<previous | pg 1 | pg 2 | pg 3 | pg 4 | pg 5 | pg 6 | pg 7 | pg 8 | pg 9 | pg 10 | pg 11 | next>
An example of the minds that must critically evaluate the evolution/intelligent design issue in the classroom:
The following questions and answers were collected from SAT tests given in Springdale, Arkansas in 2000 to 16-year-old students.
Q: Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink.
A: Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists.
Q: How is dew formed?
A: The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire.
Q: What is a planet?
A: A body of earth surrounded by sky.
Q: In a democratic society, how important are elections?
A: Very important. Sex can only happen when a male gets an election.
Q: What are steroids?
A: Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs.
Q: What happens to your body as you age?
A: When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental.
Q: What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty?
A: He says good-bye to his boyhood and looks forward to his adultery.
Q: Name a major disease associated with cigarettes.
A: Premature death.
Q: How can you delay milk turning sour?
A: Keep it in the cow.
Q: How are the main parts of the body categorized? (E.g., abdomen.) A: The body is consisted into three parts -- the brainium, the borax and the abdominal cavity. The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs, and the abdominal cavity contains the five bowels, A, E, I, O, and U.
Q: What is the Fibula?
A: A small lie.
Q: What does "varicose" mean?
A: Nearby.
Q: What is the most common form of birth control?
A: Most people prevent contraception by wearing a condominium.
Q: Give the meaning of the term "Caesarian Section."
A: The caesarian section is a district in Rome.
Q: What is a seizure?
A: A Roman emperor.
Q: What is a terminal illness?
A: When you are sick at the airport.
Q: Give an example of a fungus. What is a characteristic feature?
A: Mushrooms. They always grow in damp places and so they look like umbrellas.
Q: What does the word "benign" mean?
A: Benign is what you will be after you be eight.
Q: What is a turbine?
A: Something an Arab wears on his head.
Q: What is a Hindu?
A: It lays eggs.
From: Americans united for separation of church & state- http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
The Discovery Institute
Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design'
By Steve Benen
While supporters of church-state separation frequently consider groups such as the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council their principal adversaries, the Discovery Institute has quietly positioned itself as the most effective and politically savvy group pushing a religious agenda in America's public school science classes.
Founded in 1991 by former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Seattle-based Institute has an operating budget of over $2 million. "Intelligent design" creationism has become such a central feature of the organization's work that it created a separate division, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, to devote all of its time to that cause.
The Institute enthusiastically endorses what law professor and ID champion Philip Johnson calls the "wedge" strategy. (See "Insidious Design," page 8.) The plan is straightforward: use intelligent design as a wedge to undermine evolution with scientific-sounding arguments and thereby advance a conservative religious-political agenda.
To promote the concept, the Institute works with 48 fellows, directors and advisors who are responsible for producing research, publishing texts and hosting conferences. The Institute team includes some of the biggest names in the ID movement. Johnson serves as an advisor, while Michael Behe, David Berlinski, William Dembski and Jonathan Wells are senior fellows. All of them have advanced degrees from respected universities, giving the group a level of credibility generally denied to fundamentalist creationists at the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis Ministry.
Legitimate scientists reject the validity of intelligent design concepts, however, and are unimpressed with Institute activists' credentials.
"They're trying to make it appear like they're scientists who just disagree with other scientists," said Lawrence Krauss, professor at Case Western Reserve University. "A number of them have scientific credentials, which helps, but in no sense are they proceeding as scientists."
Over the last decade, nearly every book used in the intelligent design movement has either been distributed by the Institute or was written directly by one of the group's scholars. Of Pandas And People, Icons Of Evolution and Darwin's Black Box are all staples on the Discovery bookshelf. Institute representatives are well aware of legal restrictions on religion in public schools, so they rarely use theological criticisms of evolution in their work. Behe, for example, is a Catholic with eight home-schooled children. When asked about creationism in a February interview on National Public Radio, he said it isn't his area of expertise.
"To tell you the truth, I'm not real knowledgeable about creationism," Behe said.
The strategy of making ID appear scientific, and not religious, is intentional. The Institute's Stephen Meyer co-authored an article in the Utah Law Review in 2000 critiquing the legal landscape. While Meyer noted that the Supreme Court prohibits traditional creationism from public schools because it is based on biblical literalism, he wrote that excluding intelligent design, with its "scientific" underpinnings, would be tantamount to "viewpoint discrimination."
In order for that scheme to work, ID advocates at the Discovery Institute try desperately to hide a religious agenda. Occasionally, however, one of the Institute's fellows will slip and speak his mind.
Two years ago, at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting, the Discovery Institute's Dembski framed the ID movement in the context of Christian apologetics, a theological defense of the authority of Christianity.
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
The Institute's religious agenda has won it the backing of wealthy financiers and foundations. For example, California multi-millionaire Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., has singled out the Discovery Institute for big contributions. (Ahmanson is aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.)
The Institute also has friends on Capitol Hill. In May 2000 the Institute held a briefing in the Rayburn House Office Building that attracted members of Congress and their staffs. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) spoke at the event.
Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank "specializing in national and international affairs," the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers. That's unlikely to change anytime soon.
As Institute President Bruce Chapman told The Washington Times, "[Intelligent design is] our number one project."
From- www.infidels.org
Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project" Circulates Online
by James Still
A recently-circulated position paper of The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC) reveals an ambitious plan to replace the current naturalistic methodology of science with a theistic alternative called "intelligent design."
The CRSC, a program launched by the Discovery Institute in 1996, is the major force behind recent advances in the intelligent design movement. The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College. Its mission is "to replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific alternative." The Discovery Institute hopes that intelligent design will be the usurper that finally dethrones the theory of evolution.
On March 3, 1999, an anonymous person obtained an internal white paper from the CRSC entitled "The Wedge Project," which detailed the Center's ambitious long-term strategy to replace "materialistic science" with intelligent design. The paper describes the CRSC's mission with a sense of urgency:
"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
The white paper created quite a buzz among many skeptics after it was widely circulated on the Internet. However, CRSC Senior Fellow and Director of Program Development Jay Richards said that the mission statement and goals had been posted on the CRSC's web site since 1996. Richards also said, "the general concept of the 'Wedge' is described in Phillip Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds." Richards neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the document, but he believed that the paper was an "older, summary overview of the 'Wedge' program." Much of the boilerplate content of the paper is posted on the CRSC's web site.
The document in its present form looks to have been written very recently. It sets a target to "accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003)." If 2003 ends a five-year plan, the paper was probably written or revised in 1998 or 1999. Despite the date of its authorship, however, and even if nothing new is revealed in the paper, proponents of naturalism and science are right to be concerned about its contents.
The paper outlines a "wedge strategy" that has three phases. Phase I, "Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity" involves the Paleontology Research Program (led by Dr. Paul Chien), the Molecular Biology Research Program (led by Dr. Douglas Axe), and any individual researcher who is given a fellowship by the Institute. Phase I has already begun, the paper argues, with the watershed work of Phillip Johnson, whose Darwinism on Trial sparked the intelligent design movement. The Center hopes that more Christian scientists will step forward and engage in research that would support the intelligent design theory.
Phase II, "Publicity and Opinion-Making" involves communicating the research of Phase I. The Center plans to do this through book tours, opinion-making conferences, apologetics seminars, a teacher training program, use of opinion-editorials in newspapers, television program productions (either with Public Broadcasting or another broadcaster), and the printing of publications to distribute. Phases I and II are to be implemented over the next five years (1999-2003). Phase II is "to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being 'merely academic.' Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."
Phase III, "Cultural Confrontation and Renewal" begins sometime in 2003 and may take as long as twenty years to complete. It involves three things: (1) "Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences"; (2) "Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training"; and (3) "Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities". The white paper describes Phase III as the renewal phase because it seeks to fill the void left behind by materialistic evolution (attacked in Phase II) with its own intelligent design model: "Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences."
The Wedge Project white paper ends with a detailed summary of progress-to-date, including goals for the future.
When asked if he worried that Phase II will seem like a heavy-handed spin and that no one will take the work accomplished in Phase I seriously, Richards said that the publicity will not drive the scholarship but that the scholarship will come first and foremost. "There are already too many programs that opt for the former over the latter," he said, "we don't wish to be one of them."
While the goal of putting scholarship ahead of public relations is a noble one, the paper's overall tone and rugged timetable seems to belie that point. The reintroduction of theism into public discourse in Phase III is set to begin sometime in 2003. But before Phase III can begin, Phase II must have already dethroned naturalism through a vigorous public relations and opinion-shaping campaign. This puts the cart before the horse. When will there be time to conduct careful research? Science is supposed to be a vehicle that provides the reason to believe that intelligent design is a better explanation than naturalism. To think that a scientist must reach his or her conclusions within a five-year span of time, running concurrent with a public relations campaign, is hardly good scientific practice. Not only will it put unnecessary pressure on the scientist to reach conclusions before the data warrants it, but it ignores the very nature of the scientific enterprise. Often it takes years before the findings in science are fully understood and many more before the results are applied to real-world problems.
Another problem with the CRSC's plan is that it seeks to replace evolutionary theory at a time when the theory enjoys nearly unanimous support in the scientific community. Thomas Kuhn, in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes what has happened historically when one theory comes to replace another. He writes that the anomaly of an insufficient theory will have "lasted so long and penetrated so deep that one can appropriately describe the fields affected by it as in a state of growing crisis . . . the emergence of new theories is generally preceded by a period of pronounced professional insecurity." Kuhn's point is clear. Before a new theory in science is sought, there is usually a growing crisis coupled with mounting skepticism, doubt, and the elucidation of cogent reasons for thinking that the existing theory is inadequate. Where is the growing crisis that casts doubt on evolution and methodological naturalism, the tool that led to the theory of evolution? Aside from a few participants in well-publicized Templeton-funded conferences, scientists experience no insecurity with their current methods. Even if the theory of evolution were inadequate, why should we expect the scientific community to turn to theistic explanations?
Sometimes, scientific discovery is an accidental byproduct of other research. In 1895, Professor Wilhelm Conrad Ršntgen discovered the x-ray quite by accident, when he found that some kind of invisible ray was passing through his cardboard shield. Over the next several weeks he ate and slept in his lab to prepare his paper "On a New Kind of Rays” for the Proceedings of the Physical Medical Society, which was published that year. However, Professor Ršntgen was pursuing science to no particular dogmatic end. He didn't know where his discovery would lead, but rather he understood that the pure pursuit of knowledge was an end in itself. This anecdote is typical of all scientific research from Aristotle's initial forays into zoology, to Galileo's observational astronomy, and most dramatically in the twentieth-century, to the discovery and use of penicillin. The assumption of methodological naturalism and the use of the scientific method has led to an incredible advance in our understanding of the world around us.
The fruits of science can never be anticipated ahead of time nor can the scientific enterprise be placed on a regimented schedule. Science must be left to operate on its own, unencumbered by the perceived need for public relations, focus groups, talk-shows, and public opinion polls. This is not to say that science should not use modern media outlets to communicate its results. However, the CRSC seems to have placed the public relations work of Phase II ahead of the need for an actual scientific theory worth sharing with the world. When the medium becomes the message we are right to suspect that the message lacks substance. There is something strange going on, for instance, when the Templeton Foundation stages huge media events to present the illusion that science has found God. As University of Hawaii physicist Victor Stenger commented in the March issue of ii, only smoke and mirrors lay behind last summer's media circus over science and God. Scientists who do real science bracket God out of the enterprise altogether and for good reason: it works. Natural explanations are far more satisfying to us than supernatural conjectures.
The CRSC's plan to bring down the scientific enterprise in favor of "intelligent design" seems motivated by the fear that human meaning is somehow diminished if science continues to flourish. However, human dignity and meaning can be diminished only by ignorance. Goethe's Mephistopheles realized this truth as well when, as translated by Steven Schafersman, he proclaims in Faust:
Despise reason and science,
humanity's greatest strengths,
indulge in illusions and magical practices
that reinforce your self-deception,
and you will be unconditionally lost!
Science need not contradict religious faith, although its findings have sometimes exposed superstitions such as the geocentric theory, a world-wide catastrophic flood, and Tillich's God "up there." The real irony in all of this is that the Discovery Institute's well-laid plans are doomed to failure from the outset. Even if they succeeded brilliantly in manufacturing the consent needed to replace science with theism, it would only be a matter of time before we began to question the world around us and to turn once again to science as a constructive means for finding answers to our questions. If all of our knowledge were wiped away tomorrow and replaced with theistic dogma, another Thales or an Aristotle would come along to begin the process anew. Mephistopheles thinks he holds us tight with religious illusion, but human beings are greater than the gods and devils who would keep us in ignorance. Science is our most reliable tool for understanding the universe in which we live. "And I by the power of thought," Pascal wrote, "may comprehend the universe."
By Richard Dawkins
Orgel's second rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
"Never say, and never take seriously anyone who says, 'I cannot believe that so-and-so could have evolved by gradual selection.' I have dubbed this kind of fallacy 'the Argument from Personal Incredulity.' Time and again, it has proven the prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience." Richard Dawkins - River out of Eden
'Scientists say...'
Yes, Michael Behe is a scientist, but is "Intelligent Design" science? If so, it will be the first science established without a single technical paper published for peer-review, including zero by Behe himself. For some reason he has decided to completely bypass professional review and go directly to a Darwin-doubting public. But more to the point, what is wrong with this book? Here is a summary of the critiques you will find included on this page and others:
Surprise! The gradual paths to Irreducible Complexity
SPOCK: "He's intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking..."
Kirk looks at him, smiles. [ Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ]
First, let's be clear about something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems. The real science of ID is yet to come, and Behe just wants to wedge the door open a bit. So what does this magic Intelligent Design Detection Kit look like? Basically open the box and all it contains is a tweezer. Use it to pluck out any part of a system, and if the system stops functioning properly, it must be the product of design. Why? Because it proves that the system was "Irreducibly Complex" (IC)...
"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional." [Behe]
But read this argument carefully. Behe is not offering a way to detect design, he is offering a way to falsify gradual Darwinian evolution, and by elimination, conclude design. But there is one big problem- his falsifier has been falsified. The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong. There are at least three different ways that an IC system can be produced by a series of small modifications: 1) Improvements become necessities, 2) Loss of scaffolding 3) Duplication and divergence. By Behe's definition, many systems we see around us are IC, and yet have developed gradually. Think of the chaotic growth of towns into large cities, the self-organizing forces behind market economies, and the delicate causal webs that define complex ecosystems. Evolutionary algorithms run on computers routinely evolve irreducibly complex designs. So given an IC system, it could either be the product of coordinated design, or of a gradual, cumulative, stochastic (involving chance or probability <a stochastic model of radiation-induced mutation>) process. The truth is, we should expect Darwinian evolution to produce such systems in biology, and not be surprised to find them. The underlying processes are called co-adaptation and co-evolution, and they have been understood for many years. Biochemical structures and pathways are not built up one step at a time in linear assembly-line fashion to meet some static function. They evolve layer upon layer, contingency upon contingency, always in flux, and retooling to serve current functions. The ability of life to evolve in this fashion has itself evolved over time. Detecting IC does not indicate design, and therefore Behe's hypothesis collapses. H. Allen Orr says it best in his perceptive review:
"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."
"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong." [*]
The Fallacy of Conclusion by Analogy
When it comes to explaining science to the public, analogies and metaphors are essential tools of the trade. We all can better understand something new and unusual, when it is compared to something we already know: a cell is like a factory, the eye is like a camera, an atom is like a billiard ball, a biochemical system is like a mouse trap. An A is like a B, means A shares some conceptual properties with B. It does not mean A has all the properties of B. It does not follow that what is true for B is therefore true for A. Analogies can be used to explain science, but analogies cannot be used to draw conclusions or falsify scientific theories. Yet Behe commits this fallacy throughout his book. For example:
- A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
- A mousetrap is a product of design.
- The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
- Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
- Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.
The Psychic Detective
Is it fair to ask for a frame-by-frame instant replay of the evolution of the bacterial flagella or the Krebs cycle? Should Evolutionary Biology perish without it? Of course not. As with any historical science, we arrive on the scene after the fact, as a detective to a crime. We look for evidence and rational explanations to account for that evidence. Even the best detective cannot, and should not, reconstruct every footstep, and every word that took place. But he does not need to in order to solve the crime. Consider the following: The evidence for evolution is overwhelming at all levels of biology. Published attempts have been made to uncover possible historical scenarios. The evidence for intelligent design is simply non-existent.
Designer in the Gaps
I should point out that Behe's hybrid vision of life does accept common descent as reasonable, and does allow for cases of Darwinian natural selection and random genetic drift. So how can we distinguish evolution from design? Simple: To Behe, a system has evolved when he, or others, can imagine how it has evolved, otherwise it was a product of intelligent design. "Irreducible Complexity" has nothing to do with it.
An unnamed designer?
In the last few years Michael Behe has become the new poster boy for certain religious and political groups who are hostile to evolution and Darwinism. Meanwhile, Behe has refused to identify the 'designer' when confronted, even though he professes belief in the Judeo-Christian God, is more than willing to speak at religiously-sponsored events, and get his attacks on evolutionary biology published in conservative magazines. I feel he should not have it both ways.
From Michael Behe:
Note -- more below the extensive list of links:
- Authors page at ARN
- Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference by Michael Behe - good background, shorter version of the argument presented in his book.
- Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry - From a speech delivered by Michael Behe at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference (similar to the above essay)
- The New York Times - Darwin Under The Microscope by Michael Behe
- The Evolution of a Skeptic: An Interview with Dr. Michael Behe - He talks about Richard Dawkins, the influence of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, his critique of the Journal of Molecular Evolution, and more.
- Christianity Today - Meeting Darwin's Wager: How biochemist Michael Behe uses a mousetrap to challenge evolutionary theory by Tom Woodward - a looong and detailed article about Michael Behe and his history.
- Technopolitics Transcripts Airdate: December 25, 1998
- Darwin's Hostages: A decision in Kansas to question evolution dogma has given rise to hysteria and intolerance by Michael J. Behe, The American Spectator Dec - Jan 1999 (reality check: my page on Kansas)
- Upcoming conference: Design and Its Critics Date: June 22-24, 2000, Place: Concordia University Wisconsin, Mequon, Wisconsin, USA. Confirmed speakers include Michael Behe, William Dembski, Paul Nelson and many others, both supportive and critical of Intelligent Design. CALL FOR PAPERS. Posted by Discovery Institute. (Remember, "challenge conferences" are phase III of the The Wedge Strategy)
- Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology by William A. Dembski, Foreword by Michael J. Behe
- The Anti-Evolutionists William A. Dembski - if "Irreducible Complexity" wasn't enough, there's also "Specified Complexity"
- "Mr. Behe goes to Washington"... Discovery Institute to Hold Policy Briefing May 10 / Evolution Opponents Hold Congressional Briefing (5-11-00) - "Supporters of intelligent design theory brought their message to Capitol Hill in a series of events for Members of Congress and their staff." (American Geological Institute)
- The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory by George W Gilchrist, Reports of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Volume 17, number 3
- Nature - God in the details: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Jerry A. Coyne
- New Scientist: Planet Science - the god of the tiny gaps by Andrew Pomiankowski
- A Biochemist's Response to "The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by David Ussery - A key review that meets Behe head-on! (and filled with graphics and fascinating links)
- Rebuttal of Behe by Clare Stevens (biologist) - with good examples of evidence for biochemical evolution
- Boston Review: Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again), H. Allen Orr (Dec 96) Excellent!
- The Sterility of Darwinism, Michael Behe (Feb 97 - this section)
- Dogmatic Materialism, Phillip E. Johnson
- The Limits of Darwinism, David Berlinski
- More Crank Science, Jerry A. Coyne
- A Delicate Balance, Russell F. Doolittle
- Miracles and Molecules, Douglas J. Futuyma
- Where's the Evidence?, Robert DiSilvestro
- Enough Speculation, Michael Ruse ( Also read Answering the creationists by Michael. Ruse - Includes a discussion of Behe )
- A Third Way, James A. Shapiro
- Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? - by Keith Robison of Harvard University. From talk.origins.
- A Classification of Possible Routes of Darwinian Evolution by Richard T. Thornhill and David W. Ussery, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 203:111-116, 2000. - "...This classification provides a conceptual framework within which to investigate the accessibility by Darwinian evolution of complex biological structures." (For the record, I don't agree with their conclusion that Orr's proposed route can not produce irreducible complexity - John C)
- Review of Darwin's Black Box by Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University (as published in Creation / Evolution Volume 16: pp, 36-40 [1996])
- Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller, 1999 - book contains arguments against Michael Behe and the ID movement. Professor Miller ’70 signs books gives lecture on evolution
- Review of: "Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Don Lindsay
- How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems? by Don Lindsay
- Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry by Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin. Published in PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 66 (June 1999), pp. 268-298).
- paper: Robustness of a gene regulatory circuit by John W.Little, Donald P.Shepley, and David W.Wert - "Basic take-home message - individual components of a seemingly complex system can be broken and it still works, just not as elegantly or precisely as the intact setup."
- Missing Links and the Origin of Biochemical Complexity by Barry A. Palevitz, November 22, 1999
- The Case of the Tell-Tale Traces: A Mystery Solved; a Skyhook Grounded - Comments on Michael Behe by Daniel C. Dennett, March 19, 1997 (penultimate draft)
- Behe and the Blood Clotting Cascade by George Acton - [Talk.Origins] Post of the Month: February 1997
- A Critique of Michael Behe's book DARWIN'S BLACK BOX by Jon Woolf
- A Layman's Response by R. Eric Westfall
- Review of Michael Behe's, Darwin's Black Box by Peter Atkins, University of Oxford
- American Scientist - by Robert Dorit,Biology, Yale University
- Analysis of Darwin's Black Box and many other anti-evolution books. From the NCSE's "What's Wrong with These Books"
- Is the "Intelligent Designer" argument a Scientific One? by Lenny Flank
- The Wall Street Journal - "The dissent of man" by Paul R. Gross (co-author of Higher Superstition)
- "Downsizing Darwin" - an editorial by Paul R. Gross. Boston Globe (05/17/98)
- God's Little Machines by Alfred P. Steffens Jr.
- A Reducibly Complex Mousetrap by John H. McDonald - FUN! mousetraps in several stages of reduced complexity. (NOTE: even if a moustrap were "irreducibly complex", the analogy implies nothing about biological evolution- John C)
- Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (text not online) by Neil W Blackstone. The Quarterly Review of Biology, Volume 72, Number 4, December 1997 .
- Think Tank: Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion - an interview by Ben Wattenberg. They discuss Michael Behe. Note: They misspelled "Behe" as "Beahy"!
- Oxford University Professor Preaches Darwinian Evolution to Skeptics - about Richard Dawkins, with comments on Michael Behe
- Economic irreducible complexity - by Glenn Morton
- Skeptic Magazine - from the real Skeptics
- Michael Behe shows why Phillip Johnson is wrong in claiming that Darwin created a nonfalsifiable theory! by Gert Korthof -a review from his website Was Darwin right?: Personal Book Reviews Creationism - Evolution
- The Knee Bone Connected to the Thigh Bone by Nancy Pearcy
- Scientific American - brief note (scroll down)
- How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution by Boyce Rensberger, a science writer for The Washington Post and author of an excellent book called LIFE ITSELF: Exploring the Realm of the Living Cell
- Many short reviews from users of the Amazon.com online bookstore.
- A Creationist Criticism of Irreducible Complexity - a creationist comes forward to meet Behe's challenge.
- Contrasting Views on Behe from Braxton M. Alfred and Alice Fulton.[From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (The journal of the American Scientific Affiliation), 49:119-122 (1997)]
- Origin of the Specious: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin? By Ronald Bailey, Reason magazine.
- "The following are excerpts from my letter to a friend who requested that I read Behe. The friend is a Catholic, I am an atheist; we were in a monastery together for some time." --Anselm Atkins
- The Real Scoop on Michael Behe...and why creationism is still a bad idea. from Barry A. Palevitz
- Thinking Critically By Francis Assaf - University of Georgia
- The Sunday Times: Reverend Michael Roberts defends Darwin
- Design in Nature:
- Life's Grand Design by Kenneth R. Miller
- Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design by Mark Isaak
- Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics by Victor J. Stenger
- Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature by Chris Colby, Loren Petrich and others
- Why We Believe in a Designer! from Cretinism or Evilution? Nos. 4&5 Edited by E.T. Babinski
- A Designer Universe by Steven Weinberg, October 21, 1999
- Argument to Design page on The Secular Web.
- Naturalism:
- Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of Naturalism? by Paul Kurtz, Free Inquiry, Spring 1998
- Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural by Mark I. Vuletic
- Enterprising science needs naturalismby Wesley R. Elsberry for the 1997 UT Austin conference on Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise
- Naturalism is Today - by History, Philosophy and Purpose an Essential Part of Science by Steven D. Schafersman - a long and in-depth paper
- Scientific Supernaturalism by William B. Provine - A Review of The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance (2 vols) By W. R. Bird (New York: Philosophical Library, 1989)
- Michael Denton and Phillip Johnson influenced Behe to doubt evolution:
- Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Mark I. Vuletic [Talk.Origins] - a book that influenced Michael Behe
- Another revealing review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - from the Page of Honest Intellectual Inquiry
- Collection of Reviews: "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton compiled by Don Lindsay
- An extended review of Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin On Trial (work in progess) by Wesley R. Elsberry
- Sequences and Common Descent: How We Can Trace Ancestry Through Genetics by Wesley R. Elsberry - good brief illustration, which also points out a glaring error in Michael Denton's book.
- Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's Views by Jim Lippard, Bill Hamilton [Talk.Origins]
- Science, Religion & Evolution Denial:
- "The Wedge Strategy" - A recently-circulated position paper of The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (the CRSC - of which Michael Behe is a "Senior Fellow" ) reveals an ambitious plan to replace the current naturalistic methodology of science with a theistic alternative called "intelligent design."
- Discovery Institute's Wedge project Circulates Online by James Still.
- The Wedge: A Christian Plan to Overthrow Modern Science? by Keith Lankford. Doubting Thomas #6, April/May 1999
- Intelligent Design Theory Why it Matters by Jay Richards (senior fellow at CRSC) - "What Darwinism and scientific materialism have dismantled, intelligent design theory could help restore." ...When ideology wants veto power over science.
- The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science By Phillip E. Johnson. Touchstone, July/Aug 1999
- Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook by David K. DeWolf Stephen C. Meyer Mark E. DeForrest. Published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. In other words, how to get away with teaching "intelligent design" in public schools.
- Welcome to the MICHAEL POLANYI CENTER (MPC) for complexity, information, and design - example of Wedge Strategy in action.
- Professors debate legitimacy of Polanyi - "When the Michael Polanyi Center was quietly established on the Baylor campus last fall, few people knew of its existence or how much controversy it would foster"
- Discovery Institute to Hold Policy Briefing May 10 - [Mr. Behe goes to Washington]
- Evolution Opponents Hold Congressional Briefing (5-11-00) - "IN A NUTSHELL: Supporters of intelligent design theory brought their message to Capitol Hill in a series of events for Members of Congress and their staff." (American Geological Institute)
- ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE: CONGRESS BRIEFED ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN
- INTELLIGENT DESIGN: YOU AND ME BABY AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT MAMMALS
- Congressional co-hosts include: Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI), Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-TX) How to contact memebers of congress
- How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution by Boyce Rensberger
- Dumping on Darwin TIME Magazine March 18, 1996: "Pat Buchanan's attacks on the teaching of "godless evolution" tap a rich vein of unscientific thought"
- Oppressed by Evolution, DISCOVER Vol. 19 No. 3 (March 1998)
- Has Science Found God? by Jeffery Jay Lowder - "Contrary to a recent report in Newsweek, the answer is 'no'."
- Essays on Religion and Science by Norman and Lucia Hall
- Religion - the antithesis to science - commentary by Peter Atkins, a chemist at Oxford, along with responses.
- Next time you hear of an article, book, conference, or course on "Science AND Religion", consider where the funding may have come from: Is God in the details? By Faye Flam - the disturbing influence of John Templeton on science, and science education
- Public Understanding of Evolution:
- Statement on Teaching Evolution from The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)
- Guidebook for teachers: Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science by the Working Group on Teaching Evolution, National Academy of Sciences, 1998 (Full-text HTML version of the book)
- Short Shrift to Evolution by Barry A. Palevitz and Ricki Lewis. The Media loves debate!
- The Problem With Evolution: Where Have We Gone Wrong letter from Robert Moss
- Evolution Or 'Evolution' by Edwin Leung
- To Effectively Discuss Evolution, First Define 'Theory' by Ricki Lewis - "Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, but life scientists sometimes face audiences who perceive it as a threat to their religious beliefs.". And a response from Michael Behe: Defining Evolution (OK Michael, just read the next link...)
- Evolution, Science, and Society: a "white paper" on behalf of the field of evolutionary biology - A very important document. At least read the executive summary!
- Other Related Topics:
- Where d'you get those peepers by Richard Dawkins - discusses the morphological evolution of the eye, which Behe skims over in the book.
- The Evolution of Improved Fitness by random mutation plus selection by Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D. [Talk.Origins archive] Michael Behe likes to talk about the human immune system, but what lessons should we really learn from such a system?
- Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics by Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D. [Talk.Origins] - New evidence from molecular geneticists joins with the immense body of clues from other disciplines which collectively provide overwhelming evidence for evolution.
- The Revised Quote Book: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists Edited by E.T. Babinski - Behe is also very skilled at the selective out-of-context quoting of evolutionary scientists.
- Lies, Damned lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
- The "Information Challenge" by Richard Dawkins - what exactly is "information" and how can it increase via evolution.
- Information Challenge - some related articles
- The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution Has Dawkins really solved it? a creationist response by Royal Truman
- Complexity and Information Theory
- Rebuttal to Royal Truman by Kevin L. O'Brien
"I'm a Roman Catholic, I believe in God, but as far as the scientific evidence, I just say that the -- you know, that these things were designed. I don't claim anything about the personality of the designer..." --Michael Behe
Has Behe identified this unnamed designer by his associations and actions? Aliens? You decide...
- Michael Behe is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture - an organization which "...seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies." Read NCSE Expose: Anti-evolutionists Form, Fund Think Tank: Old-Earth Moderates Poised to Spread Design Theory
- Author to discuss reconciling evolution with modern religion - "I certainly do think that the designer in all likelihood is God," Behe, a Roman Catholic, said. "I make pains in my writing and talking, but the scientific evidence does not point a finger at who the designer is. I argue from biochemical data."... "The lecture is also sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ, Chi Alpha and Dallas Christian Leadership."
- Speaking at The Philadelphia Society Philadelphia National Meeting"The Religious Roots of Liberty" April 25-27, 1997
- Speaking at the God & Culture Conference
- At the ASA (an organization of Christians in the sciences) Conference defending the Textbook Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins - a creationists flanking attack on public school science:
- Speaking on Tuesday, 4 November 1997: Professor Michael Behe, Lehigh University (co-sponsored with Religious Studies, the Harold Schilling Memorial Lecture)
- Speaker at the Mere Creation:Reclaiming the Book of Nature Conference on Design and Origins, Nov. 1996. Report on the Mere Creation Conference and an Article from WORLD
- At the Veritas Forum - -- "an inter-disciplinary exploration of Truth (Veritas) in relation to Jesus Christ"
- Speaking at th conference: Design and Its Critics Date: June 22-24, 2000, Sponsored by Touchstone Magazine (Journal of Mere Christianity) and The Cranach Institute ("committed to the full authority of the Word of God")
- Wrote a foreword to Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology by William A. Dembski.
Contributed to the "Intelligent Design" issue of Touchstone magazine, A Journal of Mere Christianity.
Creation ex nihilo - Without God (1997)
Mark I. Vuletic
Last updated 2-22-1998.
Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. This document is an attempt to compile quotes that explain how all of this is supposed to work.
Eventually, I would like to write an article assessing the value of quantum vacuum fluctuations as a means of producing universes, but for the time being, I will just let the scientists speak for themselves and leave evaluation to the reader.
Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles
- In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum micro-world, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162)
- The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)
- Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32)
- [Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters.
In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk, 1993, 65-66)
- In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)
Vacuum Fluctuations and the Origin of the Universe
- There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]
- There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.
In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?
It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)
- Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)
- In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.
The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.
As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.
The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.
The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)
- Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...
Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?
Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
- ...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997, 19)
References
- Barrow, John D. & Silk, Joseph. 1993. The Left Hand of Creation. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.
- Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.
- Davies, Paul. 1994. The Last Three Minutes. New York: BasicBooks.
- Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam.
- Kaufmann, William J. 1985. Universe. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.
- Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall.
- Morris, Richard. 1997. Achilles in the Quantum World. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
- Pagels, Heinz. 1982. The Cosmic Code. Toronto: Bantam.
- Stenger, Victor. 1996. Posting on DEBATE list (19 Mar)
