How do you know that?
Did you check other sources too, or are you just accepting Behe’s claims?
5 Likes
Let’s say that is true, that it remains a question that scientists have yet to fully answer.
Can you spell out Behe’s argument that leads to the conclusion that it therefore could not have evolved and, moreover, that it is reasonable to conclude that it was designed? Could you explain why you find his arguments convincing?
2 Likes
The ‘problem’ was fairly well understood when Behe wrote ‘Black Box’, much better by Dover, and better still now. If he is suggesting in his new book that it is a substantial problem, he is being intentionally dishonest.
3 Likes
There’s no reason to ascribe sinister motives to Behe. He is neither a hematologist nor a geneticist, so he is likely unaware of his not being up to date.
That said, @jeffb you seem to read Behe quite uncritically. Simultaneously, you seem highly motivated to reject the perspectives of a community of scientists that are collectively far more qualified to speak on this issue than you or Behe.
@CrisprCAS9 or anyone else - is there a good, in-depth literature review that addresses the clotting cascade argument? A few good links might really help our inquisitive friend, Jeff.
Best,
Chris
2 Likes
You are being far to generous. The link below describes an in depth discussion between Behe and Larry Moran regarding The Edge of Evolution. There is no possible way Behe could not be aware of the problems raised here, as he was corresponding with Moran thru every step of the discussion. Yet if he so much as mentioned any of these problems in the video I missed it.
When you watch Behe in these “debates” you must understand that he has no interest whatsoever in convincing his opponent nor the scientifically literate viewers who might be in the audience. He is pitching to the likes of @jeffb and the other ID enthusiasts we have in this group. And you know how impervious they are to evidence. We are witnessing it right before our eyes in this very discussion.
4 Likes
Sorry, forgot the link!
3 Likes
Lots of links here:
1 Like
The scientific method exists and is useful precisely because we use it to learn that what we merely believe is not the case.
4 Likes
My thanks to those (@Mercer , @Faizal_Ali) who contributed helpful links. But an extra helping of thanks to you, Stephen, for that outstanding review article! Figure 6 is wonderful:
Best,
Chris
1 Like
Looks like I have a number of responses to reply to. With my time constraints, and interests in other threads, I’m just going to offer one last reply to these various comments (at least the ones worth replying to):
This is a very valid question. One I take seriously.
I do try very hard not to be “that guy,” who only gets info from his silo. I do enjoy Behe’s books. But very much try to wait for rebuttals and glean from them. As well as the rebuttals to the rebuttals. Not being an expert in these fields, I DO listen to the responses by the “perspectives of a community of scientists that are collectively far more qualified to speak on this issue than you or Behe” (see below).
What I appreciate from his latest book (AMfD), was how thorough he was at putting forth the prominent rebuttals, and then responded to them. He certainly doesn’t seem to be one to avoid challenges, or avoid research.
I also got a lot out of listening to his interview here about blood clotting where he addresses Doolittle and Miller: Behe: Blood Clotting Remains a Mousetrap for Darwin | ID the Future
CONCLUSION: No, I don’t just listen to Behe. I try very much to listen to rebuttals. So regarding this topic to date: I’ve heard his challenge, the rebuttals, his rebuttals to those rebuttals. At this point it looks like decent challenge. But I’ll certainly be listening for the next round of rebuttals.
That rabbit hole looks rather deep. I’ll just have to defer to my comments above.
There’s so much I could say in response.
I’ll just say this: You might consider reading that section of his book, and/or listen to that interview above. It might change your perspective.
At a minimum, it would let you respond to me by saying “Yes, I read it also.” And then that comment you made will be a little more validated.
See above.
Lastly, I notice some links were posted. Some of those look a tad outdated.
Looks like this thread is coming to a conclusion, and it’s difficult to resist the interpretation that Behe’s fans don’t really know how to defend his arguments when put to real scrutiny, other than by half-hearted subjective characterizations.
4 Likes
But not the science. Why start with Behe and pretend that its just a debate?
2 Likes
The skeptic in me is wondering whether the rebuttals you looked at were only the ones mentioned by Behe - in which case you might not be able to tell how thorough he was.
4 Likes
In which case, you will appreciate this detailed response from one of the people to whom Behe responded in that book, explaining how Behe’s response was inadequate:
I suspect that the large majority of people to whom Behe responded would be able come with similar reactions. Were you aware of the problems raised by Moran from reading Behe’s book? If not, how do you know that similar problems do not exist for the other claims Behe makes, of which you are similarly unaware?
2 Likes
Let me lay out the sequence of events:
- Behe said something.
- You read it and believed it.
- I noted that there is clear evidence that what Behe said is wrong, and in fact there was evidence before he made the claim in the first place.
- You said I should go and read the wrong thing Behe said.
Guess what? Reading the wrong thing Behe said won’t make him right, nor will it make the evidence that he is wrong no longer exist.
Consider for a moment that Behe is actually wrong about what he said, and that I and many others have seen the evidence that he is wrong, and that this evidence is publicly available. Possibly even at links posted in this thread. And rather than, I don’t know, read any of that available evidence, you posted the comment I’ve quoted. Wouldn’t that make your comment somewhat silly? I think it would, and would suggest that you try harder in the future.
7 Likes
If I may suggest a modification:
- You read it and wanted to believe it.
That reaction is consistent with my edit. If @jeffb really believed what Behe wrote, he’d be diving deep into the primary scientific literature with gusto, confident that everything he will find will glorify Behe.
Not outdated, just older. The dates on those are a strong signal that Behe’s claim was clearly false when he made it. I see that you didn’t comment on any of their content. Why?
3 Likes
That assumes he both believes and cares enough. I don’t doubt Jeff’s belief, just his commitment to verifying Behe’s claims in the literature. Obviously still bad, but I think my original wording is valid.
2 Likes
Hi Jeff,
I commend you for your attitude. But here’s a question to ponder: do you think you have the right grounding in scientific research to be a good judge of how to weight the arguments presented on both sides? Do you feel well qualified to discern between appeals to analogies that make logical sense (but don’t agree with the data) and well-founded, arcane arguments that are well supported by the data but perhaps are inaccessible to a popular audience?
Best,
Chris
P.S. I have read much of Behe’s literature. I remember being 100% convinced by everything he wrote in “Darwin’s Black Box” when I first read it. It took years for me to realize that science works best when it is a community-driven, consensus-seeking enterprise where insiders who possess command of the methodology and detailed data should be given the respect and deference that they have earned. Accompanying this realization was another one: Contrary to the assertions of so many in the ID camp, there is nothing inherently anti-religious about methodological naturalism. These are the reasons I now find Behe’s work to be completely off-the-mark.
6 Likes
In fairness to @jeffb, though, Behe does have a talent for creating arguments that require complex and difficult to follow rebuttals. e.g. As thorough and precise as that Sandwalk article I linked above is, it is very easy to get confused and lose the thread of the argument. For instance, if Behe’s argument rests on the rarity with which chloroquine resistance evolves, and Moran points out that the mutation rate may be even lower than Behe estimated, doesn’t that help Behe’s argument? Well, no. But it’s easy to understand why someone might think it does.
3 Likes