Behe's Trainwreck Response to Science

Please do post the articles. They will be an interesting read.

discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

For example this one:
Dahl, T., Lydersen, C., Kovacs, K. et al. (2000): Fatty acid composition of the blubber in white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) Polar Biol (2000) 23: 401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003000050461

Finds that the fatty acid composition is roughly:
Total saturated fats: ~13%
Total mono-unsaturated fats: ~74%
Total poly-unsaturated fats: ~13%

This is compared to typically 40-50% saturated fat (of total fat) in for example beef or pork. Quite a difference.

3 Likes

Thanks, @Rumraket, interesting stuff!

Please, please stop using the pseudoscientific framing of this as a mere argument. You are missing a great opportunity to teach laypeople the difference between science and pseudoscience. By adopting the pseudoscientific framing, you allow laypeople to shrug and say, “Same evidence, different interpretation. Which person do I believe?”

Here’s a far better framing IMO:

  1. Behe has advanced a testable hypothesis.
  2. His bizarre misunderstanding of the term “missense” has created an opportunity.
  3. Behe doesn’t know whether the polar bear APOB alleles have reduced or increased function–we don’t either!
  4. However, since Behe erroneously thought that the APOB data supported his hypothesis and cited it, we can all agree completely that his hypothesis predicts that the polar bear APOB alleles will have reduced function. There’s no wiggle room.
  5. Since there is potential for relevance to hypercholesteremia, someone will test these alleles functionally very soon.
  6. We need to wait until we have the functional data, and only then we can be certain whether Behe’s hypothesis is supported or disproved.
5 Likes

Yes your framing is better.

1 Like

@Mark

Behe (and I) would agree that God is intervening all the time … by intelligently arranging all these natural processes!

I would agree that “intelligently arranging all these natural processes” seems incoherent. What does it mean? If it’s the pool shot, QM makes that impossible. If it’s something else, what?

Not if the world is super-determined. We covered this before (see @physicists).

I am going to write an article on this.

1 Like

It was my understanding that QM results do not allow the possibility of hidden variables. No?

See for example here:

I do not understand what that means. But I note that your Wikipedia link says that the theory is implausible.

1 Like

Superdeterminism in the physics literature usually means that the “free will” assumption (not having to do with free will strictly speaking, but about whether experimental parameters can be set independently of other initial conditions) is not satisfied. But QM doesn’t actually rule out that the physical universe is deterministic even if the “free will” assumption still holds.

Also, on some versions of Molinism, God could still make that pool shot even if there is fundamental indeterminism in the laws of physics. Omniscience is useful like that.

3 Likes

This is incorrect, though a common misunderstanding. Local theories are ruled out. Non-contextual theories are ruled out. But hidden variables are still on the table, and one of them is arguably simpler, and conceptually far more clear, than the orthodox interpretation.

2 Likes

Yup there is that Molinism thing too, even though @jongarvey hates it.