Archive for the ‘michael behe’ Category

Il s’est rendu ridicule chez Colbert et la vidéo est en train de faire le tour d’Internet (vue ici en premier). Mais ce n’est pas le pire !

Sur ERV, Abbie lui flanque une fessée intellectuelle publique de très haut niveau (attention, un peu de biologie nécessaire pour saisir la hauteur de l’amas de ridicule qui couvre Behe). Il fallait qu’une experte en HIV s’y penche pour répondre à celle là, le sujet n’est pas simple. Ah, bel esprit la fille, qu’est-ce que ça sera quand elle aura fini ses études 😉

En plus son post m’a fait marrer au point de gaspiller un peu de mon café.

Thank you lady.


Read Full Post »

Reducible Complexity

Evolution: Reducible Complexity — The Case for Bacterial Flagella, Current Biology, Volume 17, Issue 13, 3 July 2007, Pages R510-R512

Il y en a qui se foutent de la gueule de ce pauvre Michael Behe. Est-ce chrétien ça ?
Non, mais c’est gentil, très gentil même, pour tous ce que les âneries de Behe et consorts ont importuné; ce n’est qu’une revanche mineure.

Read Full Post »

post 813 of uncommondescent, by himself:

Here is a brief essay on design by ’s contemporary . Question: are the molecular machines identified by Michael Behe as decisive evidence for design merely analogous to human-built machines or do they fully instantiate the concept of machine?

What is the meaning of this post? That have just a century of science to catch up?

Please, could you push the update button(s)? 🙂

Read Full Post »

In remark 11 Behe set a list of points.

I’ll start with number 2:

I was given no chance to read them [ fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system], and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater.

How it comes that an expert, who present an expert opinion in front of a tribunal, declaring that the immune system is irreducibly complex, have no knowledge of every single word written on the subject? Forgetting to study one or two articles, or even a book that would be excusable. But 58 articles, and 9 books and several immunology textbook chapters ? What kind of expertise is that?

On number 3:

Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism.

And that’s a nice point. The only scientific evolution theory available is darwinism. And when one talk about evolution nowadays he shouldn’t think of anything else. I had the remark of Jean Staune on this point concerning Jean Paul II. Evolution, in singular, and when referring to scientific theories may be used as synonym of darwinism, as far as there is no competition. And even if one don’t talk science, say if intelligent designists would like to use the term « evolution » they should add « Introduction » to get « Introduction & Evolution » for example as they postulate that something didn’t evolved but was produced and introduced in the biosphere.

On number 4:

In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain the phrase “random mutation”; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true — they did not even try to demonstrate it.

I don’t know a single biologist using the term « random mutation » except in courses and ID discussions. The you talk about mutations or evolution and that’s it. I’m one of those assuming that evolution is true as far as it explains my data and nothing comes to show that there is something that can’t be explained by it. So what ? When you talk about evolution of a system, today, you don’t have to have to specify each time « darwinian evolution of an irreducibly complex, according to Behe, system ».

Quote from « Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller »

Read Full Post »

Nor do experiments exist that demonstrate the power of natural selection to make irreducibly complex biochemical systems, either directly or indirectly–proclamations of the National Academy notwithstanding.

He is perfectly right on this point. There is no experiment able to produce irreducible complex systems as those doesn’t exist 🙂

I suppose he wanted to say that: no experiments exists that demonstrate the power of random mutations and natural selection to make what he calls irreducibly complex biochemical systems.

I discussed the point at Variations

Quote from « Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller »

Read Full Post »

(5) ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73 (Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)).

In my remark here I will focus on the word “cannot.” I never said or wrote that Darwinian evolution “cannot” be correct, in the sense of somehow being logically impossible, as the court implies (referencing exclusively to Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses). In its use of the word “cannot” the Court echoes the unfair strategy of Darwinists to force skeptics to try to prove a negative, to prove that Darwinism is impossible. However, unlike in mathematics or philosophy, in science one cannot conclusively prove a negative. One can’t conclusively prove that Darwinism is false any more than one can conclusively prove that the “ether” doesn’t exist. With this unfair strategy, rather than demonstrating empirical plausibility, Darwinists claim that the mere logical possibility that random mutation and natural selection may in some unknown manner account for a system counts in their favor. In the history of science no successful theory has ever demonstrated that all rival theories are impossible, and neither should intelligent design be held to such an unreasonable, inappropriate standard. Rather, a theory succeeds by explaining the data better than competing ideas.

It would be quite easy to just ask once more time what explanations Intelligent Design bring with it.
Let’s see however a few more points.
For Behe mathematics aren’t science and that’s interesting to know.
He pretends that Darwinism can’t be proven false; it would be quite simple if there where at least one example where darwinian models couldn’t explain data. The exact model description is often long term work, but showing where exactly darwinism fails would be a nice movement from Dr Behe’s part. Not generalities, just a single example and a clear explanation why darwinism cannot explain it. No need to do more 😉 And by the way, if his theory could explain those data that would be great. And this isn’t about demonstrating that all the rivals of Intelligent Design are impossible; keep it focused on darwinism as you decided so a long time ago.

Quote from « Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller »

Read Full Post »

(2) The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s.

[…] However, if one simply contrasts intelligent causes with unintelligent causes, as ID does, then those two categories do constitute a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of possible explanations. Thus evidence against the ability of unintelligent causes to explain a phenomenon does strengthen the case for an intelligent cause.

So, to compare unintelligent causes which explain a lot of phenomena to intelligent ones that explain none, unintelligent causes are the champion. And the sentences « some intelligent causal agent designed it » isn’t an explanation as far as we don’t have evidence about what/who is this intelligent agent.

Quote from « Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller »

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »