NY Times publishes deceptive op-ed on Intelligent Design

[pmbryant]

The New York Times published an op-ed today by perhaps the most prominent academic proponent of Intelligent Design, Michael Behe. (I've written about this at my blog here: http://pmbryant.typepad.com/b_and_b/2005/02/new_york_times_.html)

Biologist PZ Myers at the blog Pharyngula has the definitive take-down of Behe's op-ed: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/behe_jumps_the_shark/

Some highlights from Behe's op-ed:

(T)he contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.

...

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.

Some highlights from Myers' response:

(Behe) claims the Intelligent Design guess is based on physical evidence, and that he has four lines of argument; you’d expect him to then succinctly list the evidence, as was done in the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ on the talkorigins site. He doesn’t. Not once in the entire op-ed does he give a single piece of this “physical evidence.”

...

The rest of his argument consists of citing a number of instances of biologists using the word “machine” to refer to the workings of a cell. This is ludicrous; he’s playing a game with words, assuming that everyone will automatically link the word “machine” to “design.” But of course, Crick and Alberts and the other scientists who compared the mechanism of the cell to an intricate machine were making no presumption of design.

There is another sneaky bit of dishonesty here; Behe is trying to use the good names of Crick and Alberts to endorse his crackpot theory, when the creationists know full well that Crick did not believe in ID, and that Alberts has been vocal in his opposition.

...

Look at what he is doing: he is simply declaring that there is no convincing explanation in biology that doesn’t require intelligent design, therefore Intelligent Design creationism is true. But thousands of biologists think the large body of evidence in the scientific literature is convincing! Behe doesn’t get to just wave his hands and have all the evidence for evolutionary biology magically disappear; he is trusting that his audience, lacking any knowledge of biology, will simply believe him.

...

Behe began this op-ed by telling us that he was going to give us the contemporary argument for Intelligent Design creationism, consisting of four linked claims. Here’s a shorter Behe for you:

The evidence for Intelligent Design.

1. It’s obvious.
2. It’s obvious!
3. Evolutionary explanations are no good.
4. There aren’t any good evolutionary explanations.

That’s it.

That’s pathetic.

And it’s in the New York Times? Journalism has fallen on very hard times.

So will a pro-evolution biologist (of which there is certainly no shortage) get the same op-ed space in the New York Times for a couter-argument in the next few days?

--Peter

[swag]

1. I nominate Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg for the rebuttal

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/weinberg_designer.html

[pmbryant]

5. Interesting piece, but I think we need a more biology-oriented article

That one is very physics-oriented. I just skimmed it, but I'm not sure it even addressed the topic of evolution.

--Peter

[arcane1]

7. hell I'd be happy to get it from Gould!

:toast:

[Fleurs du Mal]

22. And Gould was a skyhook seeker! Dawkins!!!

[wug37]

2. That piece was such trash

I read it expecting something, but there was no evidence other than some bullshit comparison to Mount Rushmore. That and the whole machine thing mentioned in your posting. There was no citation of proof other than "it must mean this because of a comparison to Mount Rushmore". Total bullshit.

[pmbryant]

6. Sadly typical

Behe is, as far as I know, the leading light of the intellectual Intelligent Design movement.

--Peter

[MaineYooper]

15. agreed- last time I checked,...

selection didn't operate on rocks.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. I have been fuming ALL DAY over this absolute BS published by

my BELOVED NY Times!!!

I have no scientific credentials and only moderate writing skills but someone MUST respond to this CRAP!!!!

Sorry for all the SHOUTING.

:)

[wtbymark]

4. It seems that the Times and NBC and even CBS

have caved in, where they used to be leaning on democratic tones and rationality, after the election they have simply surrendered and are now just as much the administrations mouthpiece as Fox. Pretty much all MSM has now drank the cool-aid.

Viva Vermont!

[WestMichRad]

19. NPR has caved too...

... and is drinking the same kook-aid OOPS I mean kool-aid. (LOL!)

Today they had a feature on Morning Edition where gave time to a scientist to explain how belief in science and intelligent design were compatible. Just about lost my breakfast.

They heard from a parent who explained how much trouble it is for her to indoctrine her children to the i.d. position, because she has to "undo" what they've learned in school. Really!

It is just another chapter in how the fundamentalists see the world - "Reality is what we say it is." :-(

[papau]

8. Intelligent Design is a natural common feeling that is usually part of

the discussion of God - as in God the creator, I do not understand it's use in a discussion of evolution.

Intelligent Design is a natural common feeling that is usually part of the discussion of God - as in God the creator, I do not understand it's use in a discussion of evolution. I do not believe the Catholic Church takes any position on the usefulness to science of "evolution"

It appears to be a war between the fundies and the no-God crowd - and not central to ones faith.

There are at least 2000 and perhaps more years of "God the Creator because I see intelligent design" thought from very learned folks. I am always amazed by those no-God types that I consider intelligent who reject what I consider obvious, and fall back on the no path to anywhere logic of "it is because it is" - occassionaly re-package as the Anthropomorphic Principle -

Why do folks fear others seeing the existence of a teleological universe - a universe made with a purpose? It does not affect the science that they do.

Now I grant you that both sides - fundie and no-god - have tried to use the fact that the fundamental constants of the universe are within the narrow limits that allow life - one side saying we exist to observe this fact simply because if those constant were different, we would not exist - - - - while the other side says those constants are our constants because our universe was set up specifically for the purpose of our life.

And as with all matters of faith, there is no bridging the logic gap between the two camps. The No God camp says that thermodynamics explains how ordered structures will form spontaneously if the ordered structure has lower energy than the unstructured alternatives, and the faith camp says that is a law that is true in this universe that was given to us - God as law giver - or if you like - as the designer of the rules of the game.

The response is by the No God folks is that God could have done a better design if he was trying to favor humans - LOL - - followed by the power of infinity to overcome many arguments - as in infinite budding universes, or infinite contraction/expansion big bangs that eventually get around to the set of constants that permit life - and if that fails to convince, the no-God folks fall back on "faith" - LOL - and say there are laws yet to be discovered that will explain all - and most certainly they will explain all without reference to a God.

So do you - the no-god folks - feel you have an adequate explanation of the universe - with laws to be discovered to fill in the obvious gaps, and therefore you feel there is no "need" for God, - so there is no God?

Since science can not provide a proof of a universal purpose or the creator of such a purpose (or disprove such), the rules of science would seem to permit folks of faith to be scientists

But I come back to where I started - I do not understand ID's use in proving - or disproving - the usefulness of evolution.

What am I missing?

[CaptainCorc]

9. It seems to me it's not a matter of "fear"

It's just a matter of what constitutes "science". The idea of intelligent design cannot be objectively tested and therefore can't be considered science.

That, I believe, is the argument.

When Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe" he did not include that statement as a premise in his scientific theories--at least not explicitly. I'll grant you that he was probably thinking about it when he spent fruitless years searching for a unified field theory though.

But I haven't made a study of these things so it's only a suspicion--much like my idea that light accelerates beyond the speed of light while entering a black hole and subsequently bursts into showers of pixies in a parallel universe.

[papau]

10. We Agree - The idea of intelligent design cannot be objectively tested

and therefore does not affect how one does any science -

but we sure talk about it a lot!

:-)

[CaptainCorc]

12. Yes and I think the reason for that is the concern that ID

will be (and is being) presented as science. That truly is a viewpoint to be refuted. But shucks, as a philosophy, why not? Just make sure it's presented as a philosophy and not science. Science has already been blurred too much for a high school student's good.

Your point that it's pointless (heh heh) to attempt to refute the IDEA of ID is perfectly sound...but again, the idea that it's SCIENCE does need to be refuted.

[arcane1]

13. I'll accept it as science on one condition:

they scientifically explain how the intelligent designer was designed

[CaptainCorc]

14. er....pixies? :) n/t

[MaineYooper]

16. remember Bohr's response-

Albert, it is not for us to tell God how to run the universe!

[CaptainCorc]

18. I wasn't aware of that...thanks for posting it :) n/t

[starroute]

11. What you're missing is the nature of science itself

Intelligent Design doesn't go back 2000 years, but only 200, to William Paley's Natural History: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802).

Paley's book was a response to the decline of traditional religion and the rise of science. Its goal was to prop up religion by cherry-picking some of the most impressive aspects of the natural world and then claiming they were too complex to have a natural explanation.

The argument he started has raged back and forth ever since -- but every time religion has tried to draw a line in the sand, science has promptly crossed it. There are still many things science has not yet explained, but there is no reason to believe there is anything in this world which science cannot explain.

For sensible people, the argument has therefore moved to one about the origin of the universe itself -- what came before it, what comes after it, what is outside it, and so forth. And on that level of discussion, there's no problem with the fact that some people say "God" while others say :shrug:

The real problem comes with those people who aren't prepared to accept that we live in a realm of scientific causes and scientific explanations and that anything beyond that is a matter of metaphysics and not of science. Instead, they're trying to take things back to where they were 150 years ago, to poke holes in science, to dredge up obscure phenomena that they hope science won't be able to explain, even to deny science the right to examine certain areas of existence.

It's that aspect of intelligent design -- the Paleyesque claim that the inadequacy of science proves the existence of God -- that most science-minded people fear and despise. The reason is that, if accepted, it destroys the ontological basis of science itself.

For myself, I'm quite prepared to concede that there are certain aspects of nature where current mechanistic approaches fall short. But I'd be far more inclined to look for alternative explanations in Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields or even in something like a world-soul than in the archaic religious daddy-knows-best style of creator.

People have always tried to explain the world in terms of what they know. At various times in the past, this has meant imagining a goddess who birthed the world, or a god who masturbated the world into being, or an androgynous deity who dreams of an existence that continues only as long as the dream. Today, the God-believers are inclined towards an engineer-deity, who putters around in his workshop, improving a feature here and implementing an upgrade there. But as far as I'm concerned, that particular metaphor has all the sterility of laboratory science without its practical effectiveness. It's really time to move on.

[atommom]

17. I was very displeased to see this in the NYT.

It was a poorly reasoned argument that really didn't deserve to be published in a "legitimate" paper. If we embrace ID, we discredit science and the scientific method. That's a dangerous thing to do.

[Imperialism Inc.]

20. Even Behe has admitted that

man and modern chimps evolved from a common ancestor.
He is simply unable to deny it and maintain any of the very little credibility he has.
The reason has to do with certain gene copying errors we both share. (something to do with hemoglobin genes... multiple copies maybe? and others such as broken vitamin c genes in a large branch of the mammal "tree")
In general he agrees that natural selection and common decent are a true. He simply cannot deny it without being viewed as a total quack.
I wonder how many people who have heard of Behe or use his ideas are aware of this.
He is just another example of someone trying to pull a God of the gaps fast one.

[Lexingtonian]

21. Wow, it's a horrible op-ed.

Cleverly written, but it's all about plausibility and literally proposes the superficiality to things to amount to its substance.

I hate the underhanded rhetorical strategy of the thing. It's so lacking in rigor of argument and evidence that you wouldn't believe that a scientist wrote it. If it weren't for the little biographical blurb at the bottom, you'd never guess that a scientist either wrote (unlikely) or endorsed a ghostwritten thing of the kind (likely).

This ID theorem is pseudoscience by the criteria it meets. The essential explanation strategy is Analogy (claim 1), the thing that the Analogy Discovered serves is Will of the Divinity (claims 2/3), and there is an assertion of a rationally unknowable Plane on which all of the business makes sense (claim 4). These are highly distorted versions, but recognizable ones, of the three axioms of occultic belief systems (=pseudosciences) identified by Constant.

Sadly, professorships and Ph.D.'s in scientific fields are not rescinded when the holder of them goes over to pseudoscience. Putting his name on this crud ready should result in some kind of punishment to the fellow's reputation.

I really wish there were far more educated people who were taught the axioms of Constant, because the anti-science and other wierd bits of 'religious' drivel tend to conform to that variety of "alternative" systems of belief.