Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Is it only in Biology that the peer review process, or throughout the entire world of science?
There is no such thing as a scientist who believes in creation, at least, not as a scientist. Creationism is not science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Behe's new paper
- Thread starter QuestionMark
- Start date
Is it only in Biology that the peer review process, or throughout the entire world of science?
There is no such thing as a scientist who believes in creation, at least, not as a scientist. Creationism is not science.
What book written 200 years ago? If you're going to say the origin of species, you're wrong. Scientists don't think evolution happens because they study that book, in fact, there are things that darwin got wrong in that book, and we know this because of new evidence that has arisen since the time that book was published.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, science never relies on a single book, and never relies on authority. It rests on the predictive ability and proper methodology of the specific article being reviewed. If the methodology is correct, then science accepts the result, no matter how disturbing, unorthodox, or contrary to the readers current views. So it's the opposite--the precise, utter, diametrical opposite of what you claim.
Which is no surprise.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Not to mention the fact that evolution was around long before Darwin's book.
Here ya go. It was just released as a free PDF:
A far better paper published alongside Behe's is Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design a look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience.
I love that title.
I love that title.
As for the previous comments critiquing peer review, nobody claims peer review is infallible or that there aren't serious flaws in it. Of course there are, as there is in any human driven activity. Just one example that comes to mind is how some point to publisher Elsevier as the worst case example of peer reviewed journals- Elsevier has been criticized on everything from subscription rates to accusations of shill reviews.
But peer review is one more small sieve to use when filtering out the scientifically supported from that which is tenuously supported if at all, from sense and nonsense, from that substantiated by evidence to that which is not. Peer review is but one small tool but isn't some dogmatic end all solution.
This is all well and good but the peer review critique is relevant when looking at Behe's contributions to science. The only reason this paper is being talked about is that Behe has actually published in a peer reviewed journal ! Any other scientist publishing would get a shrug and a savage critique of their paper and the debate would go on, but Behe is a special case because it's like the deaf, mute, blind kid playing a game of pinball all of a sudden. Behe has a serious dearth of scientific papers and an abundance of publications and letters in theology journals. Not a good sign for a biochemist claiming to offer substantive evidence supporting ID.
! Any other scientist publishing would get a shrug and a savage critique of their paper and the debate would go on, but Behe is a special case because it's like the deaf, mute, blind kid playing a game of pinball all of a sudden. Behe has a serious dearth of scientific papers and an abundance of publications and letters in theology journals. Not a good sign for a biochemist claiming to offer substantive evidence supporting ID.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
What is more confusing is that he also says that a single point mutation doesn't count as a CFT... yet he cites sickle cell as an example as a CFT. It's very confusing.
And yes, single point mutations are extremely common.
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
linwood
Well-Known Member
His testimony was a thing of beauty...
wa:do
Sometimes when I`m feeling down I re-read the court transcripts just to bring a little joy into my life.
QuestionMark
Member
Hello all,
I guess we can safely say that those who disagree with Behe's Intelligent Design also think that the paper he wrote is ambiguous and poor in quality?
I'm glad we also agree that the peer review process has a place, but also has limitations(like Darwinian Evolution?)
It's probably a good idea to remember that his ideas are less ambiguous when given more space and time to explain them such in his book the Edge of Evolution (which at the time was considered pseudoscientific quackery, the major premise of which is now being published in QRB).
I wonder if like Darwin, Behe's ideas will stand the test of time, and then 400 years from now people will be saying that Behe made a good contribution but obviously got a lot wrong and had no idea what was actually going on. (like Darwin who knew nothing of genetics or cellular biology, and whose theory has been replaced almost two times now by the Modern Synthesis and the more modern criticism of the Modern Synthesis).
What a fun world
Looking forward,
QM
I guess we can safely say that those who disagree with Behe's Intelligent Design also think that the paper he wrote is ambiguous and poor in quality?
I'm glad we also agree that the peer review process has a place, but also has limitations(like Darwinian Evolution?)
It's probably a good idea to remember that his ideas are less ambiguous when given more space and time to explain them such in his book the Edge of Evolution (which at the time was considered pseudoscientific quackery, the major premise of which is now being published in QRB).
I wonder if like Darwin, Behe's ideas will stand the test of time, and then 400 years from now people will be saying that Behe made a good contribution but obviously got a lot wrong and had no idea what was actually going on. (like Darwin who knew nothing of genetics or cellular biology, and whose theory has been replaced almost two times now by the Modern Synthesis and the more modern criticism of the Modern Synthesis).
What a fun world
Looking forward,
QM
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Hello all,
I guess we can safely say that those who disagree with Behe's Intelligent Design also think that the paper he wrote is ambiguous and poor in quality?
I'm glad we also agree that the peer review process has a place, but also has limitations(like Darwinian Evolution?)
It's probably a good idea to remember that his ideas are less ambiguous when given more space and time to explain them such in his book the Edge of Evolution (which at the time was considered pseudoscientific quackery, the major premise of which is now being published in QRB).
I wonder if like Darwin, Behe's ideas will stand the test of time, and then 400 years from now people will be saying that Behe made a good contribution but obviously got a lot wrong and had no idea what was actually going on. (like Darwin who knew nothing of genetics or cellular biology, and whose theory has been replaced almost two times now by the Modern Synthesis and the more modern criticism of the Modern Synthesis).
What a fun world
Looking forward,
QM
Not being familiar with this area, Mark, you're not really following the discussion.
First, the point is that usually Behe doesn't do science, so he doesn't publish. For a change, he has done a little science, and has gotten published, but what he has published has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, which is not science. So whether or not you like or agree with this paper has nothing to do with your views on Intelligent Design, because the paper isn't about that.
of course peer review has its limitations. Duh. Everything does. Meanwhile, it forms a part of the scientific method which remains the most effective tool we have for learning about the natural world.
His book The Edge of Evolution, which is basically wrong, has nothing to do with the ideas contained in this paper.
As for the last, I doubt it, since Behe doesn't usually do much science.
However, they laughed at Einstein, and they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being derided is not a good predictor of future scientific acceptance.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Actually I was quite a fan of ID for many years... having studied the science I can see the problems with the hypothesis.Hello all,
I guess we can safely say that those who disagree with Behe's Intelligent Design also think that the paper he wrote is ambiguous and poor in quality?
I'm glad we also agree that the peer review process has a place, but also has limitations(like Darwinian Evolution?)
It's probably a good idea to remember that his ideas are less ambiguous when given more space and time to explain them such in his book the Edge of Evolution (which at the time was considered pseudoscientific quackery, the major premise of which is now being published in QRB).
I wonder if like Darwin, Behe's ideas will stand the test of time, and then 400 years from now people will be saying that Behe made a good contribution but obviously got a lot wrong and had no idea what was actually going on. (like Darwin who knew nothing of genetics or cellular biology, and whose theory has been replaced almost two times now by the Modern Synthesis and the more modern criticism of the Modern Synthesis).
What a fun world
Looking forward,
QM
However, that doesn't really play into why this was a bad paper... this paper wasn't about ID at all. I often agree with scientists on some issues despite disagreeing with them on others. Like Alan Feduccia on bird systemics other than his odd origins ideas.
Unfortunately Behe doesn't publish much scientific work. This particular paper was a very poor example of his skill. I'm sure he must otherwise be a very competent biochemist otherwise he wouldn't have the job he does.
wa:do
ps. His testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover was pretty spectacular... he did more to undo the ID position than anyone on the opposing side. I doubt that he will ever testify in court on the subject again.
:yes:
If ID had any pretense of being scientific Behe would emphasize and define just what would constitute non-design. Just three weeks ago Behe wrote in the Guardian "though we may not know the details of how living things are assembled, it is clear to me that they are designed." as well as "My contention is that 'the purposeful arrangement of parts' to achieve a specific purpose is the criterion that enables us to recognise design." His broad definition of intelligent design is not particularly helpful as he gives no hint of what he'd consider as a good example of something with no designer nor does he indicate how these "arrangement of parts" are aimed at a particular goal. His definition of intelligent design is so ill defined it would include snowflakes: self assembling particles from non-complex to a more complex aggregate of parts.
Behe's own university sums up the whole mess succinctly:
QuestionMark
Member
Auto,
I've read Edge of Evolution (which goes into detail exploring what Darwinian processes can't do, trying to find the 'edge') and I've read this paper. There must be some difference between what we've read because I think this paper is talking about the edge of evolution. He's on a lifelong project to define it.
PW,
I follow Behe's career closely. He's doing more work than anyone gives him credit for. The establishment does not like his idea, and so he rarely gets published. When he does publish they ask him to take out any references to intelligent design.
As for his testimony in the Dover trial, I think that he was honest and forthright but as a witness you don't really have much power. It's not like he was an attorney making closing remarks. Courts aren't usually dramatic and don't usually present the best each side has to offer. I think that we would agree that if Behe were not limited to answering someone's inquisition then he'd give a much better presentation on why ID is scientifically relevant.
As for whether or not his work is skilled, I think wisdom will defer to the test of time. But as for whether it supported ID I think it's pretty clear, if Darwinian processes cannot create functional coded elements in the simplest life forms with the highest mutation and reproduction rates then one would hardly be led to believe that more complex life forms with longer reproduction cycles would experience greater Darwinian effect. This works on the inference to the best explanation.
Were you expecting a mathematical style proof? Remember that Darwinism itself is a 'long argument' an inference to the best explanation. You can't prove Darwinism in the way that people are expecting Behe to prove ID. A nice summary of the long argument is given in Meyer's new book though, if you're interested.
Looking forward,
QM
I've read Edge of Evolution (which goes into detail exploring what Darwinian processes can't do, trying to find the 'edge') and I've read this paper. There must be some difference between what we've read because I think this paper is talking about the edge of evolution. He's on a lifelong project to define it.
PW,
I follow Behe's career closely. He's doing more work than anyone gives him credit for. The establishment does not like his idea, and so he rarely gets published. When he does publish they ask him to take out any references to intelligent design.
As for his testimony in the Dover trial, I think that he was honest and forthright but as a witness you don't really have much power. It's not like he was an attorney making closing remarks. Courts aren't usually dramatic and don't usually present the best each side has to offer. I think that we would agree that if Behe were not limited to answering someone's inquisition then he'd give a much better presentation on why ID is scientifically relevant.
As for whether or not his work is skilled, I think wisdom will defer to the test of time. But as for whether it supported ID I think it's pretty clear, if Darwinian processes cannot create functional coded elements in the simplest life forms with the highest mutation and reproduction rates then one would hardly be led to believe that more complex life forms with longer reproduction cycles would experience greater Darwinian effect. This works on the inference to the best explanation.
Were you expecting a mathematical style proof? Remember that Darwinism itself is a 'long argument' an inference to the best explanation. You can't prove Darwinism in the way that people are expecting Behe to prove ID. A nice summary of the long argument is given in Meyer's new book though, if you're interested.
Looking forward,
QM
QuestionMark
Member
Nepenthe,
Consensus is the lowest level of evidence. Lots of people disagreed with Darwin. Lots of people disagreed with Gould. Lots of people disagree with Behe!
Plus, I think you're not giving Behe a fair shake when you say he doesn't state what is a case of something not designed. He does this at every conference, and goes to some length in the Edge of Evolution. Single point mutations are clearly not the work of a creator. Did you happen to read that book?
Looking forward to your reply,
QM
Consensus is the lowest level of evidence.
Lots of people disagreed with Darwin. Lots of people disagreed with Gould. Lots of people disagree with Behe!Plus, I think you're not giving Behe a fair shake when you say he doesn't state what is a case of something not designed. He does this at every conference, and goes to some length in the Edge of Evolution. Single point mutations are clearly not the work of a creator. Did you happen to read that book?
Looking forward to your reply,
QM
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
In what way?
To get published, all he needs to do is do good science. He doesn't much.
He was, that's why it was so great! By being honest, he showed better than anyone on the other side that ID is not science.
Yeah, that's the thing about court testimony--you can't get away with baloney, because you have to face cross-examination.
No, of course not, science is never about mathematical proof. ID simply is not science.
Yup, it's science.
I' not expecting him to prove anything. I expect him to formulate a hypothesis and then test it. He has yet to formulate the hypothesis, and there is nothing to test.
Thanks, I'm extremely familiar with it, and interested only in the sense of needing to know what they are trying to pull over on us next.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
We're not concerned with people in general, but with scientists, specifically, Biologists. Lots of Biologists (or as they were then called, naturalists) disagreed with Darwin. They turned out to be wrong--his theory was demonstrated to be extremely well-supported, and now almost no Biologists disagree with him.Nepenthe,
Consensus is the lowest level of evidence.
And that's as far as he's gotten.
QuestionMark
Member
Auto,
I get the sense that we're not going to agree and with your closing remark I can't help but think the time spent on exchanges might be better spent reading. My opinions on capitalism are being changed as I write. I find this very interesting: Darwin and Darwinism: The (Alleged) Social Implications of The Origin of Species -- Orr 183 (3): 767 -- Genetics
Looking forward,
QM
I get the sense that we're not going to agree and with your closing remark I can't help but think the time spent on exchanges might be better spent reading. My opinions on capitalism are being changed as I write. I find this very interesting: Darwin and Darwinism: The (Alleged) Social Implications of The Origin of Species -- Orr 183 (3): 767 -- Genetics
Looking forward,
QM
