Prof. Michael Behe denounced by his own University

[Pah]

Lehigh University, where Behe is part of the Department of Biological Sciences, has issued a statement on their website distancing themselves from this witness for Intelligent Design at the trial in Harrisburg PA.

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Copyright © 2003 Lehigh University. All Rights Reserved.

Nothing like discreditting the credentials of an "expert" witness.


Behe's reply

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.

 

[s2a]

"Prof. Michael Behe denounced by his own University"


Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

It'a all a conspiracy!!!

*cough*

*cough*

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

So much for Behe's box of incredulity...

 

[Pah]

... So much for Behe's box of incredulity...

I also understand that Behe's example of irreducible complexity, a mousetrap, was "simplified" and used as a tie clip. Which goes to prove what evolution promises.

 

[greatcalgarian]

According to Discovery Institute, this professor has published over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals. But in the Institute listing, I do not find many of those papers:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Michael%20J.%20Behe&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all

This perhaps is the most recent of the scientific publication:
Behe M.J., Snoke D.W. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci13:2651-2664.

 

[greatcalgarian]

At least he has some credibility by having some work published in refereed journal:
Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues

Michael J. Behe1 and David W. Snoke2


[size=-1]1 Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015, USA
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA [/size]

[size=-1](R[size=-2]ECEIVED[/size] April 8, 2004; F[size=-2]INAL[/size] R[size=-2]EVISION[/size] June 17, 2004; A[size=-2]CCEPTED[/size] June 17, 2004)[/size]

Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function. Models of the process often implicitly assume that a single mutation to the duplicated gene can confer a new selectable property. Yet some protein features, such as disulfide bonds or ligand binding sites, require the participation of two or more amino acid residues, which could require several mutations. Here we model the evolution of such protein features by what we consider to be the conceptually simplest route—point mutation in duplicated genes. We show that for very large population sizes N, where at steady state in the absence of selection the population would be expected to contain one or more duplicated alleles coding for the feature, the time to fixation in the population hovers near the inverse of the point mutation rate, and varies sluggishly with the

th root of 1/N, where

is the number of nucleotide positions that must be mutated to produce the feature. At smaller population sizes, the time to fixation varies linearly with 1/N and exceeds the inverse of the point mutation rate. We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 108 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 109.

Keywords: gene duplication; point mutation; multiresidue feature; disulfide bonds; ligand binding sites



Abbreviations: MR, multiresidue Article published online ahead of print. Article and publication date are at http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/doi/10.1110/ps.04802904.

 

[s2a]

I also understand that Behe's example of irreducible complexity, a mousetrap, was "simplified" and used as a tie clip. Which goes to prove what evolution promises.

I can't understand how that could've been accomplished!

Impossible!

It must have been the "Great tie-clasp" maker!

Psssst. Here! Look at my credentials and letters! I must be right!!

;-)

 

[painted wolf]

greatcal... does this mean what I think it means...

Has Behe published PRO-evolutionary material professionally?

I think I may be woozy...

wa:do

 

[Fatmop]

But now that the DI is paying his bills, he can't do that pro-evolution work anymore. Too bad.

 

[greatcalgarian]

greatcal... does this mean what I think it means...

Has Behe published PRO-evolutionary material professionally?

I think I may be woozy...

wa:do

Not exactly. I would say Professor Behe is a very smart lawyer and scientist and theologist. He is able to twist scientific findings to develop his intelligent design theory, and is pretty convincing. You have to give credit to him for his ability to twist facts or adapt facts for his theory. And he has not done anything ethically wrong, or scientifically wrong action or claim that the University can terminate his tenureship.

 

[Yerda]

greatcal... does this mean what I think it means...

Has Behe published PRO-evolutionary material professionally?

I think I may be woozy...

wa:do

I've read a review of of a Behe book where the critic was focusing on the fact that he does believe in common descent. Apparently the complexity that life cannot overcome is the leap from non-cellular to cellular, or so the account went.

 

[Ceridwen018]

You have to give credit to him for his ability to twist facts or adapt facts for his theory. And he has not done anything ethically wrong, or scientifically wrong

Uh, I'd say that twisting facts to fit one's own devices is ethically and, where science is involved, scientifically wrong.

What's got me stumped is that he actually testified for Intelligent Design? I can't fathom how such a thing could be possible. I'm trying to picture it in my mind...what could he possibly have said? All I'm getting is this:

Behe: "Um yeah, well, Intelligent Design is really....its just really great, you know? And its so.....um, its so...well, the point is, is that Intelligent Design can really teach us a lot."

Lawyer: "Really? How so?"

Behe: "Umm...umm...Oh! Well, it can teach us that that the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer!"

Lawyer: "And, how does it do that?"

Behe: "....By telling us that an Intelligent Designer created the universe....?"

Lawyer: "No further questions, your honor."

 

[greatcalgarian]

Those who like to learn more about Professor Michael Behe line of thought, his arguement etc, can read some critique on his 'theories' in these links:
http://www.philoonline.org/library/shanks_4_1.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

and his discussion on Richard Dawkins:

RI: Have you heard from Richard Dawkins?

Behe: No, I haven't heard directly from Dawkins, but I have heard indirectly about what he thinks about my book. A public TV show named "Think Tank" was interested in setting up a debate between Dawkins and myself. They asked if I would be willing to participate, and I happily said yes. And they approached Richard Dawkins, but he refused to appear with me, saying he was insufficiently versed in biochemistry to address the issue. But then the TV show asked Dawkins to appear by himself on the show, which he did. During the interview, which I had an opportunity to see recently, the show host asked him about my book. He seemed to grasp the idea of irreducible complexity pretty well. However, he said it was cowardly and lazy of me to come to a conclusion of intelligent design, and he said that if I thought for myself I would realize that there must be a Darwinian explanation out there somewhere, and I should get off my duff and go out and find it.

Certainly Richard Dawkins is entitled to his strongly held opinions. But, in fact, from the evidence, I think intelligent design is the best explanation. And it's not a matter of whether I like the idea or not, or whether I like to sleep late and am lazy, rather it's that Darwinism is barking up the wrong tree and I think a better scientific explanation is design.

I hope to meet with Richard Dawkins in the future, though.

And read how good they can quote:
http://www.idthefuture.com/

In any case, sectarianism is more a matter of form than content.36 It is marked by a certain narrowness and exclusivity that entertains no debate and tolerates no opposing viewpoints. Given the broad appeal of intelligent design (even Richard Dawkins, a staunch Darwinist and author of the Blind Watchmaker, acknowledges "the appearance of design" in the living world),37 it is perhaps more accurate to conclude that the real sectarians are those who vilify design as "fundamentalist religion." Such name-calling is merely another way to avoid debate and keep the real issues out of view.38

 

[Flappycat]

Let it be noted that the opinion of his colleagues doesn't have any effect at all on the validity of his claims. However, the fellow's politically motivated crusade against evolution has not done much endear him to me, and I take a certain amount of grim satisfaction in hearing of his complete and total embarrassment.

 

[Fatmop]

Scientists around the world need to keep strongly and publicly decrying this ID movement. Science should not have to play politics - for shame.

 

[JerryL]

Scientists around the world need to keep strongly and publicly decrying this ID movement. Science should not have to play politics - for shame.

I think they've been avoiding it becaus eit lends credulity. I think the best tack is to generally ignore it and soundly defeat it the few times you do come to the table (such as this coutt case).

 

[Fatmop]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Ignoring it can have just as many negative consequences... like allowing it to fester and grow in the minds of the ignorant.

 

[Pah]

Scientists around the world need to keep strongly and publicly decrying this ID movement. Science should not have to play politics - for shame.

Poliics decides what the curriculm is. It is important for science and teachers to get involved now to reclaim the subject matter after thinking ID would just go away. The previous non-action by science has allowed ID to get this far.

 

[Fatmop]

I think PZ Myers would agree with you. If you haven't seen any of my previous posts regarding him - www.pharyngula.org

 

[Sunstone]

Proponents of ID have institutionalized their views. That is, they have created institutions, like the Discovery Institute, that will perpetuate their cause beyond the life of any particular proponent of ID. So, the pressure to include ID in the science curriculum is not likely to go away any time soon. Scientists need to organize to counter that pressure.

 

[Fatmop]

Maybe create something like a branch of the NCSE called "The REAL Discovery Institute - dedicated to ACTUAL Discovery!"