279:(and multiply out by those not called Steve). A better indication of acceptance of a theory is the number of papers published in the scientific literature. Now this does indeed include papers that may be contradictory, (the possibilty of type I and type II errors notwithstanding), but how many of these are there on design theory? And how many of these contradict the theory of evolution by natural selection? It is accurate and fair to report that the scientific community thinks Behe is a pseudoscientist. If ID is true it will be shown eventually by paradigm shift.Ā :)
31:
726:"Under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.
324:
God, irreducible complexity isn't unscientific, but it also has no further purpose. In other words, it's only interesting in the context of ID, which makes it an ID propaganda term, not anything scientists might care about. For a parallel, consider the bizarre emphasis on a micro/macro-evolution distinction by creationists.
680:
rejection of specific claims by specific parties (or semi-specific; the scientific community and his uni. But that "his claims about intelligent design have been characterized as pseudoscience" doesn't tell us anything new, especially as we aren't being told who characterizes them as pseudoscience. --
633:"intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. "
614:
I think it is relevant to make the Lehigh
Univeristy Department of Biological Sciences stance of intelligent design (and Behe's theories) a part of this article. Given that the entire department where Behe teaches do not regard intelligent design as science lends an important piece to this article.
509:
I thought the definition of it was that there are systems on the biomolecular level sufficiently complex to make it suc that if it were not put together exactly as it is, it would not work at all, so that a gradual development towards the structure would not occur. For example, the cellular "motors"
462:
he has published, or he would not be tenured. If he had published on ID in the literature it would be noteworthy. If he had credentials in the field of evolutionary biology it would be interesting...but saying he has published in his field is trivial. The opposite would be worth saying, of course,
391:
You are wrong. The article does not call them pseudoscience, it says that "many" "in the scientific community" call it pseudoscience. That's just the truth. You can change the wording if it looks "immature" to you, but the content of the sentence is a necessary piece of information. Would you want to
307:
I think Ed has a point here. I do not doubt that the majority of scientists disagree with Behe's views on intelligent design. A few facts warrant some caution though. Even according to Behe, not all biochemical systems are irreducibly complex (though he claims some are). Irreducible complexity is
125:
But that is my point, Behe DOES argue that the Darwin's theory can't explain the evolution of complex structures like the eye, precisely because it can't explain the building blocks of these complex structures. When he explains how the cilia works and why he considers that structure to be irreducibly
828:
it seems you even didn't read the above to understand my point, otherwise you could see my concrete suggestion which is to remove the above paragraph from the main article. Behe never admitted such a thing as claimed in the main article. In article we see it as a fact that Behe spoke those words and
754:
The fact that very large population sizes, 10 to 9th or greater, are required to build even a minimal MR feature requiring two nucleotide alterations within 10 to the 8th generations by the processes described in our model, and that enormous population sizes are required for more complex features or
679:
The previous sentance seems to me to pretty much map out the state of things. "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including the
Department of Biological Sciences at his own Lehigh University." There we've got
323:
The fact that there are systems which would cease functioning if simplified is not controversial. The controversy is over Behe's attempt explain this with God, which is inherently unscientific, while ignoring some very simple and demonstrably correct natural explanations. Without the invocation of
767:
But forming other multi-residue features such as protein, protein binding sites might require more. And so the number on the X axis lambda 2, 4, 6, 8, those are the number of point mutations that we entertained or we calculated numbers for to see how long such things would be expected to take under
600:
Point taken. But I notice you removed (weasel worded) statements about the scientific community's views about Behe. The consensus is pretty clear, but it would be incorrect to say that all scientists disagree with him. How should one go about sayingĀ : "The scientific community pretty much thinks
344:
He does not believe that natural selection never occurs - merely that in some cases
Darwinian evolution can not explain all mechanisms at a cellular level. He posits that it is easier to explain these "irreducibly complex" systems through intelligent design than a "scaffold" model. However, the use
184:
since in attempting to explain the origin of some complicated piece of biology you simply invoke an even more complex, but completely unspecified, piece of biology. The skill in ID is passing off this substitution as if it were science. That it succeeds (in a cultural sense) sufficiently to merit
804:
Alienus! You totally miss the point that I don't care about your off-topic personal biased judgments either for me or for my comments. Ofcourse, given your solid
Darwinist credentials, I see your tactic to reject any statement supporting Michael Behe without investigation. So keep the focus on the
771:
And if you look up at the top axis, the top x axis labeled N, at the top of the figure. N stands for population size. Okay. So if you look at the figures there on the left, it's slanted, and it's not enlarged yet, so it's hard to see. It says, 10 to the 6th. That's a million. And then skip a line.
497:
The use of the following wording "broad generalizations, rhetorical arguments" is too negatively laden to be objective without more context to back it up, at least for an ecyclopedic article. His "lectures" must be described in a more subjective and factual way. Or it must be stated that "many (or
99:
I think Behe DOES contest
Darwinian evolution for animals or plants; his claim is that Darwin's theory assumes gradual change, with natural selection slowly improving life in small steps. Some things, however, can't be improved gradually. But these things are not only a few subcellular structures,
743:
If some wikipedians want to believe that two interacting nucleotides in same gene can be interpreted as multiple interacting parts for the system to function, its their original research not what Behe says here. Even if from your point of view your analogy seems to be reasonable, again it is your
83:
INSERTED A YEAR LATER: "Behe is a religious scientist who accepts the workings of evolution as they apply to animals and plants, but who believes that the complexities of human molecular design (the way that blood clots, for instance) can be explained only by the work of an intelligent designer."
632:
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of
Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of
628:
The faculty in the
Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific
299:
Presumably all these theists believe their deity is intelligent. That's a lot of scientists falling somewhere in the ID tent. Wouldn't it be fairer to say 55% of scientists, according to Gallup polls, reject ID? If someone has a better poll than Gallup that says otherwise of course.
403:
I'd rather impress upon the readers that Behe's ideas are just that: his. What the scientific community believes, what I believe and what anyone else believes are irrelevant. An encyclopedia's duty is to present ideas as presented by their sources, not evaluations of those ideas by
829:
admitted them. However we neither see it in the reference nor in anyother place. It is an interpretation based on 1)OR and 2)POV. If we want to keep that in the article a clear reference and citation is needed. Otherwise it will be removed. I hope this time you got my point(
241:. Note that biologists by no means are a majority of scientists, so the fix would have to be "majority of biologists". Also, scientific journals are full of peer-reviewed articles that contradict other researchers' results and findings. Merely saying
744:
OR+POV. But from Behe's point of view it's not the same. In IC, by saying multiple interacting parts, Behe refers to different interacting functional parts in an organ or different proteins interacting with eachother for a specific purpose.
547:, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, it does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers.
259:
As for the idea that a spring can catch a rat, I'd like to see (a) the source and (b) an explanation of (1) how a torsion spring can catch a rodent and (b) assuming it can, what this has to do with the reducibility or irreducibility of a
383:
When Behe's ideas are called "pseudoscience" in the article I think this makes
Knowledge look bad. You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature. I think it should be changed.
113:
You're nitpicking a little, I think. Rather than eliminating the para, could it not be edited to reflect your point. We need to keep the point that Behe does not oppose (say) the evolution of the eye - but rather the evolution of cilia.
777:
The next label is 10 to the 12th, which is a trillion. The next label is 10 to the 18th, which is much more. The next label is 10 to the 24th, which is much, much, much more. The next label, 10 to the 30th, which, again, is very much
644:
The article links to this text, right after "This includes the
Department of Biological Sciences at his own Lehigh University.", so I think that ought to cover it. If you disagree, let me know why. Also, please sign with 4 ~'s.
629:
method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
783:
So, in fact, we considered population sizes from 1000 all the way up to 10 to the 30th, and multi-residue features from 2, which might involve disulfide bonds, up to many more, which might be involved in protein, protein binding
312:
of irreducible complexity is inherently unscientific. The idea that the majority of the scientific community believe the "concept of irreducible complexity...to be creationist pseudoscience" might require a citation or two.
528:
systems that can do it. So your "not put together exactly as it is" is not quite correct. Also, this shows that Behe's concept has a loophole allowing irreducibly complex system to evolve, contrary to what Behe believes.
225:
Critics also answered Behe's example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex device by "reducing" a mousetrap part by part until it consisted of a spring only, but was still somewhat capable of trapping a
291:
FYI - Gallup polls have about 40% of U.S. scientists theistic evolutionists and 5% biblical creationists. Two sources for the 40% number: NCSE (Eugenie Scott's evolution support organization)
733:
Above is comletely some wikipedian OR and also misleading. Behe never admitted such a thing as claimed above. The whole story of 20,000 years was about mutation of a multi-resiude requiring
472:
233:
I'd like to see evidence, such as a survey of a "majority" of the scientific community calling Behe's idea pseudoscience. I bet the most anyone can come up with is a large number of
708:
ID, including Behe's particular flavor or it, being pseudoscience is one of the more common objections and as such it is notable enough to remain in the article. I've added a cite.
275:
You are quite right that science doesn't work as a popularity contest. You can find a tongue-in-cheek list of scientists who reject creationism, including "intelligent design" at
763:
Also if we increase the number of nucleotide alterations to 4,5 or 6 then the required amount of time and the population will become considerably more even for the bacteria:
498:
maybe most) people believe that he uses broad generalizations etc. etc." (or something like that, with a better phrasing of course - this is just to clarify the problem).
601:
Behe's work is creationist pseudoscience"? The page on weasel words doesn't seem to be entirely clear about such things to me (though I might just be being stupid). --
488:
439:
No, you are completely wrong. Wikisource is there for quotes and primary sources. If we just present de-contextualised information we are failing in our mission.
818:
If you have a concrete suggestion, make it and defend it. If you want to debate endlessly about
Creationism, you can find a proper venue where you can advocate it.
755:
shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species,
79:
Re: "In his writings, Behe does not contest Darwinian evolution for animals or plants; his claim is that evolution cannot explain a few subcellular structures."
308:
just a description of a biological system (such that, if any one of the various components were removed, the system ceases to function). I don't see why the
750:
Behe states that in multicelluar life forms with more than two or more nucleotide alterations, his proposed model quite successfully reflects the reality.
584:
458:
Why is it relevent to say that "Professor Behe has a number of articles published in the mainstream scientific literature"? He's a professor of biochem -
419:
301:
185:
an entry in an encyclopedia is testament (if you'll pardon the expression) to the not entirely rational hopes and desires of the public at large. --
126:
complex, he does that as an example, not because it's the only thing not explained by Darwin's theory. That's why, IMO, the whole paragraph is false.
712:
854:
160:
through intelligent design than through any sort of mainstream scientific model. Surely Behe's thesis is that "irreducibly complex" systems can
152:"He posits that it is easier to explain these "irreducibly complex" systems through intelligent design rather than an evolutionary model." It's
809:
697:
684:
533:
328:
127:
863:
833:
801:
Given your solid Creationist credentials, I didn't expect your comments to be credible. Upon closer examination, they met my expectations.
189:
636:
I am new (to editing) here so I am reluctant to make any changes myself but I wanted to bring this to the attention of others. -Chris (
571:
292:
555:
168:
to explain them through natural processes? I feel the wording of the article could be changed to reflect this without risking NPOV.
579:
477:
I removed the following: "instead they feature broad generalizations, rhetorical arguments, and mentions of his Christian faith"
414:
514:
848:
370:
659:
317:
655:
Alienus, I overlooked that link, I did not realize this was already documented within the article. So my point is moot.
592:
427:
443:
794:
673:
605:
467:
649:
378:
144:
structures. The eye is a fairly clear example of a reducibly complex system, of the sort that Behe does not context.
822:
884:
880:
as Behe's birthday, however, I can't readily substantiate it. If anyone can find a source, please re-insert it.
334:
504:
392:
create the wrong impression in Knowledge readers that Behe's ideas are accepted in the scientific community? --
565:
543:
He published a paper, together with David Snoke, in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Protein Science ,
551:
Specifically which idea does Behe claims his paper supports? The paragraph is not clear, at least to me.
85:
71:
66:
172:
738:
38:
805:
article and if you have some good reference to support the paragraph in question, please let me know.(
293:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp
230:
The above are phrased in such a way as to make Knowledge endorse these criticisms of Behe's work.
588:
423:
197:
844:
786:
748:
256:
who vehemently disagrees. If so, I humbly request that he source the statements or modify them.
463:
that he has no publications in peer-reviewed science in the field for which he is best known.
453:
859:
The section is confusing. Perahaps, the question should be added and then quote his answer?
664:
772:
These are in every 10 to the 3rd increments of population size. That would be 10 to the 9th.
560:
284:
217:
204:
8:
720:
656:
637:
552:
107:
851:
709:
355:
727:
681:
359:
351:
268:
203:
Although he claims this is scientific and supported by evidence, the majority of the
92:
47:
17:
871:
619:
530:
393:
314:
570:
If you would like to re-introduce the weasely information, please note this page:
480:
If reinstated it must be written in a more objective and less opinionated manner.
350:
I'm not exactly sure what "two theories" are being referred to here. If they are
830:
806:
791:
296:
280:
276:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
881:
485:
464:
440:
363:
145:
115:
602:
511:
208:
186:
136:
Behe argues that evolution can't explain irreducibly complex structures, but
860:
819:
694:
670:
646:
325:
265:
169:
89:
100:
but the building blocks of bigger structures, as are animals and plants.
611:
I'm not sure I am putting this in the right place but here's for tryin':
264:
thing like a mousetrap. In other words, please fix this and put it back.
877:
757:
because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes
510:
in some forms of bacteria, like flaggelettes. Any thoughts on this?
367:
345:
of two theories is hardly ever more convenient than the use of one.
539:
In the Controversy IC & ID heading this statement is unclear:
358:, how is that any different from the mainstream's two theories of
103:
I suggest that paragraph should be eliminated from the article.
484:
I don't follow - please explain what the problem is. Thanks.
669:
AlsatianRain, why do you think the sentence is uninformative?
622:) or quoting the entire statement would be more appropriate:
625:"Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
850:. The passage is accurate and well-supported as it stands.
473:
opinionated remarks that does not belong in an ecycolpedia.
524:
systems that can do the same. But of course there can be
520:
Almost. The "irreducible" part means that there are no
737:
in a duplicated gene is some prokaryotes. His research
108:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_pittinterview0201.htm
245:
is by no means the same as condemning your ideas as
164:be explained through intelligent design, that it's
295:and this which I believe is neutral on evolution
620:http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
297:http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
252:I daresay the phrasings above were added by a
618:I don't know whether a link would be ideal (
572:Knowledge:Guide to writing better articles
180:Of course, with ID you're not explaining
86:(Publishers Weekly, quoted at Amazon.com)
366:? What is the point being made here? ā
14:
740:wasn't about irreducible complexity.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
843:Nope, Behe caves on the issue right
25:
23:
24:
895:
545:which he claims supports the idea
29:
735:only two nucleotide replacement
339:Recently added to the article:
515:22:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
489:10:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
88:(Hope this distinction helps.
13:
1:
556:22:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
318:00:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
606:17:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
566:Knowledge:Avoid weasel words
534:12:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
444:17:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
190:08:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
173:02:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
7:
660:20:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
650:17:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
329:20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
207:consider it to be baseless
10:
900:
885:12:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
396:12:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
271:19:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
95:19:15, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC))
855:22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
834:08:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
823:08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
810:08:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
795:22:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
713:20:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
698:22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
685:22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
674:22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
468:17:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
304:00:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
106:Re, Interview with Behe:
864:19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
364:universal common descent
287:16:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
148:21:50, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
118:20:35, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
371:15:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
335:The use of two theories
266:--user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed
90:--user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed
549:
505:irreducible complexity
693:You've convinced me.
541:
42:of past discussions.
582:comment was added by
417:comment was added by
218:scientific community
205:scientific community
638:User:Mr_Christopher
595:) October 19, 2005.
430:) October 19, 2005.
387:7/24/05 kdbuffalo
243:I disagree with you
356:intelligent design
315:Wade A. Tisthammer
876:An anon inserted
596:
431:
360:natural selection
352:natural selection
142:reducibly complex
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:Talk:Michael Behe
891:
747:In same article
575:
410:
220:was unimpressed.
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
899:
898:
894:
893:
892:
890:
889:
888:
874:
723:
667:
563:
507:
475:
456:
381:
337:
200:
198:Three deletions
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
897:
873:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
857:
838:
837:
816:
815:
814:
813:
722:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
703:
702:
701:
700:
688:
687:
666:
663:
657:Mr Christopher
653:
652:
609:
608:
578:The preceding
562:
559:
553:Mr Christopher
537:
536:
506:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
492:
491:
474:
471:
455:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
413:The preceding
408:
407:
406:
405:
398:
397:
380:
377:
375:
348:
347:
336:
333:
332:
331:
289:
288:
228:
227:
222:
221:
213:
212:
199:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
150:
149:
133:
132:
131:
130:
120:
119:
97:
96:
75:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
896:
887:
886:
883:
879:
865:
862:
858:
856:
853:
852:FeloniousMonk
849:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
835:
832:
827:
826:
825:
824:
821:
811:
808:
803:
802:
800:
799:
798:
796:
793:
788:
787:
785:
780:
779:
774:
773:
769:
764:
761:
760:
758:
751:
749:
745:
741:
739:
736:
731:
730:
728:
714:
711:
710:FeloniousMonk
707:
706:
705:
704:
699:
696:
692:
691:
690:
689:
686:
683:
678:
677:
676:
675:
672:
665:pseudoscience
662:
661:
658:
651:
648:
643:
642:
641:
639:
634:
630:
626:
623:
621:
616:
612:
607:
604:
599:
598:
597:
594:
590:
586:
585:141.213.67.39
583:
581:
573:
568:
567:
558:
557:
554:
548:
546:
540:
535:
532:
527:
523:
519:
518:
517:
516:
513:
496:
495:
494:
493:
490:
487:
483:
482:
481:
478:
470:
469:
466:
461:
445:
442:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
425:
421:
420:141.213.67.39
418:
416:
402:
401:
400:
399:
395:
390:
389:
388:
385:
379:another entry
376:
373:
372:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
346:
342:
341:
340:
330:
327:
322:
321:
320:
319:
316:
311:
305:
303:
298:
294:
286:
282:
278:
277:Project Steve
274:
273:
272:
270:
267:
263:
257:
255:
250:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
224:
223:
219:
215:
214:
210:
209:pseudoscience
206:
202:
201:
191:
188:
183:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
147:
143:
139:
135:
134:
129:
124:
123:
122:
121:
117:
112:
111:
110:
109:
104:
101:
94:
91:
87:
82:
81:
80:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
875:
817:
789:
782:
781:
776:
775:
770:
766:
765:
762:
756:
753:
752:
746:
742:
734:
732:
725:
724:
682:AlsatianRain
668:
654:
635:
631:
627:
624:
617:
613:
610:
577:
569:
564:
561:weasel words
550:
544:
542:
538:
526:more complex
525:
521:
508:
479:
476:
459:
457:
412:
409:
386:
382:
374:
349:
343:
338:
309:
306:
302:66.61.157.57
290:
261:
258:
253:
251:
247:pseudoscince
246:
242:
238:
237:saying they
234:
232:
229:
181:
165:
161:
157:
153:
151:
141:
137:
105:
102:
98:
78:
60:
43:
37:
847:, see also
721:Dover Trial
531:Hob Gadling
454:Behe's pubs
394:Hob Gadling
156:to explain
36:This is an
878:January 18
831:SirGalahad
807:SirGalahad
792:SirGalahad
768:our model.
368:Muke Tever
254:Wikipedian
235:biologists
166:impossible
158:everything
882:Guettarda
486:Guettarda
465:Guettarda
460:of course
441:Guettarda
72:ArchiveĀ 3
67:ArchiveĀ 2
61:ArchiveĀ 1
872:Birthday
603:Plumbago
593:contribs
580:unsigned
512:Pjanini1
428:contribs
415:unsigned
262:designed
239:disagree
226:rodent.)
187:Plumbago
182:anything
140:explain
861:Falphin
820:Alienus
695:JoshuaZ
671:JoshuaZ
647:Alienus
522:simpler
404:others.
326:Alienus
310:concept
170:Tevildo
39:archive
269:(talk)
154:easier
146:Martin
116:Martin
93:(talk)
784:sites
778:more.
16:<
845:here
589:talk
424:talk
362:and
354:and
281:Dunc
249:.
216:The
162:only
138:can
797:)
640:)
591:ā¢
574:.
529:--
426:ā¢
313:--
128:JP
836:)
812:)
790:(
759:.
729:"
587:(
576:ā
422:(
411:ā
285:āŗ
283:|
211:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.