complex" systems through intelligent design rather than an evolutionary model." It's easier to explain everything through intelligent design than through any sort of mainstream scientific model. Surely Behe's thesis is that "irreducibly complex" systems can only be explained through intelligent design, that it's impossible to explain them through natural processes? I feel the wording of the article could be changed to reflect this without risking NPOV. Tevildo 02:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, with ID you're not explaining anything since in attempting to explain the origin of some complicated piece of biology you simply invoke an even more complex, but completely unspecified, piece of biology. The skill in ID is passing off this substitution as if it were science. That it succeeds (in a cultural sense) sufficiently to merit an entry in an encyclopedia is testament (if you'll pardon the expression) to the not entirely rational hopes and desires of the public at large. --Plumbago 08:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Three deletions

• Although he claims this is scientific and supported by evidence, the majority of the scientific community consider it to be baseless pseudoscience.

• The scientific community was unimpressed.

• Critics also answered Behe's example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex device by "reducing" a mousetrap part by part until it consisted of a spring only, but was still somewhat capable of trapping a rodent.)

The above are phrased in such a way as to make Wikipedia endorse these criticisms of Behe's work.

I'd like to see evidence, such as a survey of a "majority" of the scientific community calling Behe's idea pseudoscience. I bet the most anyone can come up with is a large number of biologists saying they disagree. Note that biologists by no means are a majority of scientists, so the fix would have to be "majority of biologists". Also, scientific journals are full of peer-reviewed articles that contradict other researchers' results and findings. Merely saying I disagree with you is by no means the same as condemning your ideas as pseudoscince.

I daresay the phrasings above were added by a Wikipedian who vehemently disagrees. If so, I humbly request that he source the statements or modify them.

As for the idea that a spring can catch a rat, I'd like to see (a) the source and (b) an explanation of (1) how a torsion spring can catch a rodent and (b) assuming it can, what this has to do with the reducibility or irreducibility of a designed thing like a mousetrap. In other words, please fix this and put it back. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right that science doesn't work as a popularity contest. You can find a tongue-in-cheek list of scientists who reject creationism, including "intelligent design" at Project Steve (and multiply out by those not called Steve). A better indication of acceptance of a theory is the number of papers published in the scientific literature. Now this does indeed include papers that may be contradictory, (the possibilty of type I and type II errors notwithstanding), but how many of these are there on design theory? And how many of these contradict the theory of evolution by natural selection? It is accurate and fair to report that the scientific community thinks Behe is a pseudoscientist. If ID is true it will be shown eventually by paradigm shift. :) Dunc|☺ 16:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI - Gallup polls have about 40% of U.S. scientists theistic evolutionists and 5% biblical creationists. Two sources for the 40% number: NCSE (Eugenie Scott's evolution support organization) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp and this which I believe is neutral on evolution http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Presumably all these theists believe their deity is intelligent. That's a lot of scientists falling somewhere in the ID tent. Wouldn't it be fairer to say 55% of scientists, according to Gallup polls, reject ID? If someone has a better poll than Gallup that says otherwise of course. 66.61.157.57 00:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Ed has a point here. I do not doubt that the majority of scientists disagree with Behe's views on intelligent design. A few facts warrant some caution though. Even according to Behe, not all biochemical systems are irreducibly complex (though he claims some are). Irreducible complexity is just a description of a biological system (such that, if any one of the various components were removed, the system ceases to function). I don't see why the concept of irreducible complexity is inherently unscientific. The idea that the majority of the scientific community believe the "concept of irreducible complexity...to be creationist pseudoscience" might require a citation or two. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there are systems which would cease functioning if simplified is not controversial. The controversy is over Behe's attempt explain this with God, which is inherently unscientific, while ignoring some very simple and demonstrably correct natural explanations. Without the invocation of God, irreducible complexity isn't unscientific, but it also has no further purpose. In other words, it's only interesting in the context of ID, which makes it an ID propaganda term, not anything scientists might care about. For a parallel, consider the bizarre emphasis on a micro/macro-evolution distinction by creationists. Alienus 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of two theories

Recently added to the article:

He does not believe that natural selection never occurs - merely that in some cases Darwinian evolution can not explain all mechanisms at a cellular level. He posits that it is easier to explain these "irreducibly complex" systems through intelligent design than a "scaffold" model. However, the use of two theories is hardly ever more convenient than the use of one.

I'm not exactly sure what "two theories" are being referred to here. If they are natural selection and intelligent design, how is that any different from the mainstream's two theories of natural selection and universal common descent? What is the point being made here? —Muke Tever 15:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

another entry

When Behe's ideas are called "pseudoscience" in the article I think this makes Wikipedia look bad. You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature. I think it should be changed.

7/24/05 kdbuffalo

You are wrong. The article does not call them pseudoscience, it says that "many" "in the scientific community" call it pseudoscience. That's just the truth. You can change the wording if it looks "immature" to you, but the content of the sentence is a necessary piece of information. Would you want to create the wrong impression in Wikipedia readers that Behe's ideas are accepted in the scientific community? --Hob Gadling 12:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather impress upon the readers that Behe's ideas are just that: his. What the scientific community believes, what I believe and what anyone else believes are irrelevant. An encyclopedia's duty is to present ideas as presented by their sources, not evaluations of those ideas by others.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.67.39 (talk • contribs) October 19, 2005.

No, you are completely wrong. Wikisource is there for quotes and primary sources. If we just present de-contextualised information we are failing in our mission. Guettarda 17:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Behe's pubs

Why is it relevent to say that "Professor Behe has a number of articles published in the mainstream scientific literature"? He's a professor of biochem - of course he has published, or he would not be tenured. If he had published on ID in the literature it would be noteworthy. If he had credentials in the field of evolutionary biology it would be interesting...but saying he has published in his field is trivial. The opposite would be worth saying, of course, that he has no publications in peer-reviewed science in the field for which he is best known. Guettarda 17:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

opinionated remarks that does not belong in an ecycolpedia.

I removed the following: "instead they feature broad generalizations, rhetorical arguments, and mentions of his Christian faith"

If reinstated it must be written in a more objective and less opinionated manner.

I don't follow - please explain what the problem is. Thanks. Guettarda 10:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The use of the following wording "broad generalizations, rhetorical arguments" is too negatively laden to be objective without more context to back it up, at least for an ecyclopedic article. His "lectures" must be described in a more subjective and factual way. Or it must be stated that "many (or maybe most) people believe that he uses broad generalizations etc. etc." (or something like that, with a better phrasing of course - this is just to clarify the problem).

irreducible complexity

I thought the definition of it was that there are systems on the biomolecular level sufficiently complex to make it suc that if it were not put together exactly as it is, it would not work at all, so that a gradual development towards the structure would not occur. For example, the cellular "motors" in some forms of bacteria, like flaggelettes. Any thoughts on this? Pjanini1 22:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Almost. The "irreducible" part means that there are no simpler systems that can do the same. But of course there can be more complex systems that can do it. So your "not put together exactly as it is" is not quite correct. Also, this shows that Behe's concept has a loophole allowing irreducibly complex system to evolve, contrary to what Behe believes. --Hob Gadling 12:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

In the Controversy IC & ID heading this statement is unclear:

He published a paper, together with David Snoke, in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Protein Science [1], which he claims supports the idea, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, it does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers.

Specifically which idea does Behe claims his paper supports? The paragraph is not clear, at least to me. Mr Christopher 22:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

weasel words

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

If you would like to re-introduce the weasely information, please note this page: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.67.39 (talk • contribs) October 19, 2005.

Point taken. But I notice you removed (weasel worded) statements about the scientific community's views about Behe. The consensus is pretty clear, but it would be incorrect to say that all scientists disagree with him. How should one go about saying : "The scientific community pretty much thinks Behe's work is creationist pseudoscience"? The page on weasel words doesn't seem to be entirely clear about such things to me (though I might just be being stupid). --Plumbago 17:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am putting this in the right place but here's for tryin':

I think it is relevant to make the Lehigh Univeristy Department of Biological Sciences stance of intelligent design (and Behe's theories) a part of this article. Given that the entire department where Behe teaches do not regard intelligent design as science lends an important piece to this article.

I don't know whether a link would be ideal (http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm) or quoting the entire statement would be more appropriate:

"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 am new (to editing) here so I am reluctant to make any changes myself but I wanted to bring this to the attention of others. -Chris (User:Mr_Christopher)

The article links to this text, right after "This includes the Department of Biological Sciences at his own Lehigh University.", so I think that ought to cover it. If you disagree, let me know why. Also, please sign with 4 ~'s. Alienus 17:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I overlooked that link, I did not realize this was already documented within the article. So my point is moot. Mr Christopher 20:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

pseudoscience

AlsatianRain, why do you think the sentence is uninformative? JoshuaZ 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The previous sentance seems to me to pretty much map out the state of things. "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including the Department of Biological Sciences at his own Lehigh University." There we've got rejection of specific claims by specific parties (or semi-specific; the scientific community and his uni. But that "his claims about intelligent design have been characterized as pseudoscience" doesn't tell us anything new, especially as we aren't being told who characterizes them as pseudoscience. -- AlsatianRain 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You've convinced me. JoshuaZ 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

ID, including Behe's particular flavor or it, being pseudoscience is one of the more common objections and as such it is notable enough to remain in the article. I've added a cite. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dover Trial

"Under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible. [1]"

Above is comletely some wikipedian OR and also misleading. Behe never admitted such a thing as claimed above. The whole story of 20,000 years was about mutation of a multi-resiude requiring only two nucleotide replacement in a duplicated gene is some prokaryotes. His research[2] wasn't about irreducible complexity.

If some wikipedians want to believe that two interacting nucleotides in same gene can be interpreted as multiple interacting parts for the system to function, its their original research not what Behe says here. Even if from your point of view your analogy seems to be reasonable, again it is your OR+POV. But from Behe's point of view it's not the same. In IC, by saying multiple interacting parts, Behe refers to different interacting functional parts in an organ or different proteins interacting with eachother for a specific purpose.

In same article [3] Behe states that in multicelluar life forms with more than two or more nucleotide alterations, his proposed model quite successfully reflects the reality.

The fact that very large population sizes, 10 to 9th or greater, are required to build even a minimal MR feature requiring two nucleotide alterations within 10 to the 8th generations by the processes described in our model, and that enormous population sizes are required for more complex features or shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species, because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.

Also if we increase the number of nucleotide alterations to 4,5 or 6 then the required amount of time and the population will become considerably more even for the bacteria:

But forming other multi-residue features such as protein, protein binding sites might require more. And so the number on the X axis lambda 2, 4, 6, 8, those are the number of point mutations that we entertained or we calculated numbers for to see how long such things would be expected to take under our model. And if you look up at the top axis, the top x axis labeled N, at the top of the figure. N stands for population size. Okay. So if you look at the figures there on the left, it's slanted, and it's not enlarged yet, so it's hard to see. It says, 10 to the 6th. That's a million. And then skip a line. These are in every 10 to the 3rd increments of population size. That would be 10 to the 9th.

The next label is 10 to the 12th, which is a trillion. The next label is 10 to the 18th, which is much more. The next label is 10 to the 24th, which is much, much, much more. The next label, 10 to the 30th, which, again, is very much more.

So, in fact, we considered population sizes from 1000 all the way up to 10 to the 30th, and multi-residue features from 2, which might involve disulfide bonds, up to many more, which might be involved in protein, protein binding sites [4]

(SirGalahad 22:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

Given your solid Creationist credentials, I didn't expect your comments to be credible. Upon closer examination, they met my expectations.

Alienus! You totally miss the point that I don't care about your off-topic personal biased judgments either for me or for my comments. Ofcourse, given your solid Darwinist credentials, I see your tactic to reject any statement supporting Michael Behe without investigation. So keep the focus on the article and if you have some good reference to support the paragraph in question, please let me know.(SirGalahad 08:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

If you have a concrete suggestion, make it and defend it. If you want to debate endlessly about Creationism, you can find a proper venue where you can advocate it. Alienus 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

it seems you even didn't read the above to understand my point, otherwise you could see my concrete suggestion which is to remove the above paragraph from the main article. Behe never admitted such a thing as claimed in the main article. In article we see it as a fact that Behe spoke those words and admitted them. However we neither see it in the reference nor in anyother place. It is an interpretation based on 1)OR and 2)POV. If we want to keep that in the article a clear reference and citation is needed. Otherwise it will be removed. I hope this time you got my point(SirGalahad 08:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Nope, Behe caves on the issue right here, see also [5]. The passage is accurate and well-supported as it stands. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is confusing. Perahaps, the question should be added and then quote his answer? Falphin 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

An anon inserted January 18 as Behe's birthday, however, I can't readily substantiate it. If anyone can find a source, please re-insert it. Guettarda 12:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)