Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")

My TiVo records The Colbert Report every night. I rarely watch it, too little time, but the last 5 shows are always there if I want them. So I see Message 1 about Behe's appearance last night and immediately go watch it.YouTube's great, but TiVo's better!--PercyPS - The interview actually ended like this:Colbert: We used to see mystery everywhere and explain it with God, but now everything science explains God gets smaller, and I think it's time for God to fight back.Behe: Well, it turns out he has, because you were wrong, the more and more that science discovers...Colbert: I was what?Behe:Behe is looking very Darwinesque these days.

Hi ICANT,You're taking Rrhain's rebuttal of Rob's position, substituting a different position in place of Rob's, then arguing that Rrhain's rebuttal doesn't rebut a position it was never intended to rebut. Rrhain is pointing out how Rob's position contains an internal contradiction. Since you're substituting a different position for Rob's that doesn't contain the same internal contradiction, naturally Rrhain's rebuttal doesn't apply to it.Now that Rob's on vacation (presumably - he kept posting long after he said he would be leaving, and I have a picture in my mind of Mrs. Rob and all the little Rob's standing around the car yelling at Dad, who keeps saying, "Just one more message!"), if you want to respond to specific rebuttals of Rob's position you have to argue from Rob's point of view, since it otherwise becomes nonsensical. Or you could argue your own position. If that's what you're attempting to do then you should just let the rebuttals of Rob's position sit unaddressed until he gets back.--Percy

I very much doubt that anyone has ever claimed that "ID and creationism are one and the same." YEC-ism, OEC-ism and ID are all just different types of creationism. The forums of EvC Forum each focus on a different aspect of the significant differences between creationism and science. No remnant of Christianity left? Except that Moon claims Jesus appeared to him when he was 15 and asked him to complete the ministry he began 2000 years ago. Of course IC does not automatically assumes a Judeo-Christian God, but the Discovery Institute and ID spring from Christian origins, virtually all advocates of ID are evangelical Christians, and the Discovery Institute freely admits its Christian mission, as here from their Wedge Document: Moving on: Nobody would care what Behe (and creationists in general) believes if he would refrain from pushing his religious beliefs into public education, but he doesn't. He publishes popular press books (Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution), testifies for promotion of ID in public schools in court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), and makes public appearances advocating ID as legitimate science that should be included in education.No science currently taught requires special dispensations from school boards or state legislatures, and this is as it should be. ID should follow the same route into public education as the science already taught there, which is by building a consensus within the scientific community. Behe is not a credible scientific source for extremely good reasons. Working within the scientific community at Lehigh University (hopefully from a poorly lit and dank basement office), he knows the importance of building a scientific consensus before claiming legitimacy, yet he advocates for ID within education anyway. I don't know if "terrified" is quite the right word, but many of us are extremely concerned about creationist efforts to include Christian religious teaching in public education. DI specifically and IDists in general are lying when they say there is a controversy within science. The controversy is on a sociocultural/religious level, not a scientific one. The vast majority of practicing scientists in the relevant fields reject ID. There is no scientific consensus behind ID, yet ID specifically and creationism in general has succeeded in building a public perception that such a controversy does exist, and that the scientific community is split on the issue.The Wikipedia entry on Project Steve makes clear the paucity of actual doubt about evolution within the scientific community: The Project Steve (National Center for Science Education's Project Steve) list is up to 820 Steve's, while the DI list (A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism) contains 711 names. Since Steve's are about 1% of the population, that means less than 1% of scientists harbor doubts about the scientific consensus behind evolution. Can you name any scientific theory taught in public schools that has only 1% support within the scientific community? Even 10%? About there being a controversy within the scientific community. About their goals not being religious rather than scientific in nature. The aforementioned Wedge Document bases a number of arguments upon God and Christianity. Palpable fear among the masses that God's message might be heard? In one of the most religious societies in the world? Come on!The serious concern (not fear) is of the efforts of a religious minority to intrude their beliefs into education and public policy. No one is ruling out a Designer (which you render with a capital D, I note). In the face of efforts to intrude ID into science education, all they're doing is noting the complete lack of scientific evidence for a Designer, or even a designer. I said this earlier, but it bears repeating. As an academic Behe understands that science moves ahead by forging consensus through replication of experiment and observation, he knows that ID has not achieved this, he knows that only a tiny proportion of scientists accept ID, yet he falsely argues there is a controversy within science and promotes the teaching of ID in public schools.--Percy

But there is no controversy within science. Creation scientists do not work within the scientific community and they do not argue and debate with other scientists in scientific venues. Because creation scientists have instead created their own alternative journals and conferences outside the scientific community, there is no interaction between creation scientists and mainstream scientists within the halls of science.You must modify your illustration if it is to be consistent with reality. In an accurate illustration the two dissenters would never attend church services or take their issues to business meetings, but would instead go down to the village green and tell false stories about the church, like that there's a tremendous controversy there over the matter.But let's just assume for the sake or argument that I'm wrong to deny that there's a controversy within science. Let's say there's actually a tremendous controversy, and that scientists have actually come to blows over the issue at scientific meetings and conferences. It is still less than 1% of scientists who accept ID, and most of these are not practicing biologists.How many theories taught in public schools are accepted by less than 1% of scientists? Wouldn't you agree that the answer is none? And how many theories taught in public schools are the result of special school board or legislative action? Wouldn't you again agree that the answer is none? And so that would make creationism/ID to be the first theory taught in public schools that had the support of less than 1% of scientists and that required special school board or legislative action.--Percy

Creationism here at EvC Forum is held to be any theory derived from evangelical Biblical interpretations. YEC-ism, OEC-ism and ID are all just different types of creationism. And ID has not fallen very far from the creationist tree. The ID book, Of Panda and People, was changed from a book about creation science into a book about intelligent design be replacing the words "creationism" and "creator" with "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer".ID was brought gradually to the forefront of creationist efforts to promote creationism in education after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that creation science was thinly disguised Genesis. By conceding to science on most other points, such as the age of the earth and the occurrence of a global flood, the modern formulation of ID places God and Bible at even further remove than creation science. But this makes modern ID difficult for most evangelicals to accept, because it pays too little attention to literal interpretations of Biblical accounts.The vast majority of evangelicals accept the argument from design but reject the rest of ID, which is why we see so many creationists arguing for not just design, but also for a young earth and a global flood, not to mention God, the Bible and Jesus. Behe did begin his ID efforts by declining to identify the designer, but he long ago gave up this pose. He actually testified under oath at Dover that he believes the designer is God. Behe also conceded that (this from Wikipedia), "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." The judge's ruling finding that ID is religion included extensive references to Behe's testimony. Read the Dover Testimony section of the Wikipedia article on Behe - pretty enlightening as to what Behe really believes. Of course Behe believes in common decent. I know this because I've read some of his writings. The Wikipedia article concurs: Behe believes evolution is responsible for much of the diversity of life and for much of the changing panorama of life over time, but that in the case of certain microbiological structures that are irreducibly complex some form of outside assistance was required. No one is saying that Behe is lying about his acceptance of intelligent design as an explanation for the diversity of life. What we're saying is that as an academic, Behe knows that there is no controversy within science about ID, and he understands that it is the scientific consensus that gets taught in public schools, but he nonetheless claims, falsely of course, that there's a controversy within science and that ID should be taught in public schools.By the way, I don't believe Behe is really quite as much the buffoon as he appeared on the stand at Dover. The Discovery Institute picked up their marbles (and lawyers and money) and went home on the eve of the trial, as did Dembski who was scheduled to appear first, leaving insufficient time and resources to properly prepare Behe for his appearance on the stand.Behe is at Lehigh, which provides this disclaimer at their biology department website: Behe's own webpage at the department echos this: This is because ID has not been born out by any research. ID efforts are focused on convincing the lay public, not on conducting research that might persuade other scientists. No. They are not scientists in the sense that we usually think of scientists, because they are actually anti-science in that they use unscientific arguments to promote to the lay public untested and unresearched ideas as being legitimate science, at least when talking about ID.--Percy

Well, that's a good thing. Let me clarify what I mean by consensus, though, and I think you'll agree with me. You go on to say: I'll give the answer first and follow it with the explanation.The question is phrased in not quite the right way because you misunderstand what I mean by consensus, but to a rough approximation, yes, acceptance by a majority within the scientific community would mean that ID was scientific.But there's a key distinction to be made here. ID would become scientific not because most scientists accepted it, but because of the process of research and replication exerted to achieve this level of acceptance.A scientific consensus is not formed from a vote of scientists. A consensus forms around the ideas that have proven the most successful through a long drawn-out process of successful research that produces papers and discussions with ideas and results that other research draws upon, and so on and so forth. In the end you have a large body of validated research and results.So if ID were to become widely accepted within the scientific community it could only be by way of this same process of study and research by which all other accepted scientific ideas have achieved this status. Any theory which has passed through the trial by fire of research and replication is well worthy of respect.That creationists do not even subject ID to this kind of study says much about it. It says at least two things prominently. First, creationists can't figure out how to test ID, which makes sense since it's an inherently religious idea. Second, they know that ID is religion and not science.--Percy

Yes, and I'm as puzzled as Paul about why you think he claimed "ID and creationism are one and the same." Clearly you repeat the mistake replying to me here: Pointing out that you're wrong to say that there's no remnant of Christianity left in the Unification Church is not equivalent to saying that Christianity and the Unification Church are the same. If you can't see that then there are going to be many obvious distinctions in this discussion that you're going to see as barely discernible nuances and we're never going to be able to communicate.You offered Jonathan Wells, a member of the Unification Church which you said has no remnant of Christianity left, as evidence that one doesn't have to be Christian to accept ID, and all I did was point out that the Unification Church is a Christian church based upon the ministry of Jesus which has been taken up and continued by the Reverend Moon. The Unification Church uses the Bible as its primary holy text. Huh? How does that make any sense? Who said anything about apologizing? Huh? These interpretations are springing forth only from your own mind, not from anything Paul or I is saying.What we're telling you is that ID springs from evangelical Christianity, not science. Nor of the countless professing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, not to mention scads of believers in more minor religions, who also believe in evolution. That's because evolution springs from scientific research and not from any religion. And yet the vast majority of IDists are all of a single religious sect, Christian evangelicals. Huh? Are you even reading what you're replying to?Paul isn't arguing that ID is nonsensical. He's arguing that though it is religion it instead claims status as science to gain entry to public education. Are you daft?Scopes was charged with violation of the Butler Act, a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. This is the exact opposite of a special dispensation: it is a *special sanction*. The law wasn't repealed until 1967. Huh?Behe's book is rejected by scientists not because it contains the word "Designer", but because it isn't science. He didn't write a popularization about an area of scientific study supported by much research and study, but about a Christian evangelical view of creation shorn of religious references and drawing upon microbiology for examples of irreducible complexity. Even though he's never published any research papers on the topic, some scientists have gone to of the trouble of rebutting some of his examples, such as blood coagulation and the bacterial flagellum. We didn't simply say he wasn't credible. We said he wasn't credible when making claims about the scientific status of ID because the claim is not supported by any body of scientific research. We further said that he's aware of this lack of research but makes the claim anyway, and further, that he believes it should be taught as science even though it has no research behind it and is not supported by any scientific consensus. I think that would be fine, as long as the venue is Sunday School. You didn't read the Project Steve link, did you? So you didn't notice where it said: I was rebutting ID's claim that there is a controversy within science concerning ID. When the ratio is greater than 100:1 against, as the counts of evolutionists named Steve and evolution doubters named anything clearly indicates (and few evolution doubters are biologists anyway), there is no controversy. My point is that IDists misrepresent the situation when they make this claim to lay people. They try to make it seem that scientists are having a legitimate debate about ID in scientific journals and conferences when no such debate is taking place. I'm only including this to indicate yet another time when your reply appears no bearing whatsoever on what I said specifically or the topic generally. It's as if what people write is only an opportunity for you to say whatever pops into your head, whether it makes sense or not. If you'd like to discuss these topics then open a new thread. This thread is about the misrepresentations of Behe and ID. What are you to deduce? Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe something that makes sense? No one is imploding at the mere mention of ID. The primary objection to ID is that it is religion and not science. Public education treats all religions equally when it comes to science: none get in. Theory is the best that science can do. Nothing in science ever rises above theory. There is no higher status within science. In science, a law is just another name for theory. If research were ever begun that yielded legitimate support for ID, it still would never rise above the level of theory. All scientific theories are tentative, which means they will change to reflect new knowledge or improved insights.--Percy

You're committing a couple fallacies here, but the primary one is that you're attempting a defense by changing the focus of attention. The topic is Behe and ID. If you'd like to discuss whether evolution is actually an effort to promote atheism, despite that people of all religions around the globe including Christianity accept evolution, then open a new thread. Huh? Are you ever going to say anything that is actually true. Reading on I see PaulK has addressed this, so I won't beat this dead horse.But I will mention once again your rather serious error when you stated that Tennessee had a special law permitting evolution when the reality is that it forbid evolution. You know, Google and Wikipedia are just a click away. You could actually check your facts before inserting your foot in your mouth all the way up to the hip. Filling one's mind with facts instead of fantasies does wonders for success in debate. What has memes or Dawkins to do with this topic? Since this is the second time you've committed this fallacy in this message I'll call it out specifically. This is the "Oh yeah? Well you do it too!" fallacy (anyone out there know the formal name?). It's a very familiar fallacy in common household arguments but has no place in science. A simple example would be, "Son, you dinged up the car. What happened?" "Hey, don't hassle me, you've had accidents, too!"The point has been made to you by both me and Paul that Behe's book is not rejected because it contains the word "Designer", but because, in Paul's words, "It contains lousy arguments," and in my words, it isn't based upon any legitimate scientific research but is just invented out of whole cloth by Behe himself. He hasn't submitted his ideas for scholarly review by submitting papers to scientific journals and conferences, so of course there is no scientific consensus behind his views, but he continues to promote them to the lay public as if they had some scientific legitimacy. And because of the public exposure and attention his ideas have received some scientists have gone to the trouble of rebutting his ideas anyway (though not in scientific journals, of course, since Behe's ideas cannot be rebutted there until he submits them there).Scientists do not fear God. Many scientists believe in God. Many scientists are even Christian believers in God who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Your attempt to characterize rejection of Behe's ideas as due to fear of God just doesn't hold holy water, or any other kind.The stuff about scientific frauds is off-topic, it is the same fallacy I mentioned before ("Oh yeah? Well so are you!"), and it again reflects your lack of understanding of the scientific review process which I see Crash has already explained. Could you please stay on topic in this thread? If you're interested in discussing these frauds then I suggest you first educate yourself about them, then propose a new thread to discuss them. Sure you are! You just did it at least three times in this message alone!--Percy

No, you're again constructing an illustration that doesn't correspond to the situation you're attempting to illustrate. They are not excluded from membership, they simply choose not to attend while making false statements about the church from the town common.In other words, IDists are not submitting papers to scientific journals and conferences. It's not because their submissions are sent back unopened. It's because they're not sending them.The reason they're not sending them is not because there's no point to it because they'd be rejected anyway. They're not sending them because they're not doing any legitimate scientific research about which they can write papers. The arguments about irreducible complexity (Behe) and specified complexity (Dembski) and information theory (Dembski and Gitt) that they've published in popular press books are just that, arguments. They aren't the result of research and of analyzing the evidence gathered from research, but are just arguments. There's no evidence backing them up. IDists need to present research and evidence in support of their arguments. Isn't he purposefully leading people to believe that scientists are debating ID in scientific journals and at scientific conferences? And isn't it true that no such debates are taking place? So of course he's putting out false information.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I continue to wonder when you're ever going to say anything that is actually true. You've got a computer, why not use it? Click on Google or click on Wikipedia and find out about the Unification Church. Had you done so you would have prevented yourself from committing the error of claiming Jonathan Wells as an example of a non-Christian advocate of ID. The Unification Church is a Christian religion that uses the Holy Bible as its primary religious text and it accepts the same creation story as the rest of Christianity. You're again committing two fallacies at once. First, this is the "Oh yeah, well so are you!" fallacy. Second, you're diverting attention from the topic.What's more, you're wrong, leading me again to wonder when you're ever going to say anything true. Both creationism and the ID subcategory advocate for Christianity. You can't deny it, their writings are filled with advocacy for Christianity. But you won't find a single biology textbook or any science textbook or even any scientific paper advocating atheism. That's because science is a non-religious endeavor, like knitting and car repair. And believers of all religions and no religion accept science and evolution. Except that that's not true either, that it's a logical deduction with or without Christianity. The truth is that for the most part only evangelical Christians see evolution as "0 + 0 = everything", and there's nothing honest nor accurate nor logical nor deductive about that position. God only knows what you're trying to say! Since evolutionists include professed Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists, and since it makes no sense that they would be pushing atheism or accept a philosophy pushing atheism, your statement also makes no sense. Of course evolution is a dispassionate endeavor. What I'm not dispassionate about is attempts by evangelical Christians to teach their religion in my kids' science class. Over and over and over again, whether it's at local school board meetings, or state school boards in Kansas or Ohio or Pennsylvania, or state legislatures in Arkansas or Louisiana, Christian evangelicals work to get their religiously based views on biology taught in public schools.EvC Forum exists to explore creationism's claim to be every bit as much science as evolution, and to therefore deserve as much representation in education as evolution. A defense of creationism comprised primarily of errors, ad hominem and denials of fact is unlikely to be successful, plus it's leaving this thread with little to discuss except corrections of your mistakes.--Percy

Let me get this straight. You're unhappy with the way it went for you in threads about evolution, so that gives you the right to go off-topic and call me a hypocrite to boot. Do I have that about right? I continue to wonder if you're ever going to say anything that is actually true. Evolution was not a fledgling theory in the 1920's (it was 60 years old), it was not seeking increased support, it was not seeking some kind of asylum, and no law was ever passed granting evolution a special dispensation.What is actually true is the complete opposite of what you're saying. I don't know why you're trying to rewrite history, but the facts of the matter are that evolution was an accepted scientific theory in the 1920's that was included in textbooks of the period, Christian evangelicals had recently embarked on a "back to the fundamentals" movement, and as part of that the Butler Act was passed prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. That's not a special dispensation, that's a sanction. Them's the facts, NJ, deal with it. Denials like this are rather pointless since everyone can read your words. This is you in Message 81: The truth is that *opponents* of evolution passed a special law called the Butler Act that was a *sanction* against evolution, not a special dispensation. And Scopes didn't win the case, he lost it. Scopes' conviction was overturned on a technicality in the appellate courts, the amount of the fine imposed was evidently not according to statute.You know, you could look up this information yourself. I don't think it helps your cause to continually dissemble. The parallel you claimed was that just as ID is claiming a special dispensation today for inclusion in education, so did evolution back in the 1920's. But your claim is completely wrong because it is completely backwards. Once again, evolution did not receive a special dispensation, it received a prohibition. Good, let's get back to the topic. Behe hasn't submitted any papers on ID. If you doubt this, here's the Wikipedia article on Michael Behe quoting from the Dover trial transcript: That's because he's not doing any research on ID. If he actually had ID papers that had been rejected then he could publish them at his website or at the Discovery Institute website, but he hasn't. All he's done is written popular press books. That's because he's not trying to convince fellow scientists, he's trying to promote an illusion to the lay public of a controversy within science.There's neither "virulent hostility or total indifference" from the scientific community, only a desire for papers describing research conducted in a scientific manner. Sure he did. We both did. Once again, Behe falsely portrays to the lay public the impression that ID is a legitimate scientific theory, but as came out at trial, Behe knows this is not true, as related by Judge Jones here in the Dover ruling (this is from the Wikipedia article on Michael Behe): Behe's other lie is to claim that ID deserves representation in science class when he knows very well that what is taught in science class is accepted scientific views, and he knows very well that ID is not an accepted scientific view. Just to link this back to your earlier point, this is the special dispensation you were referring to, only it is ID that is demanding it, not evolution. You are stacking the deck against yourself. If you'd like at least a snowball's chance in hell of turning the tide then I suggest you stop defending the indefensible and denying the undeniable, because unless you actually go back and edit your old posts all the evidence of what you actually said is still there. If you want a better outcome, I suggest you start figuring out how to say things that are actually true. Yeah, I've noticed that too. People get all kinds of huffy in the face of dishonesty. Can't understand it.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Added another Wikipedia excerpt, then noticed some poor grammar.

***remove duplicate post***Edited by Percy, : Double post.

Hi ICANT,I understand the point you're making, and I believe I can reply to it in an on-topic manner.You're saying that if ID cannot be taught because it is not a fact, then abiogenesis and the singularity of the Big Bang cannot be taught because they are not facts, either.The answer is that neither abiogenesis not the singularity are taught as fact in any venue, not in public schools, not in colleges, not in graduate school, not anywhere. That's because they're not facts. They're scientific inferences drawn from scientific evidence. There's a strong scientific consensus around these inferences because of the strength of the evidence. You can call these inferences ideas or theories or hypotheses or whatever you like, but what is key is the strength of the evidence behind them. Ideas like the singularity and abiogenesis have a consensus of support behind them because of the strong evidence for them, though not as strong as for some other ideas, such as relativity.What is taught in public school science class is mainstream science, i.e., that portion of science behind which there lies a strong consensus. I doubt that much time if any is given in most high school science curriculum to abiogenesis or the singularity, but to the extent that they are covered it is because they are part of mainstream scientific understanding.The reason ID is not taught and should not be taught is that there is no scientific consensus behind it, and in fact the idea has been rejected outright by the scientific community. And despite the claims of evangelical Christianity that ID is science and not religion, its like the chocolate-faced boy denying he's been into the candy. The claim is transparently false.As Discovery Institute spokesmen have from time to time forthrightly stated, it's time to go out and do some science.--Percy

You mean that unless there's unanimity then there must be controversy? How would that make any sense? Are you sure you're not thinking of disagreement?You may be missing an important point. Keep in mind we're focusing on science. The point being made is that there is no *scientific* controversy. There are no arguments about ID taking place in scientific venues like college science departments or scientific journals or scientific conferences. The controversy is solely in the lay-public domain, and it is a direct result of evangelical Christian efforts promoting ID in education.Even if there were a significant sub-element of scientists who accepted ID, the way they would promote their views would not be through creating controversy but by doing research. At the end of day, college science departments are not measuring how much controversy professors have generated, but how much research they've accomplished. Tenure review committees do not get together and say things like, "Well, Professor Smith didn't publish any papers this year, but he sure created a controversy when he staged that filibuster at the annual conference, I think we should grant him tenure." This is, once again, the "Oh yeah, well so are you!" defense. I wish you creationists would make up your mind. Is science religion or atheism? It can't be both.Obviously science is not a religion. Pick up any science textbook or journal and you will find no references to God. Most scientists already have a religion anyway.And science is obviously not atheistic, either. Science is just one of very, very many secular activities. You won't find any references to God in accounting textbooks, but you wouldn't call accounting atheistic, right?Science is a way of studying and learning about the way the universe works. It is based on experiment and observation of the natural world. Its inferences can only be attacked by reference to the strength or weakness of the supporting evidence. If you want to defeat a scientific position then you must show the weaknesses and flaws in the evidence and analysis of the evidence. If you are successful in this then it means the evidence and analysis proved in the end insufficient to support the inferences. It doesn't mean the inference was religion.ID, on the other hand, is clearly religion. Creationist and ID writings are full of Christian advocacy. There's no getting around it.--Percy

For a great exposé of Behe's HIV claims from his latest book, The Edge of Evolution, see ERV & HIV versus Behe. Behe loses. over at Panda's Thumb.--Percy