Welcome back, John. Looking forward to it.

Back.... and unrepentant. Disappointing And Glenn? John's ID enabler? What is up with his "I'm not going to express an opinion on that..."

Couple of unconventional black figures: http://www.trmhoward.com/T.R.M._Howard/Main.html http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...le-hurston.php

While I agree there's no standard knowledge base for the average college student, there's no question that students at the elite colleges you're discussing have had calculus (assuming normal standards, which leaves aside legacy and affirmative action admit). No way is a white or Asian kid without a connection getting into Harvard without having gone through calculus, or at the very least pre-calc. So there must be some other reason for dropping the "real science" requirements.

Quoting Wonderment: Back.... and unrepentant. Disappointing

Agreed. Typical non-scientist "liberal" mindset: anyone who expresses impatience with nonsense must be a fascist. John and Glenn missed the important point Glenn's son made about his Science Without The Hard Stuff course that he's suffering through at Columbia: our nation is woefully scientifically illiterate. That's why we don't need to keep letting charlatans have the microphone to regurgitate the same old same old while we bill and coo about how wonderfully open-minded we are to let "questions be raised."

And Glenn? John's ID enabler? What is up with his "I'm not going to express an opinion on that..."

Heh. Good point, and closely related to what just made me click Pause: So, I'm like nineteen minutes into Glenn's apparently endless wailing about how Obama has ruined the Nobel Prize forever, and I keep thinking, didn't he say back toward the beginning of the diavlog, "I'm not going to rehash all those issues about should he or shouldn't he have been awarded the Prize ...?" Maybe it's time for Glenn to go on hiatus for a while, and just have Bh.tv serve up the unfiltered version of Krauthammer himself. ========== [Added] Of

Quoting Cal: While I agree there's no standard knowledge base for the average college student, there's no question that students at the elite colleges you're discussing have had calculus (assuming normal standards, which leaves aside legacy and affirmative action admit). No way is a white or Asian kid without a connection getting into Harvard without having gone through calculus, or at the very least pre-calc. So there must be some other reason for dropping the "real science" requirements.

AFAIK, you can still get through high school, and into good colleges, without having had much math at all, and certainly not calc or pre-calc. (Assuming you're not stating that you plan to major in math or science, I mean.) Also, many or most colleges let you graduate with effectively no science or math courses under your belt. For example, when I entered college, all one needed to be awarded a HS diploma was one year of Algebra I, and to get a degree from the university I was at, one could fulfill the "math" requirement by taking Elementary Logic 101 from the Philosophy Department. Better than nothing, but not by very much.

Nice to see John back.

Quoting bjkeefe: So, I'm like nineteen minutes into Glenn's apparently endless wailing about how Obama has ruined the Nobel Prize forever, and I keep thinking, didn't he say back toward the beginning of the diavlog, "I'm not going to rehash all those issues about should he or shouldn't he have been awarded the Prize ...?"

I think Obama's single-handed revival of the nuclear abolition project is worth a medal, but I like Eugene Robinson's take too:

Nothing, not even the Nobel Peace Prize, can set the bar any higher for President Obama than he's already set it for himself.

-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202391_pf.html

Also, many or most colleges let you graduate with effectively no science or math courses under your belt. Yes, I know. But they don't let you get IN to the school without calculus. Thus, for example, it's very difficult to get into UC Berkeley or UCLA if you're white or Asian. Your chances of getting in without AP Calculus are very low (not impossible, just low). But if you get into Berkeley, at least, you can then get a Humanities degree without ever taking any math. That doesn't change the fact that you needed math to get in. The only schools I'm referring to are elite universities, where the competition for admission is ferocious. There simply aren't students getting into the school under "normal" circumstances who struggle with the math they'd need for a college level science course. It's quite possible to get into an unselective state school without even knowing algebra (and then take remedial classes), but that's not the type of school they were discussing.

Anybody else see the thing about teaching stat instead of calc? Dismantling the calculus pyramid I loved calc in high school but I think this is great idea.

I think McWhorter raises, unintentionally perhaps, and interesting point. In stating that one cannot walk away from reading Behe without questioning whether natural selection is the whole story to evolution reveals, in my opinion, one of the unintended consequences of a certain “scientism” that has pervaded much of the humanities on the one hand, and its manifestation in the polemics of the “New Atheists” (Dawkins, Dennett, et al.) on the other. With the former, we have evolutionary psychology, evolutionary literary theory, memetics, and a host of other disciplines straining the explanatory power of natural selection. This is reinforced to some extent by the latter group where an overly rigid defensive posture against ‘the God of the gaps’ has been taken at the expense of a clear formulation of where exactly the scientific community is in disagreement over the role of natural selection in evolutionary theory - for example, the possible role of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance as an evolutionary force. McWhorter’s perception that there is ‘no intelligent dissent possible’ from the ‘mechanics of evolution’ is, while perhaps overstated, not as outlandish as it may at first appear - see, for example, the many reviews of H. Allen Orr (both a scientist

John, I think it's Gould you should try for mechanisms of evolution, rather than Behe. PS Welcome back.

Quoting claymisher: I think Obama's single-handed revival of the nuclear abolition project is worth a medal, but I like Eugene Robinson's take too:

Nothing, not even the Nobel Peace Prize, can set the bar any higher for President Obama than he's already set it for himself.

-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202391_pf.html

Thanks for the link. A good read. And here's another line from ER line that seems relevant:

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn't possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended world hunger, they'd accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they'd complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of "Kumbaya," the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

Quoting claymisher: Anybody else see the thing about teaching stat instead of calc?

Dismantling the calculus pyramid

I loved calc in high school but I think this is great idea.

An interesting idea. I suppose, for students choosing not to study science, this would be a good idea, if it really has to be an either/or proposition.

Quoting Cal: [...]

Okay. Sounds like you know the specifics (about the elite schools) better than I do.

Quoting spandrel: ...

My apologies to Dr. McWhorter for revisiting this topic since it is undoubtedly one he’d wished to just put to rest in his opening comments and, nevertheless, not central to this diavlog.

If he thought that, he hasn't really paid attention.

Maybe Glenn just thinks the Nobel should have gone to someone else.

Quoting bjkeefe: An interesting idea. I suppose, for students choosing not to study science, this would be a good idea, if it really has to be an either/or proposition.

I'm not an expert but I think in the life sciences there's way more stat than calc.

Quoting claymisher: I'm not an expert but I think in the life sciences there's way more stat than calc.

That's why is said "for students choosing not to study science." For students who want to major in science, I strongly believe both calc and prob/stats should be prerequisites and concurrent requirements.

I can't agree. For one, you need at least a cursory knowledge of Calculus to really get anything past the very basic in probability theory. For two, optimization problems,optimization problems, optimization problems. You would be really surprised to find out how much basic optimization problems come up, and it's not like you need to go all the way through Cal 3 and Dify-Q to be able to work through alot of them, a few weeks of Cal 1 will be enough for many of them. Also, its not like these type of problems only come up for sciency sounding white collar jobs, the kind of problems I am talking about come up all the time in normal no college needed jobs, its just most people don't notice. Back when I was a construction hand (A mere conduit runner really) in the summers, there were a few times I went up to my foreman and was able to explain how to improve things by using some high school Calc. This shit is just not as hard as alot of people think it is, you can explain the core ideas of Calculus to a 12 year old in 15 minutes.

Being from a state school myself, I have always wondered how much harder the science type classes are at the namebrand schools then what I experienced. Note: I don't know about UCLA or Columbia specifically, but alot of those ultra elite Ivy league schools are ranked surprisingly low, at least in the science/engineering courses.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Being from a state school myself, I have always wondered how much harder the science type classes are then what I experienced.

Note: I don't know about UCLA or Columbia specifically, but alot of those ultra elite Ivy league schools are ranked surprisingly low, at least in the science/engineering courses.

When you make admissions all about hoop-jumping you wind up with a lot of world-class hoop jumpers. In the software world it's hilarious how little top schools mean. Based on the people I've worked with CSU San Luis Obispo is the best college in the world.

"What" work, john? http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/237...5:03&out=45:20

Quoting Starwatcher162536: [...]

To be fair to Cal, he was talking about what's required for admission, not what's required to get a degree, from the elite colleges. Liked your thoughts on calc v. prob.

John really doesn't get it on the Behe deal. He's doing the "no, you un-creationists are the closed-minded people" routine. I'm disappointed in him.

Quoting claymisher: When you make admissions all about hoop-jumping you wind up with a lot of world-class hoop jumpers.

Perfect.

I think McWhorter and Loury both hit the nail on the head RE Behe. There is a group (who comes off as very eltist) who trys to shut down any discussion which would question evolution in any way. In my opinion it is mostly done through intellectually dishonest means. In line with that tradition Loury will no doubt receive heat for not giving a full throated endorsement of evolution. It's understandable, but I'm saddened that McWhorter appears to be so wearied by the beating that he has taken over this that he doesn't want to take this needed fight on. Shouting down and shutting out opponents isn't how enlightened debate is supposed to work, people shouldn't be allowed to get away with it as much as they do.

Three Cheers for McWhorter's return, it's been a while, but always good to have thoughtful intelligent people discussing issues. To all the commenters who are wringing there hands over the Behe fiasco (bjkeefe I'm looking at you): I have never bought the whole ID argument, but nonetheless, I am tired of "Science" people treating their consensus worshiping dogma as if it were a replacement for real arguments. As a student pursuing a Phd in science and soon to be responsible for teaching science (albeit in a less controversial field), this is simply not how science is done. When a student disagrees (in good faith) with a scientific fact we don't banish them from the classroom, we go through the arguments again and demonstrate why the evidence points to the established theory. Those people who keep on quoting the scientific consensus might want to take some timeto observe how that consensus is actually taught and developed. Nothing I have heard so far indicates that McWhorter is anything but a good-faith skeptic; and skepticism, (even skepticism against theories with all available evidence supporting them) should always be welcomed in true scientific circles. If you

Quoting claymisher: John really doesn't get it on the Behe deal. He's doing the "no, you un-creationists are the closed-minded people" routine. I'm disappointed in him.

I'm really not seeing that from his opening remarks. He was quite specific in questioning only 'the mechanism of natural [and sexual] selection' as the last word in evolution. There is in fact much scientific debate on this. That he turned to Behe, who has a clear agenda, as a source of clarification was no doubt unfortunate, but I find nothing unreasonable about line of questioning. Admittedly however, Behe's reputation precedes him and McWhorter should have had the good sense to turn to other sources for this.

How do you devalue a peace prize that has already been given to Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter? Question: If it was Rush Limbaugh who had declared that the "talented mulatto had to be the target of their (Nobel Committee's) quest to feel good about themselves", would that be added to his list of racist comments? To John on his comment on how refreshing and joyful it is that we now have a President who is reflective and actually making an effort to comprehend the nation's affairs......was this before his 'shout out' to his CMOH (whoops) MOF winner homeboy as prelude to commenting on the Ft Hood Massacre?

"If Obama ended world hunger, they'd accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they'd complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of "Kumbaya," the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune."

Glenn with his african professor analogy renders Eugene Robinson's opinion completely baseless. It's kind of interesting to hear someone fantasize about Obama achieving great things when

Quoting nikkibong: "What" work, john?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/237...5:03&out=45:20

Not a trace of self- consciousness, but MoFo is another story.

Quoting yggdrasil: ...
dogma
...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

It's understandable, but I'm saddened that McWhorter appears to be so wearied by the beating that he has taken over this that he doesn't want to take this needed fight on. Shouting down and shutting out opponents isn't how enlightened debate is supposed to work, people shouldn't be allowed to get away with it as much as they do.

Yes! We should have the Scopes trial again. Oh wait, we did and Behe lost.

Quoting spandrel: I'm really not seeing that from his opening remarks. He was quite specific in questioning only 'the mechanism of natural [and sexual] selection' as the last word in evolution. There is in fact much scientific debate on this. That he turned to Behe, who has a clear agenda, as a source of clarification was no doubt unfortunate, but I find nothing unreasonable about line of questioning. Admittedly however, Behe's reputation precedes him and McWhorter should have had the good sense to turn to other sources for this.

spandrel, if you're talking about issues with the adaptationist/ultra-Darwinist paradigm, yeah, I'm with you on that. But that's not McWhorter's talking about it. He's defending ID.

Quoting yggdrasil: To all the commenters who are wringing there hands over the Behe fiasco (bjkeefe I'm looking at you):

I have never bought the whole ID argument, but nonetheless, I am tired of "Science" people treating their consensus worshiping dogma as if it were a replacement for real arguments. As a student pursuing a Phd in science and soon to be responsible for teaching science (albeit in a less controversial field), this is simply not how science is done. When a student disagrees (in good faith) with a scientific fact we don't banish them from the classroom, we go through the arguments again and demonstrate why the evidence points to the established theory. Those people who keep on quoting the scientific consensus might want to take some timeto observe how that consensus is actually taught and developed.

Nothing I have heard so far indicates that McWhorter is anything but a good-faith skeptic; and skepticism, (even skepticism against theories with all available evidence supporting them) should always be welcomed in true scientific circles. If you happen to be a person with any scientific literacy then Man-up and actually explain to Dr. McWhorter

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm not going to rehash my whole argument here.

I doubt that!

Quoting harkin: Question: If it was Rush Limbaugh who had declared that the "talented mulatto had to be the target of their (Nobel Committee's) quest to feel good about themselves", would that be added to his list of racist comments?

Answer: Yes. Context matters. Also: That's not what John said that person said. You have conflated two different parts of the diavlog.

Quoting AemJeff: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

dogma (n) An Authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true, regardless of scientific proof.

Quoting yggdrasil: dogma (n) An Authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true, regardless of scientific proof.

You're arguing against a straw man if you think that's my attitude about evolution or any other theory in science. I don't need to believe they are "absolutely true" to know that creationism is not science.

Quoting bjkeefe: Second, there is a difference between a good faith disagreement, particularly when it's a question coming from a student in a classroom, and giving a platform to a person who is known not to be operating in good faith. You ought to look into the Discovery Institute a little more carefully before you shoot your mouth off.

Is this guilt by association? How do you know that Behe himself is not operating in good faith?

Quoting claymisher: I doubt that!

Heh. I will try. Depends how much the whiners get under my skin.

Quoting Mark: Is this guilt by association? How do you know that Behe himself is not operating in good faith?

From reading about the Discovery Institute, from reading about Behe, from reading Behe, and from hearing him speak elsewhere.

Let me rephrase my question: Can you provide any evidence right here that Behe himself (not the Discovery Institute) is not operating in good faith? If so, please do.

Quoting Mark: Let me rephrase my question: Can you provide any evidence right here that Behe himself (not the Discovery Institute) is not operating in good faith? If so, please do.

Go read the other threads.

Quoting claymisher: spandrel, if you're talking about issues with the adaptationist/ultra-Darwinist paradigm, yeah, I'm with you on that. But that's not McWhorter's talking about it. He's defending ID.

You could very well be correct that I’m overstating the possible case that McWhorter simply turned to the wrong source for shedding light on a very real area of [scientific] controversy relating to the relative role of adaptation in evolutionary theory. But to be fair, I’m simply not seeing, from this diavlog at least, where McWhorter is “defending ID.” In fact, he at least stated clearly that he was “not a creationist.” Clearly, McWhorter is willing to entertain Behe’s arguments as a possible point, among many I would hope, of consideration. I would not. But I don’t think this warrants such a strong condemnation and I’m certainly not hearing a ‘defense’ of Behe’s position in his remarks [there was that sense in the original diavlog of course].

Maybe you could just direct me to at least one post which contains your evidence that Behe is not operating in good faith?

Quoting Mark: Maybe you could just direct me to at least one post which contains your evidence that Behe is not operating in good faith?

for example: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lo...-joe-thornton/

The Dover trial was more or less about whether or not ID should be taught in the public classroom. Even the Discovery Institute says it should not be required. I don't think that relates directly to what I was saying.

Alright well I will have to get back to my work but here it goes, Look, I really don't have the low down on Behe or the discovery institute. For all I know he may be a quack, but it's not really my field. For all I know you might have given a very lucid argument against intelligent design in the previous discussion ( I confess again that I don't really read many threads). Still if you haven't convinced your audience (McWhorter) part of the responsibility falls on you the TEACHER. Let's take an example closer to my field: say I am confronted with some fundamentalist student that thinks that the value of PI is 3 ( a statement asserted somewhere in the Hebrew Bible). There are several paths that I might take I could:
1.) (If I have little time) State that it is, in fact, 3.1415..... and reference him to literature where the proof is contained.
2.) (If I have more time) Draw up the proof that pi is irrational and make sure he understands the arguments and the logic.
3.) Denounce the student as a religious fanatic who is trying to smuggle his dis-proven false views into the classroom, send him away and then

Quoting yggdrasil: dogma (n) An Authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true, regardless of scientific proof.

Cute. Your talking points are showing. That's not a definition you can find in a dictionary, is it?

I am tired of "Science" people treating their consensus worshiping dogma as if it were a replacement for real arguments.

"Consensus worshipping dogma?" What does "consensus" have to do with this? Behe has made a series of arguments purporting to show that "irreducible complexity" is a valid argument. He's been shown to be wrong repeatedly; his paradigmatic example has shifted from the eye, to flagella, to chloroquine resistance in malaria. I suppose there's a consensus among people in his field (including his own department head) that his ideas ought not be taken seriously; but, that seems hardly a dogmatic reaction considering how often, and how badly, he's been wrong.

Thanks for the response claymisher. I don't want to be too presumptuous ... which part from that link (or subsequent links) do you see as demonstrating that Behe is not operating in good faith?

Quoting bjkeefe: You're arguing against a straw man if you think that's my attitude about evolution or any other theory in science. I don't need to believe they are "absolutely true" to know that creationism is not science.

I believe in evolution as much as you do. But you still need to present the evidence to skeptics when they ask, that's what science is. Otherwise you are relying on dogma to advance your case, even if it is a verified by science elsewhere.

Quoting Mark: The Dover trial was more or less about whether or not ID should be taught in the public classroom. Even the Discovery Institute says it should not be required.

I don't think that relates directly to what I was saying.

The Dover Trial contained an explicitly relevant judgment:

4. Whether ID is Science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (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; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert

Thanks!

Quoting AemJeff: Cute. Your talking points are showing. That's not a definition you can find in a dictionary, is it?

"Consensus worshipping dogma?" What does "consensus" have to do with this? Behe has made a series of arguments purporting to show that "irreducible complexity" is a valid argument. He's been shown to be wrong repeatedly, as his paradigmatic example has shifted from the eye, to flagella, to chloroquine resistance in malaria. I suppose there's a consensus among people in his field (including his own department head) that his ideas ought not be taken seriously, but that seems hardly a dogmatic reaction, considering how often, and how badly, he's been wrong.

Dude, I have no doubt that Behe is wrong, but it's your responsibility to explain the logic of the argument to skeptics like McWhorter instead of trying to banish him. Is this really so hard?

Quoting yggdrasil: Dude, I have no doubt that Behe is wrong, but it's your responsibility to explain the logic of the argument to skeptics like McWhorter instead of trying to banish him. Is this really so hard?

I never said anything about banishing McWhorter. I said an awful lot about what I view as an abominable lack of skepticism on his part. I think Behe ought to have been interviewed by somebody with the professional chops necessary to have approached the topic appropriately.

Quoting Mark: The Dover trial was more or less about whether or not ID should be taught in the public classroom. Even the Discovery Institute says it should not be required.

I don't think that relates directly to what I was saying.

Actually, the Dover trial produced a great deal of evidence of the religious underpinnings of ID and that this was precisely the real view of Behe. Behe's working definition that ID excludes design by 'the laws of nature' and transcripts have him stating clearly that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity." I think Behe's attempted testimonial stance that ID is not religious was shown to be in "bad faith."

Quoting yggdrasil: [...]

Sorry, I don't buy your example. First, I already said a student asking a question counts as legitimate, and second, I am not John McWhorter's teacher. He has yet to ask me anything. And third, to follow from your first two proposed approaches, the answers are out there, readily available to all, to anyone who's really asking the questions in good faith.

I think Behe ought to have been interviewed by somebody with the professional chops necessary to have approached the topic appropriately.

I would love to see that too. Unfortunately there is apparently only one person in the world who could make a good showing against Behe, and he ain't gonna do it. Strange ...

Quoting yggdrasil: I believe in evolution as much as you do. But you still need to present the evidence to skeptics when they ask, that's what science is. Otherwise you are relying on dogma to advance your case, even if it is a verified by science elsewhere.

First, I don't need to do anything, least of all display infinite patience to people who promote themselves as "skeptics" when it's obvious they won't do thing one to learn about anything for themselves. Second, to the extent that you're looking for my views on this, visit these three threads, for starters.

... the value of PI is 3 ( a statement asserted somewhere in the Hebrew Bible)

While I agree with your comment in general, I must say that it is an "urban legend" that the Bible says Pi is 3. It does not say that.

Quoting bjkeefe: Answer: Yes. Context matters.
Also: That's not what John said that person said. You have conflated two different parts of the diavlog.

Better bust out that dictionary, you couldn't be more wrong. I did not conflate anything. I quoted him accurately from one sentence. Furthermore, John was not quoting anyone or describing what anyone said. He was describing the mindset of the medal committee as he sees it. John's quote: "I'm sure that the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee feels very good about themselves at this point. And they enjoy being united in their intelligent hatred of George Bush. And now here we move on. And unfortunately the talented mulatto had to be the target of their quest to feel good about themselves again." But I do agree with you that if Rush said it it would be deemed racist by the left. But it's not because of context, it's race and ideology.
If you want to see someone guilty of conflation and changing context by omission, see Glenn Greenwald's comical attempt at smearing Patterico and Allahpundit.
And John, I want to congratulate you on an excellent article regarding African American studies and the narrow mindset that seems to

Quoting spandrel: You could very well be correct that I’m overstating the possible case that McWhorter simply turned to the wrong source for shedding light on a very real area of [scientific] controversy relating to the relative role of adaptation in evolutionary theory. But to be fair, I’m simply not seeing, from this diavlog at least, where McWhorter is “defending ID.” In fact, he at least stated clearly that he was “not a creationist.” Clearly, McWhorter is willing to entertain Behe’s arguments as a possible point, among many I would hope, of consideration. I would not. But I don’t think this warrants such a strong condemnation and I’m certainly not hearing a ‘defense’ of Behe’s position in his remarks [there was that sense in the original diavlog of course].

If John was taking on the non-mumbo-jumbo critique of the adaptationist paradigm he'd be using terms like "other mechanisms of evolutionary change," "neutral theory of evolution," "Michael Lynch," "Stuart Kauffman," etc. But no, for him it starts and ends with Behe. BTW, terrific nickname!

Quoting harkin: Better bust out that dictionary, you couldn't be more wrong. I did not conflate anything. I quoted him accurately from one sentence. Furthermore, John was not quoting anyone or describing what anyone said. He was describing the mindset of the medal committee as he sees it.

John's quote:

"I'm sure that the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee feels very good about themselves at this point. And they enjoy being united in their intelligent hatred of George Bush. And now here we move on. And unfortunately the talented mulatto had to be the target of their quest to feel good about themselves again."

Okay, technically, yes. I forget about that second mention. However, I think it's obvious to anyone who listened to the diavlog that he was riffing on the "talented mulatto" line that he had mentioned earlier; i.e., when he was telling the story about a Norwegian(?) Swede(?) who had asked him about Barack Obama back in 2006. That is what I meant by "conflating."

Quoting bjkeefe: First, I don't need to do anything, least of all display infinite patience to people who promote themselves as "skeptics" when it's obvious they won't do thing one to learn about anything for themselves.

Second, to the extent that you're looking for my views on this, visit these three threads, for starters.

you would "need" to do this if you were more interested in teaching the public science then in being right, but I guess not.

Quoting Mark: I would love to see that too. Unfortunately there is apparently only one person in the world who could make a good showing against Behe, and he ain't gonna do it. Stange ...

There is, and she's fired up and ready to go.

Quoting yggdrasil: you would "need" to do this if you were more interested in teaching the public science then in being right, but I guess not.

If I were interested in teaching the public science, I would have more patience, because I would start with the assumption that those who came to me were operating in good faith. This condition does not obtain when considering a guy like Behe, or people with uninformed, yet made-up minds like McWhorter, or when responding to people on Internet forums who can't be bothered to read what I've already pointed to twice. And yeah, I am right about this. Creationism is not science.

I think the argument you are making is this (correct me if I'm wrong): Behe claims that ID is not religious per se, but Behe thinks it is implausible that the "designer" is natural entity, therefore Behe is not operating in good faith. I don't think the argument hangs together. Here's an analogy: Cosmologist, Joe Schmo, claims that big bang theory is not religious per se, but Joe Schmo also thinks that if big bang theory is true that it was God who set off the big bang. Therefore ... what? ... big bang theory IS inherently religous? ... Joe Schmo is somehow disingenuous? ... ?

As a white student who is minoring in Mexican American Studies, I am not feeling what John is saying about Black Studies. I should read his article, but in this dialog, his criticism is that the ideological orientation of Black Studies is overly ideological and leftist, and his biggest complaints is that topics that he fells should have been written by black people from black studies programs have not been written by black people. First, I'm sure he discusses the history in the article, but not much in the dialog; Ethnic Studies program were created to teach the stories, histories, struggles and triumphs of people of color on their own terms. There was clearly something that was needed on college campuses when most of them were created in the 60 and 70s; many schools were just integrating (like mine) and their curiculum's were at least eurocentric, if not racist. I think this remains the most important part of the mission of Ethnic Studies programs today. Second, I think the reason Black folks from Black Studies backgrounds might not be writing these books John would like to see (I would to) has more to do with

Creationism is not science.

But is "creation science" science? "creation science" = Accumulating scientific evidence that supports the biblical account of creation, and attempting to show how evidence thought to support evolution can be explained within a creation paradigm.

Quoting Mark: But is "creation science" science?

No. Rebranding won't help.

"creation science" = Accumulating scientific evidence that supports the biblical account of creation, ...

Call it by its proper name: cherry-picking.

... and attempting to show how evidence thought to support evolution can be explained within a creation paradigm.

You can explain everything and anything "within a creation paradigm." Watch: God did it. QED. Any time you punt by reaching for a supernatural explanation, you're not doing science. Full stop.

Quoting Mark: But is "creation science" science?

"creation science" = Accumulating scientific evidence that supports the biblical account of creation, and attempting to show how evidence thought to support evolution can be explained within a creation paradigm.

Do you mind if I ask you a question? Do you believe the Biblical account of Noah's Ark?

Now, I'm wondering if you're acting in good faith here.

McWhorter conducted himself in the diavlog with Behe like a lot of people not expertly acquainted with evolution, especially cell biology. For me the embarrassing thing about the diavlog was that McWhorter espoused Behe's book as if everyone in the world had to read it and this book will ultimately take down Darwinian theory. No one knows how some of the biological systems evolved that Behe talks about but the science carries on.

Ok, let me rephrase it then: ... and attempting to show how evidence thought to support evolution can be better explained* within a creation paradigm. * "better explained" means details of the claimed evidence are more consistant with the details (such as they are) of the biblical account. It does not mean simply involking "God made it that way" at every turn.

Let me add an afterthought.

Quoting bjkeefe:

"creation science" = Accumulating scientific evidence that supports the biblical account of creation, ...

Call it by its proper name: cherry-picking.

I shouldn't have let you off that easy, because that implies there is something to be picked. So far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as "scientific evidence that supports the biblical account of creation." And in any case, something that is "scientific evidence" is, by the very label you chose, already defined to be something that is understood within a system of thought that does not allow for supernatural explanations. And no, holding up some example of some complicated mechanism and saying, "Well, I don't see how this could have evolved from something else!" is not not "scientific evidence." It is merely a statement of ignorance, or a profession of lack of imagination, or, to be polite, highlighting some detail where we don't know the full story yet.

Quoting Mark: I think the argument you are making is this (correct me if I'm wrong): Behe claims that ID is not religious per se, but Behe thinks it is implausible that the "designer" is natural entity, therefore Behe is not operating in good faith.

I don't think the argument hangs together.

Here's an analogy: Cosmologist, Joe Schmo, claims that big bang theory is not religious per se, but Joe Schmo also thinks that if big bang theory is true that it was God who set off the big bang. Therefore ... what? ... big bang theory IS inherently religous? ... Joe Schmo is somehow disingenuous? ... ?

Almost. In your example, Joe Schmo would be claiming that the origin of the big bang is not religious per se and that the big bang did in fact occur (continuing with his stated belief that if the theory is true, it was God who set it off). In this example, Joe would just be making contradictory statements. This is where the analogy falls apart. With Behe, we have a situation where his own court testimony contradicted recorded statements he had previously, and repeatedly, made. And this is where the 'bad faith' enters into the picture. There is of course

Why's that?

Quoting Mark: Ok, let me rephrase it then:

... and attempting to show how evidence thought to support evolution can be better explained* within a creation paradigm.

* "better explained" means details of the claimed evidence are more consistant with the details (such as they are) of the biblical account. It does not mean simply involking "God made it that way" at every turn.

Sorry, I don't think your rephrasing helps. See my afterthought. What you're trying to do is twist things so that they fit into a story you're determined to accept as true. That's fine, you're free to do that. But that's not doing science. And sorry, but it is, ultimately, saying "God did it." Whether you explicitly make this statement "at every turn" or not, that is the inescapable underlying premise. (I am using "God" as shorthand for whatever supernatural entity you imagine did the creating.)

I'm not following you. If Joe Schmo claims that the origin of the big bang is not religious per se, but Joe Schmo personally believes that the origin of the big bang is God, does that mean big bang theory is inherently religious? Is Joe somehow dishonest?

Quoting GulfCoastCommie: [...]

I know almost nothing about this topic, but your reply certainly sounded thoughtful and like it made some good points. I hope you will post a follow-up after you read John's article.

If Joe Schmo has to postulate the existence of a god for his theory to hold together, it's religious. I'd say.

** By "scientific evidence" I mean facts that can be established by repeated observations of independant observers.

Well, does big bang theory hold together in your opinion? Is it possible that it could have been set off by God? If yes, then what status does the theory have ... religion? If you say no, how do you know it could not have been set off by God?

Quoting Mark: I'm not following you. If Joe Schmo claims that the origin of the big bang is not religious per se, but Joe Schmo personally believes that the origin of the big bang is God, does that mean big bang theory is inherently religious? Is Joe somehow dishonest?

Mark, I think I'll let this one go. I already stated that the analogy falls apart. You are attempting to use a single accepted example of a theory (Big Bang) and simply vary the personal belief system on the origins of the events explained by the theory (religious in Joe's case, pehaps naturalistic by others). No, of course that does not make the theory 'inherently religious.' Again, Joe contradicts himself, but that says nothing about the theory itself. In Behe's case he came up with an alternative theory that admits of a designer that we came to understand, through recorded statements made by Behe, sits outside of nature. We secondly have the evidence of a clear attempt to modify a critical text to wipe it clean of any religious tone. We thirdly have Behe's contradictory testimony. Again, I am not asking you to accept this - just read the

Quoting Mark: ** By "scientific evidence" I mean facts that can be established by repeated observations of independant observers.

Just saying "scientific evidence" is either an admission that the evidence fits within an already existing scientific framework, in which case we have no need to bring in some supernatural entity, or it's an empty phrase, a Behe-like tactic to dress up a matter of faith with a patina of jargon. This is getting stupid. You're talking about some vague concept -- "evidence 'better explained' by the Biblical account of creation" or however you're going to rephrase it next -- which makes me think you're trying to wedge in the notion that there actually is such a thing. I don't believe there is. You'll have to be more specific if you want me to discuss this any further.

Again, Joe contradicts himself, but that says nothing about the theory itself.

I think this where we disagree. A person can think that the big bang is not an inherently religous theory and at the same time think that God is the best explanation for the big bang. I don't see how that is contradictory.

Quoting Mark: Well, does big bang theory hold together in your opinion? Is it possible that it could have been set off by God? If yes, then what status does the theory have ... religion? If you say no, how do you know it could not have been set off by God?

Pardon me for jumping in, kez, but I can't let that last sentence stand. Mark, you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works if that's what you think the scientific mind would say. We do not say we know that God didn't set off the Big Bang. Or created the Earth, or life, or humans, or whatever. I grant that in careless or heated moments, people will phrase such things with apparent certainty, but if you really pin them (calm them) down, they will acknowledge that it is all "the best current understanding" or "as we understand it at the moment" or some such. What we say is (1) we have no evidence to support that hypothesis (that God set off the Big Bang or created whatever), (2) we have good evidence and reasoning, and gather more every year, that we can use to explain things in purely natural terms, and (3) even

Sounds like a good time to get some sleep. Hope we can pick this up later. night.

Quoting Mark: Sounds like a good time to get some sleep. Hope we can pick this up later. night.

Okay.

Quoting Mark: I think this where we disagree. A person can think that the big bang is not an inherently religous theory and at the same time think that God is the best explanation for the big bang. I don't see how that is contradictory.

If you go back to my first response, I modified your original analogy to Joe thinking that the origin of the big bang is not inherently religious to better fit the scenario, with the subsequent stated caveat that it still does not hold up to the situation being discussed. The contradiction holds, however tangential to my main point - simply being confused does not constitute ‘bad faith.’

i'm a right-wing person, and a fan of john mcwhorter's work on race. and i was appalled by the interview with behe. i'm inclined to let it rest and move on, but though there is an element of social snobbery involved in "enlightened" aversion to intelligent design (i.e., many people who detest creationism don't really know anything about science aside from the fact that they're "on the side of science," at least so long as science doesn't tread on any of *their* shibboleths), a lot of it just has to do with the fact that evolutionary science is a technical field and it is hard to evaluate things from the outside if you don't know the lay of the land. a quick example. talking with an atheist who found arguments against macroevolution persuasive, i responded, "so what do you think about the fact that most evolutionary biologists would assert that evolutionary processes are scale independent?" to which my interlocutor responded, "what does that mean?" what it means is that the distinction between micro and macroevolution is irrelevant and simply semantic convenience. i pointed my friend to the

Quoting spandrel: McWhorter’s perception that there is ‘no intelligent dissent possible’ from the ‘mechanics of evolution’ is, while perhaps overstated, not as outlandish as it may at first appear - see, for example, the many reviews of H. Allen Orr (both a scientist specializing in the field of speciation, and an atheist) of Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker.

Could you tell me where these reviews were published? There have been doubters within the Darwinian fold about the mechanics of natural selection ever since Darwinism triumphed---as I am sure you must know. Dawkins is remarkable precisely because he has NO doubts, and compounds his dogmatism with the "theory" of the "selfish" gene.

Why does Glenn have to be so simple-minded when he talks about Obama?
His reasoning is all based on false dilemmas:
1. Either Obama completely ceases to act for US interests, remaking himself as President of the World, OR he's just as bad as George Bush -- and a hypocrite, to boot.
2. Either defenders of Obama must concede that he's naive OR they must defend the Nobel committee's decision. (How dare Obama have awared himself the Peace Prize!) I would not have voted for him if I thought he was really going to try to be a completely disinterested judge between America and other countries. In international relations, we still have something of a war of all against all -- to send a judge into the fight would not be much good for us and probably not much good for the world either.
But if Obama isn't the Prince of Peace, does it follow that he's just like GWB? Loury assumes with Bush that international games are all zero sum, and maybe that's why he thinks the choice is between Bush and the Second Coming of Christ on the other.
I am happy to

John McWhorter I'm so glad you're back. You are wonderful man. I love Glenn Loury too.

I like John, and I think it's quite likely that people went too far in their criticisms of him here (I did not read the comments), and i must say I didn't listen to the entire diavlog, but based on what i did hear, I did think John was embarrassing himself. As far as I got, he didn't seem to be aware even of what I know from reading popular accounts. He seemed not to realize that evolutionary theory does have a good account of how eyes and wings and other complex organs can arise. If evolutionary theory could say nothing about that, it would be a shambles, and no one would take it seriously.
I have no problem with his talking to Behe, but it seemed to me that he really needed to bone up on the basics before he did so -- and preferably find someone more knowledgable than himself to debate Behe. I basically stopped listening because I found the thing kind of embarrassing.
Maybe someone who listened to the whole thing can tell me whether there was more to Behe's point (and McWhorter's agreement) than the obvious apparent problem that any complex

You're school is known for math, science, and engineering though, and probably is better at it than elite schools that don't focus on that particular kind of curriculum.

I don't think John ever claimed to be in his depth though. He was never dishonest about his expertise.

I'm just recalling now that the reason John embarrassed himself in that diavlog is that he felt that the arguments merited discussion and he didn't see anyone else taking up the discussion.
This is where I differ from a lot of other commenters: Behe's stuff is out there, and if experts won't deign to answer him, someone much less qualified is going to leap into the breach, thus giving the impression that Behe is more reasonable than he is.
Does that mean that scientists should debate Flat-Earthers? Not necessarily (though I don't see any great harm in it). Nearly everyone knows the earth is round and understands what that means. 2/3 of the country doubt evolution and nearly everyone could stand to learn a lot more about what it means.

Actually, John shouldn't have talked to Behe, he should have talked to an evolutionary theorist and represented Behe's point of view (if we really can't find an ET who would talk directly with Behe).
I'd like to see that discussion.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: We love you, John -- you're well worth listening to on other subjects, but wouldn't you admit that you were basically out of your depth there?

This is why the original episode was so embarrassing, and why that event still is, frankly, given the first part of this diavlog. There are too many sharp knives in the bh drawer for McWhorter to come on and do a fawning diavlog with Behe and not expect the audience to be insulted or embarrassed. It would be like me coming on here and talking about... oh, say African-American Studies. I'd make a fool of myself. Intelligent Design is repackaged Creationism and is fundamentally religion, not science. As long as McWhorter refuses to acknowledge the difference between religious doctrines and scientific discipline he should expect to be derided by the scientists.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Actually, John shouldn't have talked to Behe, he should have talked to an evolutionary theorist and represented Behe's point of view (if we really can't find an ET who would talk directly with Behe).
I'd like to see that discussion.

There are definitely ET's (ERV for one) who have made the offer. I guess her online bombast gives Behe a good reason to decline; but it's not the case that there aren't qualified people willing to do so. I get the feeling that it's Behe (ERV's case notwithstanding) who doesn't make himself available.

Quoting Mark: While I agree with your comment in general, I must say that it is an "urban legend" that the Bible says Pi is 3. It does not say that.

That may be urban legend, but it's a fact that the Indiana House of Representatives once passed (unanimously!) a bill which would, in effect, redefine the value of Pi. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

I agree that as teachers, we need to submit evidence for the skeptics. Not only that but we need to encourage honest skepticism. However, virtually no other field has to deal with these issues as we do in biology. It is a totally different scale. A better analogy would be not just one student who asks the question regarding Pi = 3 in good faith but hundreds of churches and religiously motivated institutes asking the question again and again-and not in good faith. Each time their 'experts' bring up the same incorrect arguments despite being disputed. Their followers simply quote these 'experts' again and again. And now think of that math class where you are trying to show the evidence for Pi = 3.14...... You need to spend many days each semester showing the evidence that Pi does not equal 3...something that was settled long ago. Despite the week spent teaching the evidence for Pi = 3.14....Many in the class simply expound 'expert A says Pi = 3' this is such an interesting, unresolved debate.

Thanks for venturing back into the kittens' den. You and Glenn grace bhtv with your glowing personalities and rich backgrounds.

Good to see John back. I would thank the gods, but that seems a bit tasteless.

Quoting claymisher: When you make admissions all about hoop-jumping you wind up with a lot of world-class hoop jumpers.

Yeah, and you also end up with world-class hoop-jumper-preparing high schools. So there are kids with calculus credits who don't really understand calculus. There's a course-of-studies inflation going on. I'm not sure if it's good or bad, but if you want to get into a good school, it helps if you have sequenced a genome.

Paraphrasing Glenn/John re Obama's presidency: "Don't jump to conclusions!"

Paraphrasing Glenn re Nobel Peace Price: "The Norwegians jumped the shark."

A question for John: Can you name an African-American female writer who you think would be the right person to write a biography of Ethel Waters? If you can think of someone, why don't you contact her and suggest that she do so?
Maybe she'd be one of the female writers for The Root. Or some other author or academic that you know of.

Oops! In my previous comment, I didn't know that John dislikes the term "African-American" and that he prefers the term "black." As a senior citizen white male, I do find it difficult to navigate these terms. In my lifetime, they have been changed several times. From "negro" to "black" and "Afro-American" and then to Jesse Jackson's promulgation in the 1980s that the proper term should be "AfriCAN-American." And then, of course, there is this other term "persons of color."
So that a white person like me is always nervous about which term to use.
Personally, I get the sense that sometimes using the term "black" is seen as slightly racist unless one ( a white person like me ) first uses the term "African-American." Then later on in one's conversation one might use the term "black" as a kind of short-hand. And yet, I've known black people - (does that sound respectful or not? ) - who, like John, prefer the term "black."
As a white person who feels much pain about inhuman horrors of our racial past, I wish I didn't have to feel nervous and walking-on-tiptoes about which of these terms to use when and where.

If I'm listening to John correctly, he seems to suggest that, in the realm of the natural sciences, there can be no such thing as intellectual fraud.

Quoting Francoamerican: Could you tell me where these reviews were published?

There have been doubters within the Darwinian fold about the mechanics of natural selection ever since Darwinism triumphed---as I am sure you must know. Dawkins is remarkable precisely because he has NO doubts, and compounds his dogmatism with the "theory" of the "selfish" gene.

Franco, yes, I can provide the links (below). I suspect that the context of my original post is drifting however (and some of this could be due to my loose language on subsequent replies) so let me just make sure we are clear. First, I am emphatically not arguing that mainstream evolutionary biologists are in a current state of confusion as relates to the significance of the mechanics of natural selection in the evolutionary process. Only that there are non-trivial disagreements about the completeness of the mechanics of natural selection as a theory, and that it is in no way irresponsible for somebody like McWhorter to follow that trail. My point was simply that the trail leads to research areas in epigenetics, genetic drift, population genetics, and a number of other areas of genetics that attempt to provide a more

I agree with Glenn Loury that McWhorter was misused by the Darwinists in connection to the Behe episode. Maybe if the Darwinists could express an appreciation for what religion is and is not -- I mean its function in the psychological lives of individuals and the moral life of the society to which they belong -- then those of a religious persuasion could be brought to a better understanding of what science is and is not. This should not be presented as a war between irreconcilable world views or epistemological camps, particularly as the (almost) uninversal religious impulse almost certainly has a biological basis. Nature cannot be denied.

In their diavlog, Michael Behe said this in response to it having being learned that bacterial flagella are not irreducibly complex: t’s like taking away an axle or something from an outboard motor and saying, I can use this axle over here, and somebody says, Yes, but the outboard motor is broken, it doesn’t work anymore. And John McWhorter just sat there! He's disgusted?

This is the second dialogue in a couple of weeks that has
been plagued with a barking dog in the background. Josh
Cohen's dog barked thru the whole dialogue in a previous
conversation and now this one has similar issues.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I used to think of Glenn as a fairly sophisticated thinker, but hearing him talk about Obama and constantly resort to these ridiculous false dichotomies makes me wonder.

I haven't changed my opinion about Glenn (which is positive) because of it, but I know what you mean. He generally applies (impossible) requirements to Obama that just don't seem to bear any resemblance to those he would apply to anyone else. Someone else (Hillary, McCain, even Bush) could be doing everything Obama is, and Glenn would, I believe, react very differently. Whenever he goes on about Obama, in fact, Glenn reminds me of no one more than my dad, immediately after Clinton got elected. Reading between the lines, I always had the impression that my dad's reaction to Clinton initially was largely driven by the fact that Clinton just seemed too much like him in some ways, and -- most significantly -- the first president to actually be a few years younger. I kind of think that Glenn would be harder on any black president and, especially, a younger black president, like Obama. Maybe I'm not being fair to Glenn, but there's definitely some subtext beyond the reasons that he attempts to give.

Delighted to see John back. I also enjoyed the renewal of the McWhorter/Loury diavlogs, but am mostly just glad that John will be back at bloggingheads.

I'm pretty sure i'd happily skip listening to ERV also. somebody with a smaller chip on their shoulder would be far more interesting.

Quoting Markos: As a white person who feels much pain about inhuman horrors of our racial past, I wish I didn't have to feel nervous and walking-on-tiptoes about which of these terms to use when and where. Good. I hope you feel pain. Which do you prefer cracker, or honky? How about insensitive, caucasian criminal.

Quoting popcorn_karate: I'm pretty sure i'd happily skip listening to ERV also.

somebody with a smaller chip on their shoulder would be far more interesting.

I think you're underestimating her. She'd be far too motivated to win on the merits to succumb to baser instincts. How she reported it on her blog... that would be interesting, I'll grant.

I'm also glad that he did not back down on the Behe dialogue. Like Glenn I was at amazed at the closed-minded, intolerant, PC reaction to his discussing Darwin with Behe. I guess any questioning of St. Darwin on BHTV is now verboten. Strange that Wright just didn't ask JW do another BHTV diavlog with someone who disagreed with Behe. Glenn and John had so many great points I wish I had more time to comment. Louis Armstrong was the *Greatest* and I look forward to reading the New Yorker article.

Quoting spandrel: Franco, yes, I can provide the links (below). I suspect that the context of my original post is drifting however (and some of this could be due to my loose language on subsequent replies) so let me just make sure we are clear. First, I am emphatically not arguing that mainstream evolutionary biologists are in a current state of confusion as relates to the significance of the mechanics of natural selection in the evolutionary process. Only that there are non-trivial disagreements about the completeness of the mechanics of natural selection as a theory, and that it is in no way irresponsible for somebody like McWhorter to follow that trail. My point was simply that the trail leads to research areas in epigenetics, genetic drift, population genetics, and a number of other areas of genetics that attempt to provide a more complete explanation of the evolutionary process. For these, you can simply research these terms along with Gould, Lewontin, Dawkins, Orr, etc. Second, I think that McWhorter would have been better served to have followed this trail rather then the one provided by Behe. But even here, if you put aside the obvious objections to ID, "irreducible complexity" is

Caveat: I did not watch the McWhorter-Behe diavlog. I did read some of the comments in this forum about the diavlog. It seems to me that McWhorter misrepresented his critics. That is, I thought the general point was that Behe is a terrible scientist who misrepresents consensus theory and knowledge about evolution at every turn. McWhorter, not being an evolutionary scientist, is not in a position to know how bad a scientist Behe is. So the problem was not with the diavlog format, it was with the interlocutor, McWhorter. So the problem is that McWhorter simply does not understand how bad Behe's "important" book is, as seen from the point of view of an evolutionary scientist. McWhorter thinks there are important debates where there are none. So it would be up to McWhorter to show that debates which actual scientists regard as closed are really not so.

Quoting stephanie: I haven't changed my opinion about Glenn (which is positive) because of it, but I know what you mean. He generally applies (impossible) requirements to Obama that just don't seem to bear any resemblance to those he would apply to anyone else. Someone else (Hillary, McCain, even Bush) could be doing everything Obama is, and Glenn would, I believe, react very differently.

Whenever he goes on about Obama, in fact, Glenn reminds me of no one more than my dad, immediately after Clinton got elected. Reading between the lines, I always had the impression that my dad's reaction to Clinton initially was largely driven by the fact that Clinton just seemed too much like him in some ways, and -- most significantly -- the first president to actually be a few years younger. I kind of think that Glenn would be harder on any black president and, especially, a younger black president, like Obama.

Maybe I'm not being fair to Glenn, but there's definitely some subtext beyond the reasons that he attempts to give.

Oh no, you're right. Glenn actually said he was rooting for Hillary because she was in his generation.

Quoting ledocs: Caveat: I did not watch the McWhorter-Behe diavlog.

I did read some of the comments in this forum about the diavlog. It seems to me that McWhorter misrepresented his critics. That is, I thought the general point was that Behe is a terrible scientist who misrepresents consensus theory and knowledge about evolution at every turn. McWhorter, not being an evolutionary scientist, is not in a position to know how bad a scientist Behe is. So the problem was not with the diavlog format, it was with the interlocutor, McWhorter. So the problem is that McWhorter simply does not understand how bad Behe's "important" book is, as seen from the point of view of an evolutionary scientist. McWhorter thinks there are important debates where there are none. So it would be up to McWhorter to show that debates which actual scientists regard as closed are really not so.

You may not have seen it, but your summary does justice to the truth.

Well, "Salt", you sure do lay down a heavy guilt trip on me purely because of the color of my skin.
I don't feel in any way deserving of your hostility.
I think YOU are the racist in this case.

Quoting yggdrasil: Alright well I will have to get back to my work but here it goes,

Look, I really don't have the low down on Behe or the discovery institute. For all I know he may be a quack, but it's not really my field. For all I know you might have given a very lucid argument against intelligent design in the previous discussion ( I confess again that I don't really read many threads). Still if you haven't convinced your audience (McWhorter) part of the responsibility falls on you the TEACHER.

very good point. ( you will not be here long. ) My argument in favor of Behe is that he is an excellent write and teacher of science. His field is the molecular workings of cells. The one book I read of his, "darwin's black box", hits just the right note in terms of explaining the wonderful detailed inner workings of cells. He enumerates how certain molecular machines work, then challenges those in the evolution field to explain how those machines evolved to be.

I'm also glad that he did not back down on the Behe dialogue. Like Glenn I was at amazed at the closed-minded, intolerant, PC reaction to his discussing Darwin with Behe What a gargantuan pile of horse dung this statement is. It's not "closed-minded, intolerant, and PC" to dismiss arguments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPROVED. There's no reason to take jackasses like Behe a forum. That's what it's about. He's had his "day in court," quite literally, but continues to spout the same old tired nonsense. That is intellectually dishonest, at best, and pure snake oil at worst. But I'm sure no matter how much EVIDENCE is presented to the true believers, they'll continue to refer to the mounting data as "scientific dogma," all of which goes to show you have no clue what science is or how it works. As for McWhorter, I like him and I'm sorry he felt so hurt by the whole affair. But that he hasn't been able--still--to figure out what he got wrong in all this just goes to show that he should never delve into a field he doesn't really grasp again. Because it hurts his credibility in other areas.

Quoting ledocs: Caveat: I did not watch the McWhorter-Behe diavlog.

I did read some of the comments in this forum about the diavlog. It seems to me that McWhorter misrepresented his critics. That is, I thought the general point was that Behe is a terrible scientist who misrepresents consensus theory and knowledge about evolution at every turn. McWhorter, not being an evolutionary scientist, is not in a position to know how bad a scientist Behe is.

Behe's science is molecular biology. He comments on the ToE saying he does not see how the molecular machines he studies ( and describes beautifully ) could have evolved. I don't think someone could be called a "bad" scientist because of statements, incorrect or not, about another branch of science.

Quoting mattcbrown: I'm also glad that he did not back down on the Behe dialogue. Like Glenn I was at amazed at the closed-minded, intolerant, PC reaction to his discussing Darwin with Behe

What a gargantuan pile of horse dung this statement is.

It's not "closed-minded, intolerant, and PC" to dismiss arguments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPROVED.

There's no reason to take jackasses like Behe a forum. That's what it's about. He's had his "day in court," quite literally, but continues to spout the same old tired nonsense. That is intellectually dishonest, at best, and pure snake oil at worst.

But I'm sure no matter how much EVIDENCE is presented to the true believers, they'll continue to refer to the mounting data as "scientific dogma," all of which goes to show you have no clue what science is or how it works.

As for McWhorter, I like him and I'm sorry he felt so hurt by the whole affair. But that he hasn't been able--still--to figure out what he got wrong in all this just goes to show that he should never delve into a field he doesn't really grasp again. Because it hurts his credibility in other areas.

you are a democrat, aren't you? Switching

When I was talking about namebrand schools, I was talking about places like Stanford or MIT, not places like Yale or Harvard. Also, I don't really blame Glenn, as he is a father and there is no way he can be objective about his own son, but I have never been convinced that the college crowd, even the ultra elite college crowd, is really much smarter then everyone else. I think whether or not someone goes to college, probably has alot more to do with what kind of advantages one had growing up (Did you have a stay at home parent that pushed you? Did you good schools? Did you have private tutors? etc.) then it has to do with intelligence. So I challenge Glenn's assertion that the set of people going to Columbia, are much more intelligent then the populace at large.

Quoting mattcbrown: I'm also glad that he did not back down on the Behe dialogue. Like Glenn I was at amazed at the closed-minded, intolerant, PC reaction to his discussing Darwin with Behe

It's not "closed-minded, intolerant, and PC" to dismiss arguments THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPROVED.

There's no reason to take jackasses like Behe a forum. That's what it's about. He's had his "day in court," quite literally, but continues to spout the same old tired nonsense. That is intellectually dishonest, at best, and pure snake oil at worst.

Really? If they've been DISPROVED - why didn't Wright have a follow-up diavlog and explain to John (and everyone else) WHY Behe was such a "Jackass"? Funny, the worshipers of St. Darwin never want to actually tell us - specifically - WHY various criticism of St. Darwin are wrong, they just want to shout "NO MORE DEBATE - ITS ALL PROVEN" - and burn any heretic at the stake.

Quoting rcocean: Really? If they've been DISPROVED - why didn't Wright have a follow-up diavlog and explain to John (and everyone else) WHY Behe was such a "Jackass"?

*sigh* Gee, you're right. Wright should have every nincompoop who's ever pedaled a crock of sh*t on so we can all waste our time learning why that nincompoop who's pedaling a crock of sh*t is a nincompoop who's pedaling a crock of sh*t. The bottom line is this: YOU think Behe has value, apparently. 99.9% of the scientific population doesn't. They've been done with his bogus "creationism disguised as science" for years now. But what you propose is that we just keep listening to the same old BS, over and over and over again, and we keep putting our energy into showing why it's BS. I suppose you think Wright should have "Flat Earthers" on, too? How about witches? Astrologers? Doctors who think leeching is a swell idea? Is there a point at which you will acknowledge an idea is vacant? Seems to me there isn't. Seems to me you still need PROOF that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. Funny, the worshipers of St. Darwin never want to actually tell us - specifically - WHY various criticism of St. Darwin

Quoting mattcbrown: The bottom line is this: YOU think Behe has value, apparently. 99.9% of the scientific population doesn't. They've been done with his bogus "creationism disguised as science" for years now. But what you propose is that we just keep listening to the same old BS, over and over and over again, and we keep putting our energy into showing why it's BS.

If any of these establishment scientist could teach as well as Behe their rebuttals would have staying power. Those scientists who condemn Behe are snobs. They have a great forum in BHTV to explain how molecular machines have evolved. Instead they demand Behe's voice be silenced and refuse to reappear.

Mattcbrown, Amazing. Who can argue against such calm, scientific spock-like logic? Your response is typical of the McWhorter critics. Carry on.

I am doubly disappointed with John McWhorter. Firstly, the lack of transparency concerning bhTV's scheduling has never been adequately addressed. I do not know if bhTV (a staff person, a committee, or Bob Wright) how interlocutors are chosen. Is it voluntary? By invitation? I can't understand why McWhorter, one, decided to do the original diavlog so ineptly prepared. He might not be an evolutionary biologist, but he can consult colleagues and read peer-reviewed material. Two, I don't understand why, given Behe's prominence as a controversial proponent of a political doctrine propagated by a think tank, Discovery Institute, that his appearance was not made conditional upon a pairing with a reputable expert on evolution, or at least a science writer, like erv or John Horgan. And, for the record, being good at diavlogs or podcasts is not "having a chip". erv performs a useful service by doing podcasts and rebutting all maner of wingnuts, denialists, and anti-skeptics. If that were Behe's decision, again, I don't know if that is consistent with bhTV's SOP. As for this appearance, McWhorter and Loury disingenuously pandered to the lowest common denominator. John and Glenn, you're not just guys, you're teachers and scholars! You operate by an SOP different than Behe's think tank activism. But, just because you are talking

Quoting Mark: While I agree with your comment in general, I must say that it is an "urban legend" that the Bible says Pi is 3. It does not say that.

It's not urban legend: 1 Kings 7:23.
By what seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation of this passage, we can conclude that pi = 3. It of course doesn't literally say that "pi = 3", the name "pi" came later, but what it says implies that pi = 3.

Quoting 4815162342: It's not urban legend: 1 Kings 7:23.
By what seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation of this passage, we can conclude that pi = 3. It of course doesn't literally say that "pi = 3", the name "pi" came later, but what it says implies that pi = 3.

Thanks for digging this up. I knew it was in there somewhere (thanks to Petr Beckmann), but I didn't have the energy to look it up. (Googling "cubits" seemed not fine enough a mesh. )

http://dogphysics.com/

Quoting SkepticDoc: http://dogphysics.com/

LOL! Thanks for the link. Great blurb by Scalzi. I like Orzel, and wish I made more time to read his blog regularly.

Quoting harkin: Havent had to deal with calc since I was in college but I'd certainly like to see the math and physics behind the Space Elevator.

This is probably not as hardcore as you are asking for, but it is some new space elevator news that I happened across (thx2), so I thought I'd pass it along.

Quoting bjkeefe: And no, holding up some example of some complicated mechanism and saying, "Well, I don't see how this could have evolved from something else!" is not not "scientific evidence." It is merely a statement of ignorance, or a profession of lack of imagination, or, to be polite, highlighting some detail where we don't know the full story yet.

I forgot a fourth possibility.

Quoting Baltimoron: I am doubly disappointed with John McWhorter.

Dr. McWhorter: just apologize for acting un-scholarly, and then give us a full diavlog on Armstrong. Your enthusiasm was infectious, and you have something to offer no one else could. I believe this. But don't pander to me ever again. And Dr, Loury, that goes double for you!

The "BaltiMoron" proves again why he calls himself a moron. Can anyone "pander" to a moron? A complex philosophical question indeed.

Speaking of banter that fails to approach any standard...stay cute! It's your only defense!

Quoting Mark: But is "creation science" science?

I did not become an astronaut. Instead, I fell in love with biology, which to me is far more complicated and much more interesting than space. And what particularly engrossed me was evolution and development. These are the study of dynamics of change over long and short periods of time. It is what I have spent my whole life now studying. And guess what, Genesis is still haunting me. It's still after me, because in this country many people think the book of Genesis is a serious alternative to biology.

Anyway, chapter one of the book of Genesis is a page-and-a-quarter long; it's flimsy. Unfortunately, what happens is that creationists read this one page and they set this against, say, my four years of undergraduate biology, my five years of graduate research, my six years of post-doctoral study, the sixteen years after that spent as a science professional, and they also put it against all the scientific literature. They place this page in the great balance of their minds, right? They put this in one pan and on the other side is all of reality—the universe, the cosmos, everything, right there on the other side, and they weigh

Quoting dpc: I agree that as teachers, we need to submit evidence for the skeptics. Not only that but we need to encourage honest skepticism.

However, virtually no other field has to deal with these issues as we do in biology. It is a totally different scale.

A better analogy would be not just one student who asks the question regarding Pi = 3 in good faith but hundreds of churches and religiously motivated institutes asking the question again and again-and not in good faith. Each time their 'experts' bring up the same incorrect arguments despite being disputed. Their followers simply quote these 'experts' again and again.

And now think of that math class where you are trying to show the evidence for Pi = 3.14...... You need to spend many days each semester showing the evidence that Pi does not equal 3...something that was settled long ago. Despite the week spent teaching the evidence for Pi = 3.14....Many in the class simply expound 'expert A says Pi = 3' this is such an interesting, unresolved debate.

A good illustration of the wedge strategy. Fortunately, none of us have to pay for diavlogs where money might find its way

Quoting bjkeefe: I forgot a fourth possibility.

In the same spirit: "Mr. Deity and the Science Advisor." A B'head makes the big time!

Quoting Baltimoron: Speaking of banter that fails to approach any standard...stay cute! It's your only defense!

And stay stupid, Moron, its what you do best!

Quoting rcocean: And stay stupid, Moron, its what you do best!

As nikkibong has pointed out, you can be pretty funny at times. I think you've missed that mark by a smidge, today.

Oh no, I feel another "Commentor Court" diavlog in our future.

Pullleeeez...spare us from such condescending drivel. All I want from Aryeh and Bob - assuming it's the same format- is an apology for Behe. I can justify distinguishing from Bob the proprietor and the diavlogs his product offers, but this is a festering wound for me.

Quoting Baltimoron: All I want from Aryeh and Bob - assuming it's the same format- is an apology for Behe.

Already been delivered.

Fraud is defined by a promise to deliver something that one has no intention to deliver. Intelligent Design promises to deliver an alternative explanation of the evolutionary process, but has no intention of doing so. Surely everyone understands that a theory of directed evolution, tested by evidence, would (1) be the greatest scientific achievement of all time; (2) consign Charles Darwin to history, the dustbin of; and (3) defeat naturalism once and for all. One would think this would provide Michael Behe and his colleagues with sufficient motivation to develop such a theory, yet they've never said a word about how they think biological evolution might proceed. Simple question: Why not? Simple answer: They're not interested in explanation, only in deception. John McWhorter's failure to recognize this should embarrass him, but instead he expresses disgust with the reaction of those who do.

Apologizing, and then conducting business as usual, is worse than digging in with a bad defense. McWhorter gave a very weak apology, and then both he and Loury acted as if commenters slurred McWhorter personally. If Loury debated a hack who used an economics department's dirty laundry or sincere disagreements against economics or him, he'd smite the hack. I would prefer a McWhorter diavlog on Armstrong with no mention of the Behe debacle than what he just did. But, McWhorter's performance mistake is only exceeded in time and scale by the decision to let him have his way. Therefore, the only action Wright can take is, to make his procedures transparent, so that this never happens again. He can't babysit this site every minute, and it's clear his staff is fallible, or complicit. Until them the wound just festers. Let me be clear: I have trouble, there's this smallest of doubts, about Bob Wright, his staff, and how they run bhTV. I don't trust him not to let Behe, or some hack like him, back.

Quoting Baltimoron: Apologizing, and then conducting business as usual, is worse than digging in with a bad defense. McWhorter gaver a very weak apology, and then both he and Loury acted as if commenters slurred McWhorter personally. McWhorter's performance mistake is only exceeded in time and scale by the decision to let him have his way. Therefore, the only action Wright can take is, to make his procedures transparent, so that this never happens again. He can't babysit this site every minute, and it's clear his staff is fallible, or complicit. Until them the wound just festers.

I would have sworn that commenters DID slur McWhorter personally...maybe I am just sensitive.

Quoting Baltimoron: Apologizing, and then conducting business as usual, is worse than digging in with a bad defense.

But he's not "conducting business as usual," where "usual" was pre-Behe. He said in that diavlog with George that Behe and other creationists wouldn't be back on (at least not under those circumstances) and that he had put into place new guidelines for his booking staff. I can't say that I've been thrilled by every last diavlog that's run since, but none that I can think of has come close to giving a platform to an anti-science charlatan.

McWhorter gave a very weak apology, ...

None of what John did was objectively wrong. You can criticize him for any part of it, but I don't think you have any basis for demanding an apology.

... and then both he and Loury acted as if commenters slurred McWhorter personally.

Eh. There might have been some things said about him that rubbed either one of them the wrong way. Certainly, John was harshly criticized for being naive, for giving a softball interview, for being unprepared, etc., and then there was the whole separate round where he was criticized for asking that the diavlog

I guess I'm not as good a person as you, but more forgiving than Carl Zimmer and Sean Carroll. There does come a time to pick sides.

Quoting Baltimoron: I guess I'm not as good a person as you, ...

I am not claiming to be a better person, but merely observing that you're going overboard.

... but more forgiving than Carl Zimmer and Sean Carroll.

I am on record as viewing their permanent decisions as unfortunate. I also think it's a different matter considering the perspective of a diavlogger than that of a commenter.

There does come a time to pick sides.

If you want to leave, no one is stopping you. I don't think that would be a good idea, particularly in light of my earlier expressed view that steps were taken in response to the community's complaints, but if you feel that strongly about it, that's your decision to make. I do think continuing to complain about what I consider a matter that's over and done with, particularly as though you were some sort of stockholder or premium customer, is unwarranted.

I don't see anything wrong with keeping Wright and bhTV honest about this mistake. I've picked my side. It means I have respect for myself, and I'm on the record that neither apologies nor whatever actions you think have occurred are sufficient. It's also consistent with my belief about the role of interests and money in organizations. I see this as dying by the sword: the US perfected the think tank, and now I see problems with the model. You're the one talking about keeping up a fight. Behe's done enough damage, and I don't want him or any other hack doing this again. Until the next "misfortune"....

I'm curious as to whether viewers of Science Saturday would view a diavlog with Dr. Susan Blackmore in the same light as the one with McWhorter and Behe.

Quoting Baltimoron: [...]

Okay.

Perhaps not on Science Saturday, but I'm not opposed to her in a diavlog with a scholar or science writer.

Quoting spandrel: I'm curious as to whether viewers of Science Saturday would view a diavlog with Dr. Susan Blackmore in the same light as the one with McWhorter and Behe.

I don't know her besides what I've just read on her Wikipedia page. I can't see any problem from that, although I wouldn't be astounded if there were "this is not real science" complaints. What about you? I don't see the analogy between her and Behe, though. [Added] Now that I've Googled a bit, I am reminded that I heard her interviewed on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Evidently, it did not leave much of an impression one way or another. I have a vague memory that she tried to study the paranormal scientifically and concluded there was no discernible there there. Is that right? Is that what you think the objection would be, that she was some sort of purveyor of woo? Or does it have to do with her memetics work?

Quoting spandrel: http://www.nybooks.com/authors/9368

I just read (and enjoyed) Orr's reviews of Pinker and Ridley. Thanks.

... and I say good for John McWhorter. Fraud and mistake... that's laughable.

Quoting bjkeefe: I have a vague memory that she tried to study the paranormal scientifically and concluded there was no discernible there there. Is that right? Is that what you think the objection would be, that she was some sort of purveyor of woo? Or does it have to do with her memetics work?

I read one of her books and enjoyed it (The Meme Machine). As far as I remember, Dawkins commended her writings about memes.

I think it is the same dog actually, Glenn Loury's. Good to know the dog has Mr. Loury's back.

I tend to agree. There definitely are some way smarter than average folks at Columbia, but what it definitely is is a pool of people with good schooling.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't know her besides what I've just read on her Wikipedia page. I can't see any problem from that, although I wouldn't be astounded if there were "this is not real science" complaints.

What about you?

I don't see the analogy between her and Behe, though.

[Added] Now that I've Googled a bit, I am reminded that I heard her interviewed on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Evidently, it did not leave much of an impression one way or another. I have a vague memory that she tried to study the paranormal scientifically and concluded there was no discernible there there. Is that right? Is that what you think the objection would be, that she was some sort of purveyor of woo? Or does it have to do with her memetics work?

I was more curious than anything else and wasn't [seriously] trying to make a point or anything. I have my personal views of Blackmore (obviously not high or I wouldn't have asked the question) but my reason for asking is that she lacks the political charge that Behe has, and she is also frequently on the same stage as Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, et al.: http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_black...and_temes.html So I'm more curious than anything else - and

DenvilleSteele wrote:

Behe's science is molecular biology. He comments on the ToE saying he does not see how the molecular machines he studies ( and describes beautifully ) could have evolved. I don't think someone could be called a "bad" scientist because of statements, incorrect or not, about another branch of science.

Nonsense. Is Behe weighing in on evolution as a scientist or as a layman? The whole media campaign by Behe is meant to give some scientific credibility to what he says, because he has some credentials. But I note that his own academic department has disavowed his writings and media appearances about evolution. I'm sure that I'll get some reply to the effect that they have not disavowed Behe, they merely don't endorse him. I'm fed up with the "fair and balanced" bullshit on this site. I now suspect that it all has to do with getting funding. R Wright is pandering to all kinds of cranks. I gather from reading comments about this diavlog that Carl Zimmer has disassociated himself from bhtv because of the Behe appearance. That's too bad, although I did find Zimmer quite boring. I'll ask again, where are the real leftists on this site? We

Quoting Lyle: ... and I say good for John McWhorter. Fraud and mistake... that's laughable.

Not fraud, eh? So...What does Behe propose about the evolutionary process? It helps to explain the reaction to the original diavlog if we understand that the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute pursues two objectives, both of which they see as confronting materialism: (1) Convincing people that there is evidence for design in nature; and (2) Convincing people that scientists have been lying to them.

Quoting ledocs: DenvilleSteele wrote:

Nonsense. Is Behe weighing in on evolution as a scientist or as a layman? The whole media campaign by Behe is meant to give some scientific credibility to what he says, because he has some credentials. But I note that his own academic department has disavowed his writings and media appearances about evolution. I'm sure that I'll get some reply to the effect that they have not disavowed Behe, they merely don't endorse him.

I'm fed up with the "fair and balanced" bullshit on this site. I now suspect that it all has to do with getting funding. R Wright is pandering to all kinds of cranks. I gather from reading comments about this diavlog that Carl Zimmer has disassociated himself from bhtv because of the Behe appearance. That's too bad, although I did find Zimmer quite boring.

I'll ask again, where are the real leftists on this site? We get libertarians and "conservatives" in every possible permutation, and I can't remember ever seeing a self-described Marxist or neo-Marxist on bhtv. They are rare, admittedly, but far from extinct. And that recent discussion of global warming with Orr and Manzi, truly awful, "fair and balanced" crap.

I think 30 years of conservative ideological

Quoting ledocs: I'll ask again, where are the real leftists on this site? We get libertarians and "conservatives" in every possible permutation, and I can't remember ever seeing a self-described Marxist or neo-Marxist on bhtv. They are rare, admittedly, but far from extinct. And that recent discussion of global warming with Orr and Manzi, truly awful, "fair and balanced" crap.

I would welcome Marxists appearing here. I see Marxists as democrats with the guts/integrity to state what they believe.

You disagree with him, as do a consensus of evolutionary biologists and/or scientists. Great. But that doesn't make Behe a fraud. He would have to have had misrepresented himself or his work in some way, and as far as I can tell he hasn't done that. I actually thought you meant McWhorter though, and he never represented himself to be an expert at all. Nothing wrong with that, in my book.

Quoting Lyle: You disagree with him, as do a consensus of evolutionary biologists and/or scientists. Great. But that doesn't make Behe a fraud. He would have to have had misrepresented himself or his work in some way, and as far as I can tell he hasn't done that.

I actually thought you meant McWhorter though, and he never represented himself to be an expert at all. Nothing wrong with that, in my book.

Behe misrepresents his work as scientific; that is, as contributing to an improved explanation of a natural process. If you watch the original diavlog, you'll see where, toward the end, McWhorter expresses his enthusiasm for what we're going to learn about the evolutionary process now that we know it is not undirected. Behe quickly attempts to change the course of the conversation. Listen, when I suggest that Behe's work is fraudulent, I don't mean to suggest that Behe is a dishonorable person. As he understands it, he is involved in very important work: Applying his scientific expertise to promoting doubts about naturalism. If that requires some level of deception, so be it. He hasn't lied outright.

Claymisher wrote:

I think 30 years of conservative ideological hegemony is a lot to counter. I'm not that interested in the old left anyway.

There was one with Jeff Madrick. Mike Konczal (rortybomb) was on once too. He's not hard left but he's fluent in Marxian social science. I'd like to see more of them.

I don't know that I'm interested in the Old Left either. I gave Doug Henwood as an example of someone who should be on the site, he should have been given time to discuss the financial crisis. And you agreed with that suggestion, I think. I am not familiar with Mike Konczal. Jeff Madrick is neither a Marxist nor a neo-Marxist, as far as I know. He's what is known as a liberal in the US, but I guess he's more interventionist and less cowed by the wonders of the free market than some of the other liberals on this site. I don't know how much difference there is between Krugman and Madrick on the left-right graph. I haven't read Madrick's books, but I've read everything he has published in "The New York Review of Books" over the past 20 years. This is what I'm saying. When Jeff Madrick

I understand where you're coming from, but I still don't think you can describe his work as unscientific. He does follow the scientific method, no?

Please provide an example of where Behe has followed the scientific method to show the evidence for design or against evolution. He does not test his ideas (he does not come up with a testable hypothesis). His method is to grossly misrepresent other scientists' original research (despite being refuted by those conducting that original research). When he is shown to again and again to be incorrect he does not revise his original idea. Maybe he has used the scientific method on some mid-level publications in the past that have nothing to do with his current career. Now he is simply a crackpot who claims persecution when his logic is shown to be absurd.

He uses the language and mathematics of scientific reasoning in construction of his arguments, yes.

Hasn't all of his published experiments followed the scientific method? His actual experiements, i.e. scientific work is what is I'm talking about, not his ultimate explanations of evolution which go beyond his experiments. edit: I probably mean the same thing as you when you mention his earlier pre-intelligent design publications.

He does not do research in the area for which he is famous. His books (Darwin's Black Box, Edge of Evolution) are not about his own work. Just because he used the scientific method in an honest way at some point in the past does not mean he is honestly presenting his current set of ideas.

Is the question whether Michael Behe is actually a scientist? Of course he is, and I don't think that anyone here has disputed that. The relevant issue is whether his work on intelligent design is scientific. Any scientist who had concluded what Behe claims to have concluded fifteen years ago - that life cannot evolve by an undirected process - would immediately devote herself/himself to examining how life does evolve. Instead, between Darwin's Black Box (1993?) and The Edge of Evolution, Behe has merely refined his arguments and layered on more math. How is that scientific?

Quoting kynefski: Is the question whether Michael Behe is actually a scientist? Of course he is, and I don't think that anyone here has disputed that.

I thought the question was whether he was a fraud. If he believes what he's claiming (and I see no reason to doubt that -- there are simpler explanations for him arguing something wrong than that he's pretending to believe something he doesn't), then it's not a fraud.

The relevant issue is whether his work on intelligent design is scientific. Any scientist who had concluded what Behe claims to have concluded fifteen years ago - that life cannot evolve by an undirected process - would immediately devote herself/himself to examining how life does evolve. Instead, between Darwin's Black Box (1993?) and The Edge of Evolution, Behe has merely refined his arguments and layered on more math.

I haven't read Behe's books, so don't have a personal opinion on those, and I gather that they are not in his particular scientific field. However, the claim that if he, as a scientist, concluded that there was a problem with the current explanation of how evolution happens that is widely accepted, that he would have devoted

Quoting kynefski: Is the question whether Michael Behe is actually a scientist? Of course he is, and I don't think that anyone here has disputed that.

The relevant issue is whether his work on intelligent design is scientific. Any scientist who had concluded what Behe claims to have concluded fifteen years ago - that life cannot evolve by an undirected process - would immediately devote herself/himself to examining how life does evolve. Instead, between Darwin's Black Box (1993?) and The Edge of Evolution, Behe has merely refined his arguments and layered on more math.

How is that scientific?

"Refined" seems generous. He has merely jumped from example to example, as each of his paradigms has been shown to be false, in succession. And that "layering" of math includes some fundamentally flawed statistical calculations associated with his malaria model.

I should have never really commented in the first place. I watched the diavlog, but I'm not even an amateur on the ins and outs of evolutionary science. I definitely accept evolution, but the subject doesn't really interest me. I'm more interested in the whole bruhaha over having Behe being on here and the ridiculing of McWhorter. As far as I can tell Behe isn't being dishonest, but maybe obtuse. For him to not argue honestly, he'd have to be lying and I don't see where that is the case. No one, as far as I can tell, has proven he's lied, but has just been obtuse. He's even said he's open to being persuaded that the consensus is entirely correct and that he is wrong. Sounds like an honest statement to me. No doubt he frustrates people though.

I know Mike Behe professionally, and I read Darwin's Black Box when it was first published. I didn't find it persuasive - Behe was, and remains, selective in presenting conventional evolutionary theory - but I thought it was a legitimate effort to understand biological evolution from a theistic perspective. I was angered by the reception the book was given in the scientific community, thinking that folks were trying to enforce a metaphysical restriction that has no place in science, and I remember printing a sign for my workplace (which remains there still): I ain't gonna work on Huxley's farm no more. And I became an enthusiastic student of the intelligent design movement. As I came to understand the movement (the 2005 Kansas science hearings are an excellent resource for this), I came to better appreciate what Behe and his colleagues are trying to accomplish. And, I'm sorry, but it's fraudulent, to the extent that they lead intellectuals like John McWhorter to believe that they are trying to explain biological evolution. They aren't. This doesn't diminish my respect for the man - I appreciate that he is engaged in an enterprise that he believes to be in service to humanity (for which he's

Quoting stephanie: I haven't read Behe's books, so don't have a personal opinion on those, and I gather that they are not in his particular scientific field.

The books are about molecular biology. That is Behe's field. He is a very good writer and excellent teacher. Consider quantum mechanics. That field of science is based on observation. There is no explanation of how it works. Behe describes the incredibly detailed and complex workings of cells that molecular biologists observe. Obviously there are a ton of things in MB which cannot yet be explained - otherwise scientists would be designing and creating new organisms from scratch instead of tinkering with genes and seeing what they come up with. How can evolutionists be so certain there is not something as unexplainable as quantum mechanics at work in either the inner workings of cells or in how their design initiated or evolved?

Quoting kynefski: ...

Interesting. Anybody know if there's a term that describes stuff like Behe's deal? It's like those "one equals zero" puzzles, where the argument relies on a carefully concealed flaw somewhere in the middle. Like a diabolical Rube Goldberg?

Quoting kynefski: I know Mike Behe professionally, and I read Darwin's Black Box when it was first published. I didn't find it persuasive - Behe was, and remains, selective in presenting conventional evolutionary theory - but I thought it was a legitimate effort to understand biological evolution from a theistic perspective. I was angered by the reception the book was given in the scientific community, thinking that folks were trying to enforce a metaphysical restriction that has no place in science, and I remember printing a sign for my workplace (which remains there still): I ain't gonna work on Huxley's farm no more. And I became an enthusiastic student of the intelligent design movement.

As I came to understand the movement (the 2005 Kansas science hearings are an excellent resource for this), I came to better appreciate what Behe and his colleagues are trying to accomplish. And, I'm sorry, but it's fraudulent, to the extent that they lead intellectuals like John McWhorter to believe that they are trying to explain biological evolution. They aren't.

This doesn't diminish my respect for the man - I appreciate that he is engaged in an enterprise that he believes to be in service to humanity (for which he's

Quoting claymisher:
Anybody know if there's a term that describes stuff like Behe's deal? It's like those "one equals zero" puzzles, where the argument relies on a carefully concealed flaw somewhere in the middle. Like a diabolical Rube Goldberg?

I guess invalid proof is the term.

By the way, just so y'all don't think I'm being pollyannish, I have considered the possibility that the ID scholars are just scamming wealthy theological conservatives. If you read the wedge strategy, which is a fundraising document, you realize that it projects outcomes that its authors have to know won't be achieved. However, I think it just reflects the nature of proposals to always promise more than can be delivered. And I honestly think that Behe, at least, is sincere.

Quoting kynefski: I know Mike Behe professionally, and I read Darwin's Black Box when it was first published. I didn't find it persuasive - Behe was, and remains, selective in presenting conventional evolutionary theory - but I thought it was a legitimate effort to understand biological evolution from a theistic perspective. I was angered by the reception the book was given in the scientific community, thinking that folks were trying to enforce a metaphysical restriction that has no place in science, and I remember printing a sign for my workplace (which remains there still): I ain't gonna work on Huxley's farm no more. And I became an enthusiastic student of the intelligent design movement.

As I came to understand the movement (the 2005 Kansas science hearings are an excellent resource for this), I came to better appreciate what Behe and his colleagues are trying to accomplish. And, I'm sorry, but it's fraudulent, to the extent that they lead intellectuals like John McWhorter to believe that they are trying to explain biological evolution. They aren't.

This doesn't diminish my respect for the man - I appreciate that he is engaged in an enterprise that he believes to be in service to humanity (for which he's

And what do we do when the student fails to recognize which conclusions follow from the evidence, no matter how many times we point out the logic involved, and instead embraces claims that are utterly incompatible with the evidence? We fail them. They flunk. Behe's claims have been flunked out of the world of science. Not because anyone is defending a dogma, but because his ideas don't meet even minimal standards. The evidence does not support him, reason doesn't support him - something other than scientific inquiry is necessary for him to keep insisting that the questions he's asking haven't already been adequately answered dozens of times over.

Quoting stephanie: What do you understand him to be trying to do?

This is my understanding of what he's trying to do. (1) Theism provides the foundation for cultural morality in the West.
(2) Darwinian evolutionary theory has, since the nineteenth century, had the effect of undermining support for theism.
(3) If support for Darwinian evolutionary theory could, in turn, be undermined, it would have the effect of buttressing support for theism. As a scientist, Michael Behe is in a unique position to contribute, through his mastery of scientific language and concepts, to undermining support for Darwinian evolutionary theory. I know for fact that Mike was motivated to write Darwin's Black Box by his familiarity with cosmological arguments for design. He wondered if, as a biochemist, he could succeed in offering a similar contribution. John McWhorter is witness that he has.

The real problem with ID is that it is a dead end for scientific inquiry. The moment that you accept agency in a physico-chemical process, that is the end of the discussion: "because the creator made it that way..." It becomes an issue of faith/belief, that cannot be questioned or experimented with. Behe's most famous argument was the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, rigorous scientific inquiry has demonstrated the "evolution" of the various chemicals involved in the flagellum engine, of course he does not accept the evidence and commits scientific fraud by ignoring the factual evidence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4 If you have time, listen to: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michae..._of_evolution/

Quoting Lyle: But that doesn't make Behe a fraud. He would have to have had misrepresented himself or his work in some way, and as far as I can tell he hasn't done that.

Wrong. He could also have misrepresented the work of others, and become a fraud through those means. And that is precisely what he has done, repeatedly presenting things as unsolved and unsolvable mysteries when scientists have already accounted for many of his examples and shown that existing ideas produce strong and probable arguments for the others. It doesn't take a great familiarity with biology or the relevant research to recognize the logical problems with Behe's arguments. McWhorter might not possess enough expertise in biology to recognize the long list of evidence against Behe, but he ought to have sufficient intellectual expertise to spot bogus arguments. As he's demonstrated that he lacks such expertise, none of his views are worth entertaining. Honest error is one thing, but dishonest incompetence impeaches a person as a source worth listening to.

Sheesh. I'm halfway through this diavlog and already I'm finding it somewhat unbearable. I'll probably listen through it until the end, but only because I need something to listen to while I'm walking home, and both my walk home and the amount remaining on the podcast will take about twenty minutes. I have an unfortunate habit of clucking with my tongue, making disgusted faces, or rolling my eyes dramatically whenever I hear something that irritates me. It's a reflex, I wish I didn't do it, I'd probably be more popular. I'm sitting in a coffee shop right now, and I've probably attracted attention a couple of times already by doing this. The first time was when Loury made the comment about the reaction to the Behe diavlog that "This is a bunch of political correctness". At the risk of sounding like a snotty liberal, and with my tongue-clucking and eye-rolling that's probably the way I come off, give me a break. Is it that hard to believe that people who have read the literature on intelligent design, know what happened in Dover, PA, and are familiar with Behe are just irritated that he's, once again, being given a

Quoting kezboard: [...]

Great stuff, especially the closing line.

Quoting AemJeff: As nikkibong has pointed out, you can be pretty funny at times. I think you've missed that mark by a smidge, today.

How can anyone compete with comedy antics of B-moron?
He's like some pompous twit from a Monty-Python sketch. I just hope Bob Wright gives in to his demands and John McWhorter apologizes - otherwise who knows what the mighty B-Moron might do next? BHTV trembles before his righteous wrath. And don't pander to B-Moron again, McWhorter - he hates that.

He's like some pompous twit from a Monty-Python sketch.

And, who would play me? It'd better not be John Cleese, or I'll....!

Quoting bjkeefe: Okay.

Having offered that sign-off, please allow me to add a postscript. Really, I was not objecting to your attitude so much as it concerned Behe (although we remain in disagreement about whether Bh.tv has adequately addressed the problem), but as your complaints referred to John McWhorter. I guess we will not agree on that part, either, but I happened to think back on this exchange while reading one-time B'head Greg Laden's recent post, "You said one thing wrong, therefore everything you ever said is also wrong." Perhaps you will enjoy it as much as I did. (h/t: oldcola, some of whose other links in the same post also seem strangely relevant)

Quoting Markos: Oops!

As a white person who feels much pain about inhuman horrors of our racial past, I wish I didn't have to feel nervous and walking-on-tiptoes about which of these terms to use when and where.

Don't worry about it.

I can keep a tally of how much crap and premium content any commentator or a public figure like McWhorter says in public. With some, like Michael Goldfarb's gaffe during the election, it confirms. With McWhorter, this incident is just incongruous. I'm keeping this incident in the negative column until I can figure out how it fits into his whole oeuvre. History is littered with smart people and businessmen who made bonehead mistakes, but are considered successful or geniuses. The crap and the gems are part of being human.

Quoting mattcbrown: *sigh*

Gee, you're right. Wright should have every nincompoop who's ever pedaled a crock of sh*t on so we can all waste our time learning why that nincompoop who's pedaling a crock of sh*t is a nincompoop who's pedaling a crock of sh*t.

No one is making you watch or listen or waste your time. Just skip it. I suspect all of you who have such a bad opinion about Behe just love to complain about him.

Quoting badhatharry: No one is making you watch or listen or waste your time. Just skip it. I suspect all of you who have such a bad opinion about Behe just love to complain about him.

I suspect all of you who so vociferously defend the idea of having a charlatan like Behe on Bh.tv, when you could go watch him elsewhere anytime, just love to push a Christianist agenda. Hey! This passive-aggressive "suspect" stuff is fun!

Quoting bjkeefe: I suspect all of you who so vociferously defend the idea of having a charlatan like Behe on Bh.tv, when you could go watch him elsewhere anytime, just love to push a Christianist agenda.

bjkeefe, to the extent that you do not mean this facetiously, I disagree. In fact, I "suspect" that Behe's strongest supporters, including McWhorter, are completely unaware of any religious agenda in his work. They see him as he presents himself: As a dissenting voice in evolutionary biology. If religion is involved, it is from his critics' trying to enforce a materialist agenda. This makes confronting ID a difficult task. To explain clearly what it is about requires some mention of religion, but the edifice is constructed to snap at the mention. Personally, I try to avoid it, but then you get what you've seen here. Why do you say he's fraudulent? Well...

Quoting graz: Not a trace of self- consciousness, but MoFo is another story.

John better stay away from such language when he's up at Columbia
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/p...aAt8uG6uUySGTN

Quoting kynefski: bjkeefe, to the extent that you do not mean this facetiously, I disagree. In fact, I "suspect" that Behe's strongest supporters, including McWhorter, are completely unaware of any religious agenda in his work. They see him as he presents himself: As a dissenting voice in evolutionary biology. If religion is involved, it is from his critics' trying to enforce a materialist agenda.

This makes confronting ID a difficult task. To explain clearly what it is about requires some mention of religion, but the edifice is constructed to snap at the mention. Personally, I try to avoid it, but then you get what you've seen here. Why do you say he's fraudulent? Well...

I think a person would need to be living under a rock not to know Behe's religious agenda. But again so what? Let the man speak and as with all debates, scientific or not, the truth will eventually shake out. So finally I heard this diavlog. McWhorter is wonderful. I loved Loury’s opening volley about the ‘enlightened’. Except… how was there an assault on science during the GWB years?

Quoting badhatharry: I think a person would need to be living under a rock not to know Behe's religious agenda. But again so what? Let the man speak and as with all debates, scientific or not, the truth will eventually shake out.

So finally I heard this diavlog. McWhorter is wonderful.

I loved Loury’s opening volley about the ‘enlightened’.

Except… how was there an assault on science during the GWB years?

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2...a_by_chris.php

Quoting bjkeefe: I suspect all of you who so vociferously defend the idea of having a charlatan like Behe on Bh.tv, when you could go watch him elsewhere anytime, just love to push a Christianist agenda.

Hey! This passive-aggressive "suspect" stuff is fun!

The doctor is in, and on a holiday no less. It seems that many on this board, no matter how science-minded they are, still hold out the possibility that there is some kind of supernatural cause for all of this that we see and experience. That possibility is not what one could call Christianist. As I have said before, it seems to me that if one is not willing to call oneself an atheist, one is then, by default, a creationist. Behe is in the business of trying to define how it is that a creator fits in with what we already know about science. You disagree with him, as many others do. That's fine and you may be right. In fact you probably are. As far as having him on BTV, that would be up to Bob and the other powers that be. Given the amount of comment traffic which occurs every time the

Quoting badhatharry: As I have said before, it seems to me that if one is not willing to call oneself an atheist, one is then, by default, a creationist.

That may set a new record for false dichotomies. Unless you're using creationist to mean something worlds away from what the term commonly means, your claim is thoroughly untrue. Rid yourself of the wingnut belief that accepting the theory of evolution equates to atheism. There is no reason that one can't believe in some sort of god and also accept the theory of evolution. There are numerous surveys out there that will attest to this, from the general population all the way up to the highest echelon of scientific associations. Bear in mind that to accept evolutionary theory has nothing to do with what one might believe about how life began, let alone how any of the rest of the universe came into existence.

Behe is in the business of trying to define how it is that a creator fits in with what we already know about science.

No he isn't. He is in the business of spreading FUD about the

Quoting badhatharry: Behe is in the business of trying to define how it is that a creator fits in with what we already know about science.

No, he is not. If Behe were truly in the business of trying to define how it is that a creator fits in with what we already know about science, he would be trying to understand just how a creator might intervene in the evolutionary process. Is it that some genetic variation in populations is directed? If so, is the germ line of the whole population modified? Or does the creator intervene with differential reproductive success? And so forth. (For an example of a real scientific dissent from Darwinism, here's a couple of search terms: Margulis symbiogenesis.) But Behe considers none of that, because he really isn't interested in understanding the evolutionary process, with or without intelligent intervention. Behe is interested solely in getting people to doubt the scientific consensus and, in doing so, to teach their children that biologists are liars. That way, they, like John McWhorter, will be properly disgusted.

Quoting badhatharry: I think a person would need to be living under a rock not to know Behe's religious agenda. But again so what? Let the man speak and as with all debates, scientific or not, the truth will eventually shake out.

Gah. This is so squishy, it's unbearable. The truth has already shaken out about creationism not being science and Behe not being honest. We don't have to keep sitting through the same old crap. There's way too much else that's more interesting, more important, and actually unsettled.

Except… how was there an assault on science during the GWB years?

To add to SkepticDoc's link, here's another by the same author. Sounds like you'd do well to read that book, if you're seriously asking that question.

Quoting kynefski: bjkeefe, to the extent that you do not mean this facetiously, I disagree. In fact, I "suspect" that Behe's strongest supporters, including McWhorter, are completely unaware of any religious agenda in his work. They see him as he presents himself: As a dissenting voice in evolutionary biology. If religion is involved, it is from his critics' trying to enforce a materialist agenda.

This makes confronting ID a difficult task. To explain clearly what it is about requires some mention of religion, but the edifice is constructed to snap at the mention. Personally, I try to avoid it, but then you get what you've seen here. Why do you say he's fraudulent? Well...

I was being facetious (or sarcastic), but your response is very well said.

Quoting SkepticDoc: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2...a_by_chris.php

"the standing and influence of science in our society is in decline for a variety of reasons, and it's partly the fault of scientists:" Sorry, I didn't see GWB mentioned....perhaps in the actual book he is. Or is it rather, the age of GWB that is at fault? People wanting to believe in God is a ubiquitous feature of our species. It seems that science can go on even with this feature very much in place.
What they talked about is the notion that kids aren't building rockets in their backyards and that shows the decline of science. Maybe or maybe not. The geeks who love science are a rare breed. How does one go from kids not wanting to build rockets to a lack of interest in science? I doubt that the average American ever had much of an interest in the esoterics of science.

Quoting bjkeefe: Unless you're using creationist to mean something worlds away from what the term commonly means, your claim is thoroughly untrue.

That is exactly what I'm meaning. Unless one is an atheist/materialist one either doesn't know (agnostic, which holds out the possibility of a creator) or a believer in God. [/quote] Rid yourself of the wingnut belief that accepting the theory of evolution equates to atheism. [/quote] While you may consider me to hold wingnut notions, I do not think that anyone who believes in evolution is an atheist. What I do think and have said repeatedly in this exact way is that anyone who is not an atheist is at some level, a creationist. And BTW, I do not consider atheist to be a derogatory term, quite the contrary.
[/quote] No he isn't. He is in the business of spreading FUD about the theory of evolution. That has been established beyond any doubt. Follow some of the links in the other threads, if you're really interested in learning about him.[/quote] I am not at all interested in learning about him.

Quoting kynefski: No, he is not. If Behe were truly in the business of trying to define how it is that a creator fits in with what we already know about science, he would be trying to understand just how a creator might intervene in the evolutionary process. Is it that some genetic variation in populations is directed? If so, is the germ line of the whole population modified? Or does the creator intervene with differential reproductive success? And so forth. (For an example of a real scientific dissent from Darwinism, here's a couple of search terms: Margulis symbiogenesis.)

But Behe considers none of that, because he really isn't interested in understanding the evolutionary process, with or without intelligent intervention. Behe is interested solely in getting people to doubt the scientific consensus and, in doing so, to teach their children that biologists are liars. That way, they, like John McWhorter, will be properly disgusted.

From what little I know about Behe, I assumed he was trying to take established scientific theory and nudge it towards proving that a creator could very well have been involved in the process. Margulis symbiogenesis. I will definitely give this a search

Thanks for the answer. Is your understanding based on some special knowledge (like something he's acknowledged to you or others)? Or simply based on what you think must explain otherwise weird (in your mind) actions or misunderstandings? I ask in part because you seem to be arguing for what seems to me to be a less straightforward explanation of his arguments and actions, and in this thread at least based on assumptions about what a scientist would do (which sounds really to me like what you'd do). My comments aren't based on any desire to defend Behe, who I have no particular interest in, but simply what sounds plausible to me.

Quoting kynefski: This is my understanding of what he's trying to do.

(1) Theism provides the foundation for cultural morality in the West.

Okay, I'll assume he believes this, but unless told otherwise, I'll also assume that he is a sincere theist.

(2) Darwinian evolutionary theory has, since the nineteenth century, had the effect of undermining support for theism.

Yes, probably, but Behe belongs to a religion that at least claims to have no problem with evolution, and presumably (if I am correct that he is sincerely

Quoting bjkeefe: Gah. This is so squishy, it's unbearable. The truth has already shaken out about creationism not being science and Behe not being honest. We don't have to keep sitting through the same old crap. There's way too much else that's more interesting, more important, and actually unsettled.

To add to SkepticDoc's link, here's another by the same author. Sounds like you'd do well to read that book, if you're seriously asking that question.

Causation is a hard thing to prove. However, I will confess that I find the Republican obsession with ideas like "America is a Christian nation" pretty useless. As far as We don't have to keep sitting through the same old crap.
You don't have to. I suspect that when the comments about Behe are nil, the subject will be dropped.

Quoting badhatharry: I am not at all interested in learning about him.

Words fail.

Quoting badhatharry: It seems that many on this board, no matter how science-minded they are, still hold out the possibility that there is some kind of supernatural cause for all of this that we see and experience.

That is a contradiction in terms. Being science-minded requires rejecting the concept of the supernatural, much less giving serious consideration to supernatural entities being responsible for observable facts.

Quoting stephanie: Again, I'm not arguing that Behe is correct. I'm arguing that it makes more sense to see him as wrong than as a fraud.

Except his errors have been explained to him, over and over - in court, no less. Yet he persists in holding onto the mistakes. Either he is a conscious fraud, or self-deluded in error. Honestly being wrong is at this point far less plausible an explanation for Behe's actions than intentional lying. If you don't think so, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the many attempts that have been made to engage and correct Behe in the past before countering the arguments of people who are informed on the topic.

Quoting Caledonian: Except his errors have been explained to him, over and over - in court, no less.

Oh, c'mon, who among us hasn't had someone explain over and over (or argue over and over) how we are clearly wrong about something, and yet cling to our own views, because we think the explainer is wrong. That Behe no doubt knows he's in a minority doesn't mean he's lying about what he actually thinks. It simply doesn't make sense for him to be lying, whereas it's easy to see how he might be wrong. Again, smart people believe all kinds of crazy things.

Quoting stephanie: Oh, c'mon, who among us hasn't had someone explain over and over (or argue over and over) how we are clearly wrong about something, and yet cling to our own views, because we think the explainer is wrong.

That Behe no doubt knows he's in a minority doesn't mean he's lying about what he actually thinks. It simply doesn't make sense for him to be lying, whereas it's easy to see how he might be wrong. Again, smart people believe all kinds of crazy things.

As a general principle, what you say has merit. In this case, however, you're being too charitable. At the very least, if Behe's claiming to be a scientist, he's being intellectually dishonest. If you care about it, this has been thoroughly documented. See links in the other threads. If not, fine.

Quoting Caledonian: That is a contradiction in terms. Being science-minded requires rejecting the concept of the supernatural, much less giving serious consideration to supernatural entities being responsible for observable facts.

That is my position, exactly, which is why I consider myself an atheist. However, as has been pointed out, there are those who 'believe in evolution' but can't/won't go to the conclusion that we are essentially just one of many manifestations which the universe has been capable of spitting out. I suppose that is because we appear to be such an anomaly, big brains and all. Therefore it is only natural (and not neccessarily correct) that we try to create special circumstances for both us and the universe where we reside.

Quoting stephanie: Oh, c'mon, who among us hasn't had someone explain over and over (or argue over and over) how we are clearly wrong about something, and yet cling to our own views, because we think the explainer is wrong.

That Behe no doubt knows he's in a minority doesn't mean he's lying about what he actually thinks. It simply doesn't make sense for him to be lying, whereas it's easy to see how he might be wrong. Again, smart people believe all kinds of crazy things.

Behe had, so far as I know, no particular reputation in his field prior to his association with Creationists and ID. He's now well known and attached to a well funded ideological think-tank, specifically because of the set of views in question here. It's pretty certain he's equipped to understand the counterarguments that have been mounted against those views, and it's hard to believe that someone capable of grasping those arguments wouldn't acknowledge, at the very least, that they represent interesting questions. Instead, his tactic has been to shift his rhetoric from one example to another, as each in turn has been shot down - without ever acknowledging any

Quoting bjkeefe: Words fail.

Oh go ahead and try. Why should I be interested in him? There are lots of things I'm interested in and lots I am not. Behe falls into the former category. I feel no need to learn about him, but I also, in my liberal minded way, think he is free to lay out his ideas in whatever manner he wants. People are also free to listen and weigh those ideas for themselves. I believe as I said before that truth will usually win out, given enough time.

Quoting badhatharry: Oh go ahead and try. Why should I be interested in him? There are lots of things I'm interested in and lots I am not. Behe falls into the former category. I feel no need to learn about him, ...

Again, the sheer muddleheadedness just renders me speechless.

Quoting bjkeefe: Again, the sheer muddleheadedness just renders me speechless.

ooops! it's the latter. My muddleheadedness always gets those two (former and latter) mixed up. And, speechless is a good thing for you to be.

Quoting badhatharry: ooops! it's the latter. My muddleheadedness ...

Progress!

I would like to declare that, to the best of my knowledge, in his writing and speaking on intelligent design, Michael Behe has never lied. In fact, I assume that he has assiduously avoided saying or writing anything that could be identified as a lie. That does mean that he and his colleagues have never acted to deceive. One can both "honest", in the sense of not lying, and intentionally deceptive. Here's an example. If you visit the Discovery Institute CRC web site, you will see, proudly displayed, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, signed by hundreds of scientists. The statement reads as follows: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. Now, what that seems to say is "We are skeptical of claims that an unguided natural process accounts for the complexity of life," and I think that's how we're expected to understand it. Wow, all those Ph.D. scientists support intelligent design. In fact, the actual statement could be signed by anybody, myself included. So...If you are a scientist who supports the CRC's mission of confronting naturalism, you can sign

I am beginning to internalize why serious scientists do not argue with IDers, it is like trying to teach quantum mechanics to your dog... At the risk of engaging in a futile exchange, if there was a "designer", can anyone explain why there are congenital malformations, chromosomal aberrations/syndromes, not to even consider "the problem of evil"...?

Quoting SkepticDoc: I am beginning to internalize why serious scientists do not argue with IDers, it is like trying to teach quantum mechanics to your dog...

At the risk of engaging in a futile exchange, if there was a "designer", can anyone explain why there are congenital malformations, chromosomal aberrations/syndromes, not to even consider "the problem of evil"...?

Behe completely convinced me that God is evil. I wrote about that at length in the Behe/McWhorter thread.

Quoting kynefski: The statement reads as follows: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. Now, what that seems to say is "We are skeptical of claims that an unguided natural process accounts for the complexity of life," and I think that's how we're expected to understand it. Wow, all those Ph.D. scientists support intelligent design. In fact, the actual statement could be signed by anybody, myself included.
So...If you are a scientist who supports the CRC's mission of confronting naturalism, you can sign this statement in good conscience, knowing that you haven't lied. But have you been honest?.

So just a couple of questions. 1)How does the statement the website posted lead to the conclusion that all those PhDs support Intelligent Design? Just by appearing in the context of the website? 2) In your last sentence you imply that those who support CRC's mission can include actual scientists. Did you really mean that? 3) And if you, yourself, could have signed the actual statement, what part do you fully agree with, the skepticism part or

Quoting SkepticDoc: I am beginning to internalize why serious scientists do not argue with IDers, it is like trying to teach quantum mechanics to your dog...

At the risk of engaging in a futile exchange, if there was a "designer", can anyone explain why there are congenital malformations, chromosomal aberrations/syndromes, not to even consider "the problem of evil"...?

The devil!

Quoting badhatharry: So just a couple of questions.

1)How does the statement the website posted lead to the conclusion that all those PhDs support Intelligent Design? Just by appearing in the context of the website?

2) In your last sentence you imply that those who support CRC's mission can include actual scientists. Did you really mean that?

3) And if you, yourself, could have signed the actual statement, what part do you fully agree with, the skepticism part or the part that says careful examination of the evidence or what?

1) I assume that all of those scientists support CSC's mission to confront naturalism and support theism. 2) Of course I mean that. There are many scientists who are troubled by the potentially corrosive effect of "Darwinism" on theism, and they welcome the opportunity to support CSC's mission, so long as it doesn't require them to lie outright. 3) I agree, along with every biologist I know, that random mutation and natural selection are inadequate to account for the complexity of life.

Quoting bjkeefe: As a general principle, what you say has merit. In this case, however, you're being too charitable. At the very least, if Behe's claiming to be a scientist, he's being intellectually dishonest.

Behe aside, how are you using "intellectually dishonest," and how do you distinguish between when people are doing that, vs. simply being wrong? I'll note that I often think people are mistaken because they are influenced, unconsciously, by what they want to believe, and I also often am amazed without being certain that I am right and someone else is wrong at how differently that person and I interpret the same evidence or events. So while I certainly do occasionally believe people are being disingenuous, say, even on bloggingheads (believe it or not!), I try to be a little slow to come to that conclusion, because I find it genuinely puzzling to know why someone thinks or argues what they do (absent obvious motive, like in litigation or by a political spinmaster).

Quoting kynefski: 1) I assume that all of those scientists support CSC's mission to confront naturalism and support theism.

2) Of course I mean that. There are many scientists who are troubled by the potentially corrosive effect of "Darwinism" on theism, and they welcome the opportunity to support CSC's mission, so long as it doesn't require them to lie outright.

3) I agree, along with every biologist I know, that random mutation and natural selection are inadequate to account for the complexity of life.

First, let me say that all of my questions are honest and not meant to incite, but rather to get information, especially since you seem to be quite informed. So there are scientists who agree with the theory of evolution, but see Darwinism as dangerous. They feel this way because? I know you are not a spokesman for these folks, but perhaps you have a feel for this. Perhaps you can, in a layman's terms, tell me why random mutation and natural selection are not adequate to account for the complexity of life. Perhaps just one example would suffice. Or perhaps point me to some information I can access. Then, can you tell me what further theories which do explain that

Quoting AemJeff: Behe had, so far as I know, no particular reputation in his field prior to his association with Creationists and ID. He's now well known and attached to a well funded ideological think-tank, specifically because of the set of views in question here.

Okay, yes, this is a motive and is plausible, more so than the "doing it for God" argument is, for me. It still doesn't strike me as the simplest explanation, but to really have an opinion on whether he's lying for career advancement, I'd have to have some sense of him as a person, and I don't. However:

It's pretty certain he's equipped to understand the counterarguments that have been mounted against those views, and it's hard to believe that someone capable of grasping those arguments wouldn't acknowledge, at the very least, that they represent interesting questions.

Maybe science is different, but I really have seen enough blind spots from smart and knowledgeable people which made no sense to me, that this does not convince me that he's lying, rather than wrong. I've certainly been in arguments (more subjective matters, true, but not completely subjective) in areas where I have some expertise, where I couldn't see how the other person

Quoting kynefski: I would like to declare that, to the best of my knowledge, in his writing and speaking on intelligent design, Michael Behe has never lied. In fact, I assume that he has assiduously avoided saying or writing anything that could be identified as a lie.

That does mean that he and his colleagues have never acted to deceive. One can both "honest", in the sense of not lying, and intentionally deceptive.

I think badhatharry is making some good points in response to this. However, to the extent it is intended in part as a response to my wondering how Behe's lying would be motivated, I think being deceptive counts as a lie or, more significantly, dishonesty, in the context I was using it.

Quoting badhatharry: That is my position, exactly, which is why I consider myself an atheist.

That's a strange position, given that there's no reason why gods would have to be 'supernatural'. Natural gods are perfectly plausible - it's just that there's absolutely no evidence for their existence.

However, as has been pointed out, there are those who 'believe in evolution' but can't/won't go to the conclusion that we are essentially just one of many manifestations which the universe has been capable of spitting out.

That is an incoherent position. We are by definition such a manifestation. In any case, "but I don't believe it" is not a viable argument in any field, much less biology.

Quoting stephanie: Behe aside, how are you using "intellectually dishonest," and how do you distinguish between when people are doing that, vs. simply being wrong?

When someone claims that there is no evidence that blood clotting evolved, and then admits that he hasn't read any of the large body of research on precisely that topic, yet does not retract his claim - he's being dishonest. I mean really, how do *you* distinguish dishonesty from simple incorrectness in normal life? This is not an extraordinarily difficult issue. People who are confronted with demonstrations of the logical failings in their arguments, yet maintain their arguments, aren't simply wrong. Wrong can be corrected. Simple error can be fixed. Failing to respond to correction is an indicator that people aren't being honest in their arguments.

Quoting badhatharry: Perhaps you can, in a layman's terms, tell me why random mutation and natural selection are not adequate to account for the complexity of life. Perhaps just one example would suffice. Or perhaps point me to some information I can access.

Two words: sexual selection. Two more words: genetic drift.

Quoting Caledonian: When someone claims that there is no evidence that blood clotting evolved, and then admits that he hasn't read any of the large body of research on precisely that topic, yet does not retract his claim - he's being dishonest.

Yes, I would agree with that. It sound as if -- if what everyone says here is correct -- that he's one of the many who argue dishonestly. That's still not the same as the question I was raising -- whether he actually believes that his underlying claim, that evolution was directed, is one that he does not sincerely believe in. That was the limited point I was questioning.

I mean really, how do *you* distinguish dishonesty from simple incorrectness in normal life? This is not an extraordinarily difficult issue.

I think it is, actually. For the most part, I think people come to quite different opinions based on the same evidence in many cases, so one should be hesitant to claim that an argument is dishonest, rather than simply one that you disagree with. This has been somewhat tested in recent months, as I have had a harder time accepting that people really believe some of the nutty things that they

Quoting stephanie: That's still not the same as the question I was raising -- whether he actually believes that his underlying claim, that evolution was directed, is one that he does not sincerely believe in. That was the limited point I was questioning.

The man is either a fool or a liar. Who cares what his "actual beliefs" are?

For the most part, I think people come to quite different opinions based on the same evidence in many cases

Yeah, see, that's the thing - "opinions" are not constrained to be reasonable, defensible, or logically connected the available evidence. "Opinions" can neither be correct or incorrect - so Behe can only have an opinion on this question if the answer has no objective validity. It does have objective validity. Therefore, Behe is not entitled to an opinion on it.

Again, this is really, really common. And people don't always agree on whether something is a logical failing.

So what?

Quoting badhatharry: First, let me say that all of my questions are honest and not meant to incite, but rather to get information, especially since you seem to be quite informed.

So there are scientists who agree with the theory of evolution, but see Darwinism as dangerous. They feel this way because? I know you are not a spokesman for these folks, but perhaps you have a feel for this.

Perhaps you can, in a layman's terms, tell me why random mutation and natural selection are not adequate to account for the complexity of life. Perhaps just one example would suffice. Or perhaps point me to some information I can access.

Then, can you tell me what further theories which do explain that complexity are being proposed?

And finally, do you think that the skepticism around this subject (specifically whether evolution can explain complexity) is going to have a corroding effect on the theory itself or has it explained enough that it will always stand as a part of the truth.

If you have already explained any or all of this in prior posts, I apologize for not having read them.

Before addressing your questions, I would like

Quoting stephanie: Behe aside, how are you using "intellectually dishonest," and how do you distinguish between when people are doing that, vs. simply being wrong? I'll note that I often think people are mistaken because they are influenced, unconsciously, by what they want to believe, and I also often am amazed without being certain that I am right and someone else is wrong at how differently that person and I interpret the same evidence or events. So while I certainly do occasionally believe people are being disingenuous, say, even on bloggingheads (believe it or not!), I try to be a little slow to come to that conclusion, because I find it genuinely puzzling to know why someone thinks or argues what they do (absent obvious motive, like in litigation or by a political spinmaster).

First, I'll go along with what Caledonian said. There's another part I could add: The sense of intellectual dishonesty can come from the accumulation of a bunch of little episodes that all point in the same direction. Each one considered by itself? Sure, you could say "just plain wrong" or "being stubborn, give him a little while." But when you get example after example of, say, claims being completely refuted that are

If you are sincerely curious, I found this series of lectures at Stanford very informative. It's a lecture of ten presentations, with many notable guest lecturers and panelists. It might be quite an investment, but I found it a treasure trove of book ideas and speculation. It was even humorous. The relationship of theism and evolution is examined. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fysSblKjjvA Stay skeptical!

This was the malaria thing, right? Because I had the exact same reaction when Behe started going on about how well-designed malaria was. Intelligent design is not very good theology, is it.

Quoting stephanie: ...

Let me say clearly that I'm not trying to read Behe's mind.

Here, I would agree with you if you were to say that this is a bad way to argue, not the best way to get at the truth, so on. But if you are suggesting that it's uncommon except when people know they are lying about the underlying matter at hand, I wouldn't agree. I see this kind of argument all the time, whether or not the underlying issue is one the person actually believes in. So while I acknowledge this is a reason to think badly of Behe, I don't see it as a reason to think he is lying as to his actual opinion.

I think there's something structural about doing science that requires any honest practitioner to approach valid questions about arguments he's (or she's) put forth with a degree of respect and even deference. Particularly when someone like Behe - whose arguments are freighted pretty heavily - ignores the counterarguments entirely, or dismisses them without having made a discernible attempt to deal with them fairly, then I think questioning their honesty is entirely fair.

For an exposition of some of these topics, I recommend Carl Zimmer's podcast, Meet the Scientist. There are two I'd suggest specifically: 1. Dennis Bray: Living Computers (where Bray specifically rebuts Behe) 2. Jonathan Eisen: An Embarrassment of Genomes (about symbiosis)

For a differnt pppoint of view just slightly off topic a friend of mine sent me this link: Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura BushCompare and contrast.

I admit I didn't listen to the whole interview. McWhorter's opening just struck me as the same old insubstantial yacking. I'm not upset with him about Behe (which I also didn't listen to), just don't see any value in it worth my time. I did read his piece on black studies and listened to Loury's reaction and noted him asking whether the field is "reproducing itself". I don't know about the other merits of the subject, but Fabio Rojas has written a book about its institutional success which Bryan Caplan (who wouldn't expect to like that sort of thing) gave a rave review. Rojas' OrgTheory blog is also good. I don't know the relation of Black Anthropology to Black Studies, but if this is representative it wouldn't speak well of its quality.

Quoting piscivorous: For a differnt pppoint of view just slightly off topic a friend of mine sent me this link: Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura BushCompare and contrast.

Bless your boots, pisc, and thank you for your service.

Quoting piscivorous: For a differnt pppoint of view just slightly off topic a friend of mine sent me this link: Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura BushCompare and contrast.

Compare and contrast? Okay, how about this? One guy is so unemployed and unwanted that, as predicted, he's scrambling for spare change on the D-list wingnut lecture circuit. Seems to have a bit of time on his hands, is part of it. The other guy attended and spoke at a memorial ceremony, after meeting privately with the families, and now, given that he's President of the United States, has to get back to about about nine thousand other things -- many of which, by the way, involve cleaning up messes the first guy left behind -- that are far more important than staging extended "private" meetings with people he's never met before just so he can leak that he met with them in a transparent and pathetic bid to win applause from the rubes.

Kynefski,
Thanks for your response. I have been anxious to know what your answer would be. My biology 101 textbook sits on a shelf far from what I am reading nowadays, although I do refer to it now and again. I had no idea that there was skepticism as to whether what Darwin described could account for the complexity we see around us. Mutation and selection seemed like a enough to me. But what do I know, except what I read? I assume you acknowledge the two as important agents, however. Certainly, because Darwin's ideas described and predicted so much, they will always stand....or does science march on and possibly find another way that the species evolved? Or is this instead an expansion and refinement which dovetail with his theory? The scientists you refer to agree with you that Darwin's theory can't explain some things. You view the signing of this statement in the context of that website to be an incomplete statement of sorts, but one that suffices to cast a bad light on Darwinism, which is the intent. So interesting! First there is the issue...then there are the politics of the issue.

Quoting Caledonian: That's a strange position, given that there's no reason why gods would have to be 'supernatural'. Natural gods are perfectly plausible - it's just that there's absolutely no evidence for their existence..

Well one would have to define what a god is then. I think it would be a logical assumption to say that a "god" is, by nature of descrbing it as such, something different than what is natural.

That is an incoherent position. We are by definition such a manifestation.

Incoherent because you misunderstood me. I know that is what we are... "just one of the many manifestaions the universe is capable of spitting out". What I was saying is that that notion is hard for some to swallow. We like to think we have special status.

In any case, "but I don't believe it" is not a viable argument in any field, much less biology

.
I don't know what this refers to. PS. In what way could natural gods be plausible?

It's always the pledge of allegiance and flag pins with the right. The whining never stops. I get it. Haidt's five moral foundations, the authoritarian personality, etc. But it doesn't make it any less stupid. I guess when your political program is dedicated to fucking things up as much as possible it's wise to concentrate on the symbolic.

Quoting Caledonian: In any case, "but I don't believe it" is not a viable argument in any field, much less biology.

I'm still considering this. So you are saying that atheism is not a viable position? You would think that given the immensity of the things we don't know that we would do better to say that such a thing as a god is possible? Again, I would have to say that the common defintion of god is some sort of agent that acts outside of what is natural. Otherwise we would call it by some other name. Dawkins is a famed atheist and yet he says that if evidence were given for a god, he would have to consider it. Until then, he is an atheist. Does that suffice or does that make him an agnostic?

Quoting badhatharry: I'm still considering this. So you are saying that atheism is not a viable position? You would think that given the immensity of the things we don't know that we would do better to say that such a thing as a god is possible?

Again, I would have to say that the common defintion of god is some sort of agent that acts outside of what is natural. Otherwise we would call it by some other name.

Dawkins is a famed atheist and yet he says that if evidence were given for a god, he would have to consider it. Until then, he is an atheist. Does that suffice or does that make him an agnostic?

We've had this discussion here, before; though it was probably before you arrived. I strongly recommend the following short essay by Bertrand Russell:
Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic and, of course, Russell's Teapot.

Quoting AemJeff: Let me say clearly that I'm not trying to read Behe's mind.

Okay.

I think there's something structural about doing science that requires any honest practitioner to approach valid questions about arguments he's (or she's) put forth with a degree of respect and even deference. Particularly when someone like Behe - whose arguments are freighted pretty heavily - ignores the counterarguments entirely, or dismisses them without having made a discernible attempt to deal with them fairly, then I think questioning their honesty is entirely fair.

I pretty much agree with this, I suppose. If there is a refusal to address the arguments as science, then that does, at least, sound troubling to me. I'm not sure, in practice, to what extent scientists in less hot button areas might refuse to address good attacks on a line of argument, but merely drop the line of argument without comment and move on (correct me if the criticism is different than this, this is what I understood it to be). It sounds like something that scientists should not do, but in that I think non-scientists (including me) often idealize how pure scientific pursuits are, I'm trying to counter that a little by

So in the interest of expanding my rudimentary knowledge of evolution I found this well written essay.

Quoting Caledonian: The man is either a fool or a liar. Who cares what his "actual beliefs" are?

A claim was made about them, so the person who made the claim, I suppose. That's the particular aspect of this which interested me. I don't think the "fool or a liar" claim follows, for all the reasons I've said, but in that I don't think Behe is correct (or think ID is a particularly interesting argument), I don't particularly wish to go on about it. I'm just unable to understand why it riles people up so -- to me, it's just clearly not supported, most people who are educated in the matters and open-minded at all understand that, all scientists who matter do, all reputable universities teach evolution, the Constitutional clearly forbids teaching creationism (and despite the fears, which I never shared, this has been upheld re ID), so on and so forth, so who cares? I mean I know anti-evolution types are embarassingly supported in the US by non-scientists and there's tons of people who refuse to consider it and teach creationism in their private schools and want to ban teaching evolution in public schools and so on, but given all the awful things segments of

Quoting bjkeefe: First, I'll go along with what Caledonian said.

Okay, same answer, then. I was just asking for a definition of what you meant, actually, not how one tells (although I do believe that's more difficult to know for certain than some others, it appears), but no biggie.

I find your "Behe aside" exhortation has caused me to feel as though I had been told, "Stand in the corner for thirty minutes and don't think of a bright blue hippopotamus," so I guess I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, we apparently disagree on how interesting Behe himself is as a topic, I guess. I'm only interested in him to the extent it relates to other issues which the discussion of him brings up (although the notion that he didn't even really believe in ID at all was interesting).

Quoting badhatharry: So in the interest of expanding my rudimentary knowledge of evolution I found this well written essay.

Harry, check your link - there's an extra "http://" at the front of it.

And just one more question for the in-house biologists. Linneas developed the botanical classifications which we still use today. I understand that the plant genome is being mapped or that work may already be complete. Do Linneas' classifications still hold up? Was he close?

Quoting badhatharry: So in the interest of expanding my rudimentary knowledge of evolution I found this well written essay.

(Link fixed.) Yep. The TalkOrigins site is a gold mine, no doubt about it.

Quoting stephanie: Okay, same answer, then.

I was just asking for a definition of what you meant, actually, not how one tells (although I do believe that's more difficult to know for certain than some others, it appears), but no biggie.

Well, I suppose I was trying to describe what I meant by describing how I can tell the difference between someone who is honestly misguided and someone who is being intellectually dishonest. To try one more time: when I say that someone is intellectually dishonest, it means that person (let's say man, for the sake of pronouns) strikes me as, for example, being aware he's saying things he knows not to be true. Or, he's claiming to be presenting a view or an agenda that is different from what he actually believes or hopes to achieve. Or, he is refusing to acknowledge the validity of others' objections to things he's previously said or written. Things of that nature.

Yeah, we apparently disagree on how interesting Behe himself is as a topic, I guess. I'm only interested in him to the extent it relates to other issues which the discussion of him brings up (although the notion that he didn't even really believe in ID at all

Parody Religion

Out of order, as I think it might clarify a little:

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't know what you mean when you say "... the notion that he didn't even really believe in ID ..." Did you get that from me?

No, from another poster. It's what got me talking about the topic, the fact I disagreed with the notion and found it puzzling (Jeff helped me find it less puzzling, at least, with a more cynical take than the original poster's). So when you referred to intellectual dishonesty, part of what I was wondering about is if you intended to support the idea that he was lying as to his actual beliefs or referring to a particular type of argumentation. Apparently, the latter, which is consistent with how I'd use it. Then the question becomes what it involves (and I'm not really sure how I'd define it -- I tend to feel that someone is being intellectually dishonest as a know it when you see it kind of thing, but was trying to get more rigorous about how one defines it and recognizes it, a totally new topic from Behe that caught my interest). This discussion probably is

Quoting badhatharry: So interesting! First there is the issue...then there are the politics of the issue.

Indeed. I highly recommend to people with the time and inclination that they become students of the Intelligent Design movement. For one thing, if people understand the movement better, they will better understand why others might react so strongly to events such as the original diavlog between McWhorter and Behe. For another thing, it's just fascinating. The first thing you can say about intelligent design is that it's intelligently designed. These guys are quite brilliant, and their every word is measured for effect. (Hence the statement we were discussing earlier.) They are constantly probing for opportunities to penetrate the culture, and they no doubt count McWhorter's support as quite the coup. This article by Eugenie Scott and Nicholas Matzke in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is as good an introduction as I know.

Quoting AemJeff: Harry, check your link - there's an extra "http://" at the front of it.

I'll watch it next time. That's actually the first time I tried that operation. Now I'm cool like you....almost

Quoting kynefski: They are constantly probing for opportunities to penetrate the culture, and they no doubt count McWhorter's support as quite the coup.

Like Scientologists?

Quoting AemJeff: We've had this discussion here, before; though it was probably before you arrived. I strongly recommend the following short essay by Bertrand Russell:
Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic and, of course, Russell's Teapot.

bertrand russel : "i'm agnostic because being an atheist is irrational, but people misunderstand me when i say agnostic, so, to be sure i offend those i intend to offend, i call myself an atheist" russel: if there were a perfectly concrete definition of god that everybody agreed on (which quite explicitly does not exist - and in fact is probably one of the most amorphous concepts we have), then my argument about atheism would make sense. too snarky by half? probably ; ) seriously, i'm still thinking about our conversations on this subject, Jeff. You and BJ have made some good arguments that help me see your perspective.

Quoting badhatharry: I'll watch it next time. That's actually the first time I tried that operation. Now I'm cool like you....almost

You've set a low bar, indeed. You can do far better than that standard implies!

Quoting badhatharry: I think it would be a logical assumption to say that a "god" is, by nature of descrbing it as such, something different than what is natural.

Very well - then we can deduce that gods necessarily possess the property of being non-existent. Issue resolved.

Incoherent because you misunderstood me.

No, I understood you just fine.

PS. In what way could natural gods be plausible?

Easy: just define a category that can be applied to existent things and label it 'gods'. More usefully: there's no a priori reason to think that there couldn't be entities that generally resembled the beings people have called 'gods' or an equivalent term. It's just that, as far as we can determine, no such beings do exist. There could even be extraordinarily powerful entities that have many of the properties (including "authorship" of the state of the world we commonly see) assigned to the traditional God of Judaism, Christianity, and/or Islam. But we don't observe such entities, and the available evidence is incompatible with the asserted properties of such entities. So we conclude that they do not exist. Santa Claus is not a priori impossible. He just isn't real.

Quoting Caledonian: Santa Claus is not a priori impossible. He just isn't real.

By coincidence, guess what I stumbled across the other day. That is, Can You Prove That White-Bearded Guy Doesn't Exist?

Quoting bjkeefe: By coincidence, guess what I stumbled across the other day. That is, Can You Prove That White-Bearded Guy Doesn't Exist?

By any rational standard of proof, yes. The arguments against both Santa Claus and God are far stronger than they are for many other things that we regard as proven, in fact.

Quoting Caledonian: By any rational standard of proof, yes.

The arguments against both Santa Claus and God are far stronger than they are for many other things that we regard as proven, in fact.

Guess you didn't watch the vid (or even click the link?). That was the point. Sorry. Maybe I should have included a winkie.

I was aware of the sarcasm, thanks.

Quoting Caledonian: I was aware of the sarcasm, thanks.

Uh ... okay. We're evidently speaking orthogonally to each other here, for some reason. Let me just assure you that I was only trying to support your point about the difficulty (impossibility) of proving non-existence, and let it go at that.

Quoting kynefski: This article by Eugenie Scott and Nicholas Matzke in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is as good an introduction as I know.

Yes, I read this article by Eugenie Scott since I last heard from you. Perhaps before I delve into the controversy I should bone up on the latest in the field of evolution. The Talk Origins site seems like a great place to start. So, if these fellows are so smart and they do know enough about the workings of evolution to twist things so....why would they?

Quoting badhatharry: So, if these fellows are so smart and they do know enough about the workings of evolution to twist things so....why would they?

The folk intuition that complex things must have been designed is a powerful lead into the idea that there's a deity. Evolutionary biology, by showing that the complexity of life can arise from undirected processes, undermines that intuition, and removes a major tool from the hands of those who want to reinforce theism. Plus, people who believe in God want there to be evidence indicating that their belief is justified. At present, our scientific understanding is completely incompatible with such a belief - and so people want to find flaws in that understanding, whether they actually exist or not.

Quoting badhatharry: [...] So, if these fellows are so smart and they do know enough about the workings of evolution to twist things so....why would they?

Because, at base, people of faith, especially of the Abrahamic varieties, are very uncomfortable with the notion that human beings might not be something completely separate from every other species of animal. They worry that if everyone accepts that we're not sui generis, we'll start acting like, well, animals. And some of them sincerely believe that to think that God didn't make us in our present form is, all by itself, a horrible insult to God.

Quoting AemJeff: We've had this discussion here, before; though it was probably before you arrived. I strongly recommend the following short essay by Bertrand Russell:
Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic and, of course, Russell's Teapot.

Yes, nice and short and basically saying (I think) what I was saying. To be absolutely correct, one would have to say one doesn't know. But the lack of evidence could persuade one to make a very good assumption about whether or not there is a god. In that Wikipedia citation it goes on to explain Dawkin's chagrin about the matter. Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention. I would not disrespect someone's beliefs in this matter, but it seems that agnosticism includes people who have thought about this a lot and those who just want to hold onto the belief in God, just in case it ends up being true. This, I believe is what William James came to in his exploration of the matter. It's kinda like, "I'd rather believe in God and find out it isn't true than not believe and

That's a different phrasing of Pascal's wager!

Quoting SkepticDoc: That's a different phrasing of Pascal's wager!

Except it lacks Pascal's cynicism.

Quoting Caledonian: people who believe in God want there to be evidence indicating that their belief is justified.

actually a lot of believers accept that there will never be scientific evidence for the existence or lack thereof of god. it is an act of faith.

Quoting Caledonian: At present, our scientific understanding is completely incompatible with such a belief

no. your set of unsupported beliefs conflict with other people's unsupported beliefs. science has never disproven an undefined, and undefinable, concept.

Quoting Caledonian: and so people want to find flaws in that understanding, whether they actually exist or not.

true - some religious nuts have the same misunderstanding of science that you do, and so try to undermine it.

Quoting bjkeefe: Compare and contrast? Okay, how about this? [...]

Also, how about this?

billscher This is my Commander-In-Chief: http://is.gd/4TvTE

Quoting SkepticDoc: That's a different phrasing of Pascal's wager!

The feature that must exist is punishment for not believing, which is a feature of every religion (maybe not Buddhist). But one could also say that if God exists, God puts more value on intellectual integrity than faith fueled by fear of punishment. Then the atheist might still be alright! I say take a stand and take the consequences.

Quoting popcorn_karate: science has never disproven an undefined, and undefinable, concept.

That's a fair statement of fact!

Quoting kynefski: That's a fair statement of fact!

But can he prove it? ;^)

Quoting badhatharry: The feature that must exist is punishment for not believing, which is a feature of every religion (maybe not Buddhist).

But one could also say that if God exists, God puts more value on intellectual integrity than faith fueled by fear of punishment. Then the atheist might still be alright!

I say take a stand and take the consequences.

That is exactly what I have always thought I would tell Pascal, too.

agreed!

Are you still hanging around bjkeefe? Not feeling too well tonight so I'll probably only post this tonight. Earlier I was trying to make the point that creation scientists can be seen as doing the same type of thing that many scientists do. I.e. they have a theory and a theorhetical framework which they work in, and they have data which they see as supporting their thoery and their job is to see how all relevant data fit their theory. This is what scientists do all the time.

I'm not bjkeefe, and I don't know what he'd have to say about this, but it seems to me like this is a bad way to look at scholarship in general -- whether it's social science, hard science, history, or politics. This is essentially the way books are described and sold -- "a libertarian angle on the New Deal", "a feminist take on Hamlet" or whatever -- but if you're a scholar, as opposed to a polemicist, you're going to forget that you're a libertarian or a feminist while you're looking at the same facts of the New Deal or text of Hamlet as everyone else is, and then you'll apply libertarian criteria and values to determine whether the New Deal was a good idea or use a feminist sort of analysis to figure out what Shakespeare was saying about women in Hamlet, and then say how this new libertarian angle on the New Deal is useful and helps us find out more about that period in US economic history, or what looking at Hamlet through a feminist lens can tell us about Shakespeare. So in a way you're

Mark said:

Earlier I was trying to make the point that creation scientists can be seen as doing the same type of thing that many scientists do. I.e. they have a theory and a theorhetical framework which they work in, and they have data which they see as supporting their thoery and their job is to see how all relevant data fit their theory. This is what scientists do all the time.

Yes, but the same kind of thing can be performed in better and worse ways. For instance, your toddler daughter may have a plausible hypothesis about how to make bread -- you combine flour and water and put the kneaded dough in an oven. Let's say she doesn't know about yeast. Anyway, she's seen mom bake bread, but she can't duplicate the process. As I said before, the allegation generally is not that Behe is not a scientist, it is that he is *a very bad* scientist in the field of evolutionary theory. Something just occurred to me that must have been noted by many other commentators, but it's a bit odd that certain theists would be concentrating on the