LOL, I totally owned an ID loser (Prof.Michael Behe)

[WindRavenX]

So last week, Prof.Behe, who has a PhD in bio chem, came to my college to give a lecutre on "The Case Against Darwin: The Biochemical Arguement against Evolution".
The lecture can be boiled down to "I'm an intellectually lazy fuck who doesn't even know what evolution is so I'm just going to say God did it".
Among other things, he claimed (lol), that evolution is bunk because "no modern scientist has observed evolution" and that cells are set up today so that if you remove a part, it the cell ceases to function.

I was pissed that this quack's ramblings were representing science (I'm a bio major), so I shot off a letter to my college paper. Here it is:

As a soon to be graduating biology major who intends to teach high school biology, the controversy of "Intelligent Design" interest me deeply, and it is why I am writing this letter. The arguments Prof. Behe presented at his lecture were grossly misleading as to how scientists understand evolution and were, many times, strictly theological in nature and not science. For example, in his lecture he tried to claim that "no modern scientist has ever observed evolution". Are you kidding me? Never observed evolution? Has Prof. Behe completely forgotten what the point of why having a different flu vaccine is needed for every year? Viruses are mini-evolving units--the predominating flu strain that we are vaccinated against every year is the result of a shift of different viral receptors. We quite literally witness every new flu year. And what about the fact that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria are now becoming resistant to most known antibiotics? Secondly, his "irreducibly complex" argument falls apart when one considers that modern day mitochondria, which are now part of modern eukaryotic cells, are thought to have once been independent cells that were integrated into emerging eukaryotic cells in a symbiotic relationship. Of course, if you take out the mitochondria of a cell today, the cell ceases to function. But billions of years ago, mitochondria were probably quite independent
There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing God is behind evolution, as many biologists and scientists do, but in no way does that mean you can simply circumvent the whole process of scientific methodology. ID has no testable hypothesis--simply put, this is not science.
At best, Behe's arguments are merely theological, at worst, he is disingenuous and deserves no recognition as representing scientifc thought, nor should his arguments be recognized as science-- either here at Boston College or in our public schools.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Good for you.

I sort of like Behe- he's living proof that old argumentum ad verecundiam is bunk, as is the idea that people with PhDs are smart.

[Dudley_DUright]

34. It boggles my mind that he got tenure at a place like Lehigh University

I like his little disclaimer on his Lehigh website.

My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.

http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/faculty/behe.html

For a good antidote to Behe's bad science, I suggest visiting either

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

or

http://www.pandasthumb.org/

[Swamp Rat]

57. Kick for ScienceBlogs!

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/cats_candy_and_evolution.php#more

:kick:

[Buzz Clik]

2. It would have been more interesting to present those arguments to Behe...

He may never even see these points from you.


btw --- Do a Google on "Behe intelligent design". Interesting reading.

[WindRavenX]

6. I was too angry

I was sitting with some of my bio professors, and mostly we just kept shaking our heads.

He's a fucking simple minded idiot, plain and simple. He once said that the immune system was so complex that there's no way it could have arisen from natural selection. So when someone said "but we're finding out that that's not true" and presented some figures of genetic analysis of blood clotting proteins and how they got less and less similar in amino acid sequencing as we moved farther apart from our closest relatives, he said "Oh we shouldn't be studying this". :eyes:

[Buzz Clik]

11. No doubt Behe would have been unfazed by any counter arguments.

Pseudo-scientists who are pursuing an agenda rather than executing hypothesis science really don't give a shit what true scientists have to say. He loves having the limelight, and he's been getting a lot of exposure.

[ThomCat]

3. Good smack-down.

I hope some of the professors at your school are similarly smacking him down.

[Ezlivin]

4. You should get "Unintelligent Design" by Mark Perakh

The book is a very thorough critique of Intelligent Design.

Here's a blurb from the dust jacket:

His work is divided into three parts: first, an attack on the specifics of intelligent design, a theory spearheaded by the writings of William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Philip Johnson.; second, a critical dismantling of several arguments closely related to the intelligent design movement, such as attempts to "harmonize" the Bible with modern scientific understanding of the universe, the anthropic principle, and nonrandom evolution; and finally, a discussion of proper scientific method and probability theory, as well as an infamous account of science gone bad for the sake of religion—the Bible code theory propagated by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg.

[BootinUp]

5. Glad you tried to educate some folks.

Its a battle that will continue, and must continue.

[gratuitous]

7. Good letter, if a tad technical

But then again, this is a university audience, so that's okay as far as I'm concerned.

Question: Did Dr. Behe do his guest lecture free gratis, paid by some campus advocacy group, or was he paid out of student user fees to appear on campus? Since this is the sort of thing the repressive right loves to go nuts about ("My money was used to present ideas that I don't agree with!"), it might be useful to include it as sauce for the ganders should it become necessary for you to write a follow-up.

[WindRavenX]

8. He was paid by the St.Thomas Moore Society

A reactionary RW group on campus that got that insufferable asshole Paul Cameron to give a lecture on how "homosexuality kills you" :eyes:

Basically, they're wing nuts and have the GALL to call it "having a dialogue". No, it's not. It's fucking bullshit that should get laughed at by any respectable scientist. God I hate these people.

[WindRavenX]

9. the thing is, you need to use detailed examples

This is science, after all, and it's one of the consequences of dumbing down scientific thought with this ID bullshit. Some things are just complicated :D

[Buzz Clik]

14. Keep in mind who you're arguing against:

People who use science to provide validation for their religious beliefs have always baffled me. I am a religious person, and my faith is neither strengthened nor weakened by my scientific pursuits.

[WindRavenX]

16. Heck, St.Thomas Aquinas thought it was insulting to God....

...not to understand the natural world's functions. Remember first and second causes? God is the first cause, evolution the secondary cause. Why is this so hard to understand for people? Scientists aren't out there to "disprove God" or whatever-- that's just silly...

[Buzz Clik]

18. Dude, have a serious argument with one of these guys sometime.

Even if they are otherwise pretty intelligent, you won't believe your ears. It will change your life.

[WindRavenX]

20. I already have

My SO lives in Utah, and he has a few friends that not only don't "believe" in evolution, but believe carbon dating doesn't exist and the world is 6K years old.
Trust me, I've tried very hard explaining this using Aquinas...they still think I'm the devil.

[Buzz Clik]

21. ugh.

I feel your pain.

[WindRavenX]

23. ...and I'm moving to Utah to teach HS bio :)

Check out the link in my sig for my blog-- it's going to be pretty interesting.
The Mormons *hate* evolution.

[NoSheep]

46. I agree so much. The fact that the argument exists is unbelievable.

[NoSheep]

47. Good. Your sig line totally kept me from being annoyed.

It was the technical aspect of this letter, which anyone who has had a decent biology course will understand, that makes this smack down so damn hilarious!

[William Bloode]

10. This line always gets me.

"no modern scientist has observed evolution"

Like the expect to see something evolve right now! So ignorant, it's well known that evolution takes place over 100' & 1000's of generations. It's like they expect something new to just pop out of the womb.

Your argument for virus, and bacteria is spot on. You must remember to these folks though they don't count that as life. How convenient.

[WindRavenX]

12. is that really how they discredit viruses and bacteria?

It isn't life? WTF- bacteria are absolutely alive. Viruses are more of a grey spot, but if someone tries to claim bacteria isn't living-- man, what a retard :o

[William Bloode]

13. I have heard that arugument.

They are not life, or life like "ours", while pointing out such facts as posted.

[WindRavenX]

15. Life is Life

We're not exempt from the rules that govern E.coli-- they govern us too.

I hate people who hate science :(

[William Bloode]

19. I do as well.

I love science myself, can't get enough really. But you know science has always scared the shit outta the religious hierarchy.

[Buzz Clik]

17. The anti-evolution crowd have two enormous problems with "Darwinism"

First, it might suggest that the Adam and Eve model might be flawed. Second, the notion that man descended from apes means that man is not inherently superior. The psychological implications of that for fundies is enormous.

[verse18]

37. Fundies would rather believe

that man was created from dirt and woman was created from the rib of a man who was created from dirt. Much better then being descended from intelligent mammals.:sarcasm:

[rockymountaindem]

33. Don't forget about the black and white moths in Britain

That was the first thing I read as an example of evolution in my HS biology class, and it had a pretty big impact on me, because it makes total sense.

[WindRavenX]

38. GOD WILLED THOSE MOTHS TO CHANGE COLOR!!!

DONT BE BRINING NO HOMO SCIENCE INTO MUH SKOOLZ!! :sarcasm:

[rockymountaindem]

40. Oh, sorry. n.t

[Canuckistanian]

41. I remember that

The moths changed color over a a period of decades to adapt to soot-blackened trees during the Industrial Revolution.

I remember that example being proof enough for me.

[rockymountaindem]

43. Correct

IIRC, the moths originally were mostly white, until the trees were covered in black soot by coal-fired industrial facilities. This gave the evolutionary advantage to the few black moths, who not long after became the dominant color, almost leading to the complete destruction of the white moths. Then, with the conversion to cleaner fuel sources, the trees which had been white, then black, now were mostly covered by a green outer layer, giving an evolutionary advantage to neither color. Now the moths are about half white and half black.

That last part is the kicker for me.

[Canuckistanian]

51. Wow, even better

Now, show me the Bible verse that predicted THAT.

[aikoaiko]

22. macro verus micro evolution

A more skillful ID person would have made the claim that macro evolution has not been observed (the formation of a new species) as opposed to micro evolution (change in distribution of traits).

This is more difficult to rebutt as it really depends on your definition of species and your time frame of analysis. One may be able to argue the existence of new species based on the functional definition (*do* the two groups of animals create offspring who can create offspring) as opposed to the structural definition (*can* the two groups of animals create offspring who can create offspring). At least that was as far as I got when I went down that road.

[WindRavenX]

24. but scientifcally, macro/micro is a useless term

I know what you're saying, but from a scientific standpoint the distinction between micro and macro is nill.

[aikoaiko]

32. Ok, I can go along with calling the micro-macro dichotomy false, but...

its seems like calling a significant change in morphological distribution is not enough to say some group of organisms is a new species.

What do you say when confronted with the old "science has never seen a new species emerge" ID question?

[WindRavenX]

36. I tell them that things speciate over hundreds of thousands of years

And since H.sapien has been only around for 100K years, yeah, you're not going to see many. If they can't accept that, there's nothing you can do to sway them otherwise :shrug:

[aikoaiko]

39. Ok, thanks. nt

[Buzz Clik]

25. The fossil record has such observations...

and such things have been observed for rapidly reproducing organisms.

It all boils down to human evolution and nothing more. Fundies is paranoid.

[aikoaiko]

30. You'd be doing me a favor if you could provide citations for ...

... for observing new species formation among living organisms. I'm just too busy to look, but if you have anything handy I'd be grateful to incorporate it in my lectures. Last I looked, and this was 10 years ago, no one had produced subspecies that couldn't or wouldn't reproduce offspring who couldn't or wouldn't reproduce.

The standards for deciding new species is different for the fossil record (as I understand it)than for living organisms and really doesn't rebut the ID argument well enough.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Ugh.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Just google "speciation"

[aikoaiko]

50. thanks, that was a very helpful link....

...but I don't understand the ugh. I simply asked for a cite. So thanks for the cite.

[MADem]

26. Jesus H. Christ on a unicycle!!!!!! THIS was at BC?????????

I'd demand a goddamn rebate on my tuition if I were you!!! That isn't presenting "both sides" of an argument, that's throwing dough at a lecturer who is a charletan. They may as well serve you toxic turkey tettrazini in the student cafeteria, and when you puke your guts out, call it a "science experiment" and absolve themselves of any responsibility. Shame on them for lowering their standards so profoundly!!!

Your letter is great, BTW. You seem to have wrung a decent education out of BC...but damn, at those prices, you should be able to so do without having to call out the administration on unadultuated pie-in-the-sky NONSENSE.

I'm stunned that they would pay that asshole, with YOUR money, to spout that shit under cover of "academic freedom." It's BAD SCIENCE, plain and simple. Bullshit is bullshit, and some viewpoints, like the notion that man and dinosaurs occupied the planet at the same time (Fred Flintstone notwithstanding) are pure bullshit.

I hope the rest of your education wasn't this disappointing and moronic. It seems to me that a lot of the high end schools are doing a lot of this dumbshit, lately, and I put it down to the desire to make future right-leaning alumni (like the children of Tim Russert and Chris Matthews) comfortable so they'll give, give, give in their later years--the GOP influence is most disturbing.

[WindRavenX]

27. ...and don't EVEN get me started on the state of gay rights on campus

It's not just in the middle ages-- but in the fucking STONE AGE.

Remember how our SAFE ZONE (i.e, NOT a "gay" event, but merely a place where you WON'T get fag bashed for bringing your BF) dance was killed last year?

BC is great academically, we have some of the top chemists and leading urban biologists, but fuck, when it comes to religion--stay the fuck away.

[MADem]

28. Good grief! I took a look at your blog, great job, there!

Your work study rant brought back memories. Of course, when I did that servitude, I made way less than even two bucks an hour (yes, it was a LONG time ago) and I operated a PBX switchboard (of the sort you saw Lily Tomlin as Ernestine the telephone operator using--see, it WAS a long time ago), amongst other duties.

You will have to keep us posted on your adventures in UTAH...you're quite brave, you know! The cognitive dissonance is going to be quite the challenge for you, but your adventures will probably make one helluva book!

[WindRavenX]

29. thank you for your kind words

It should be a very interesting experience, no doubt. :hi:
The things you do for love...:loveya:

[Rex]

31. Sounds like the guy failed zoology class when he was a student.

How pathetic. That was smart of you not to argue while you were angry. Unfortunately, I'm not that smart.

[immoderate]

35. Good going -- Behe is an example of the Wizard of Oz Effect.

When the Scarecrow asks the wizard for a brain, the wizard says, "I can't give you a brain, but I can give you a diploma."

Some people (not all) need a PhD desperately; it's the only thing they have to claim they are not stupid.

--IMM

[BrewerJohn]

44. Good job

And Behe is often cited as one of the "leading lights" of ID, which means that their
arguments don't get much better if you look elsewhere.

I read his book several years ago, back when I used to follow this stuff more closely,
and was duly unimpressed, because around the same time I was reading about biologists
proposing more than one valid and plausible mechanism by which his "irreducibly complex"
systems could have evolved, besides your mitochondria example. Of course, when these were
presented to the IDiots, they either ignored them or just tried to talk around them.

ID is just intellectual dishonesty wrapped around an agenda.

[NoSheep]

45. You get extra credit for that!!!!

[enigmacat]

48. As a graduating student, you are still too inexperienced to effectively...

challenge his arguments. Referring to him as an "ID loser" and "quack", is incredibly juvenile.
This "quack" that you refer to, has a Doctorate degree in Biological chemistry, and you are still a novice, in comparison.
I am assuming that you have never bothered to read his book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution?" In this book, he focuses on five phenomena: blood clotting, cilia, the human immune system, the transport of materials within cells, and the synthesis of nucleotides. After analyzing each phenomenon systematically, he arrives at a single startling conclusion: These are systems that are so irreducibly complex that no gradual, step-by-step Darwinian route could have led to their creation.
Darwinism is the only scientific theory taught worldwide that has yet to be proved by the rigorous standards of science.
Darwin himself knew that the only way to verify the main tenets of his theory was to search the fossil record. That search has continued to this day. How many years have passed, with hundreds of scientists from all specialties searching, and still what evidence has the fossil record revealed concerning Darwin's transistional species?
The late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who is the antithesis of a Bible-thumping Creationist, acknowledged: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically lacking."
I know I will probably get flamed for this post, but it needs to be said. Anyone that challenges Darwinian Evolution is not automatically nuts or religious.
Science is supposed to be about the exchange of verifiable information, and observations; even if that is contradictory to what Science holds as true at present. Otherwise, we would still believe the world was flat, and that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
If you want to challenge Prof. Behe, do so in a manner which doesn't cheapen your opinion, such as name-calling.

[WindRavenX]

52. fuck that--I call a spade a spade

Anyone that challenges Darwinian Evolution is not automatically nuts or religious
No, you're right. But Behe does not follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD-- simply put, he offers NO evidence of HIS opinions-- which put up against literally over 150 years of extensive evidence for natural selection means he proves JACK SHIT. He follows the Argument from Incredulity(courtesy of my friend Jeff).

"I can't imagine how it could've happened, therefore it's impossible!!11!!"

I am assuming that you have never bothered to read his book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution?" In this book, he focuses on five phenomena: blood clotting, cilia, the human immune system, the transport of materials within cells, and the synthesis of nucleotides. After analyzing each phenomenon systematically, he arrives at a single startling conclusion: These are systems that are so irreducibly complex that no gradual, step-by-step Darwinian route could have led to their creation.
Darwinism is the only scientific theory taught worldwide that has yet to be proved by the rigorous standards of science.

Wrong. I've read his book and all the examples HE WENT OVER IN HIS BOOK have been explained and have extensive physiological/fossil AND genetic evidence to support natural selection. He offers no scientific reasons for his arguements. He isn't doing science he's doing theology.

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically lacking.

WRONG. This year a MAJOR transitional fossil linking sea vertebrates with land tetrapods was found.

Link w/ picture: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?ex=1301976000&en=76a1b46221b5cc6a&ei=5090


So you know what? He is a quack. He choses to ignore scientific evidence and just claim some big ol' man in sky is the reason for evolution and speciation. I call it religion and faith, which is fine.

Just don't call it science.

He is a quack because he isn't doing science. Period. And I will not allow this lazy ass intellectual to continue his teaching as science.

[Nikki Stone 1]

55. Hey Windraven. You've done your homework.

Now learn how to make "You're an asshole" sound classy and academic and you've got it made. :)

[Nikki Stone 1]

54. Hey enigmacat. How many academic conferences have you been to

at which the abstruse and well modulated "argumentation" is no more than "You're a loser", "No you're a quack."

Polysyllabic words do not hide the vacuousness of most academic discourse over matters of allegiance, faith, or loyalty to a particular school of thought. To say that someone is "too inexperienced" just means that the person hasn't learned to put an expensive sauce over Wal-Mart pasta. (No offense to Pastafarians intended. :))

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. "quack" is almost too nice for him.

I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.

Michael Behe has a doctoral degree in Biology for the sole reason that they don't revoke doctoral degrees for conduct unbecoming a scientist. Behe may have once impressed a doctoral committee, but he in now neither a scientist in general, or a biologist in specific.

Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" is not a piece of scientific literature. It has, however, been reviewed and found lacking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

"Darwinism is the only scientific theory taught worldwide that has yet to be proved by the rigorous standards of science."

Evolution has been rigorously tested for the last hundred and sixty years. And nothing in biology makes sense without it.

"Darwin himself knew that the only way to verify the main tenets of his theory was to search the fossil record."

"Darwin was, obviously, unaware of the DNA record. (I'll give Darwin credit, what's your excuse?) However, the fossil record also proves evolution.

"How many years have passed, with hundreds of scientists from all specialties searching, and still what evidence has the fossil record revealed concerning Darwin's transistional species?"

160 years. Thousands of scientists. Hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, all confirming evolution.

"The late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who is the antithesis of a Bible-thumping Creationist, acknowledged: 'All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically lacking.'"

Quote taken out of context. And found on many Creationists websites. A quick googling and...

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm

If you'd actually read Gould yourself, you'd see he spent a significant portion of his career fighting Creationists."

"I know I will probably get flamed for this post, but it needs to be said. Anyone that challenges Darwinian Evolution is not automatically nuts or religious."

I disagree. Anybody who actually looks at the science sees that Evolution is the only explanation. The only reason to disagree is because it conflicts with the literal interpretation of the Bible. And anybody who isn't nuts knows that the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally.

"Science is supposed to be about the exchange of verifiable information, and observations; even if that is contradictory to what Science holds as true at present."

Which is exactly why Creationism isn't science. And Evolution is.

"Otherwise, we would still believe the world was flat, and that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
If you want to challenge Prof. Behe, do so in a manner which doesn't cheapen your opinion, such as name-calling"

Using your analogy, Darwin would be the scientist who proves the world is round, and the Creationists would be the nuts who still believed the world is flat because it says so in the Bible. A more historically accurate analogy would be Darwin as Galileo demonstrating the heliocentric model (that means the earth going around the sun) and the Creationists being the Papacy who simply say "no it doesn't. Not according to the Bible."

[kath]

49. WR, have you read the judge's ruling in the Dover, PA ID case - it was a

MAJOR smackdown of Behe. Takes a while to read it, but definitely worth it.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf#search=%22kitzmiller%22

[WindRavenX]

53. Read it. He was pwned.

The judge astutely knows how "ID" is just another word for "God". And he's right.

If I wanted to teach ID with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you think I'd get much support? :think:

[Nikki Stone 1]

56. Only with a creamy white sauce and some Parmesian.

:)

[GeorgeGist]

58. Evolution is intelligent design...

but it takes intelligence to understand that creative design is dynamic not static.