After reluctantly getting onto Stephen for my perceived inconsistencies
of some of his ideas, I really loved making comments about this person's
mixing of faith and science.
Steve C.
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 21:16:36 +0800 "Stephen E. Jones"
<sejones@iinet.net.au> writes:
[...]
> Review of "Obstacles to gene duplication as an explanation for
> complex biochemical systems" by Michael Behe.
>
> In the section "Meaning of explanation," the author harps on the
> extreme difficulty of elucidating complicated cellular interaction
> systems and of tracing the evolution of biological complexity.
> It is ironic that he should voice his concerns just as technical
> as well as conceptual progress has opened the door to
> investigating on a much larger scale than heretofore the
> mechanisms of development, and the increase in gene interaction
> complexity along certain lines of descent. Michael Behe is depicting
> a hopeless situation for the biological sciences, or at least for
> their evolutionary aspects, just as biology is proceeding through a
> glorious age.
If it's wrong for Behe to believe in a "hopeless situation" for darwinist
biology, then why it is apparently alright to believe it's a "glorious
age" for it? Both assessments are completely interpretive and are
equidistant from a neutralist position. If Behe swings too far to the
one side, then this reviewer is just as extreme in the other direction.
> A classical error of people who believe that complex gene
> interaction systems and other complex biological systems present
> an insuperable difficulty to evolutionary science is to imply that
every
> component of the system has or has had only one function. In reality,
> every gene, or its ancestors, or its duplicated brothers and cousins,
> or all of these, usually exert multiple functions and can be re-
> mobilized for building up new complex systems or can be dropped
> from a complex system without being dropped from the functioning
> genome. The function of the system itself may change (an oft quoted
> morphological example: folds that act as gliders related to wings);
> intermediate stages function differently from the terminal stage
> considered, but do function, indeed. If evolutionary pathways were
> difficult to find, nature faced these difficulties and solved them. The
> scientist's job is just to follow nature, and that he believes he can
do.
I find it hard to swallow the factual claims that nature has "solved"
evolutionary difficulties. What makes this a "fact" is not science
(since science has yet to solve them) but the person's faith. And since
when did we ever have a priori knowledge that scientists "can" solve such
difficulties? The knowledge gained through science is a posteriori.
Only faith can grant an a priori guarantee on the success of a given
venture. Let's stick with scientific reasoning by getting rid of these
last two sentences.
> It is interesting to show--Behe examines this claim--that by knocking
> two genes out of this cascade, the resulting organisms are less
> abnormal than those that have lost only one of two genes. Yet, it is by
> no means necessary to be able to provide such a demonstration. Not
> being able to provide it does not authorize anyone to consider the
> system as "irreducibly" complex, in Behe's metaphysical sense of
> irreducible.
The notion of irreducibility exists, is commonly observed, and cannot be
contested. Take the microchip out of my computer and it doesn't work
anymore. Thus, there is a sense in which certain parts of a functioning
entity are absolutely needed as a bare minimum for that functionality.
While we may disagree about irreducibility existing in biochemical
systems, who in their right mind would disagree that it does actually
exist and is totally observable? So, there is no excuse for claiming
that this is a "metaphysical" concept. Am I being "metaphysical" if I
say that irreducibility exists in my '87 Chevy Celebrity?
> On the other hand, the mutational acquisition of modified or new
> functions by duplicated genes has been witnessed many times by
> sequence comparisons and other approaches, and there is no trace
> of an "irreducible" difficulty here either, despite Behe's claims.
>
> This reviewer is no authority on the blood clotting cascade, but if a
> plausible model for its evolutionary development, compatible with all
> known facts, has indeed not been generated so far, the remaining
> question marks are not threat to science--on the contrary, they are a
> challenge added to thousands of other challenges that science met
> and meets. In this instance, too, science will be successful.
Once again, where does such certainty come from? Does science guarantee
it's own success? Does past success grant certain conquest over all
present and future problems? Mathematicians solved tens of thousands and
hundreds of thousands of problems, but then it was shown that they cannot
solve all mathematical questions. Why is it apparently so easy for this
reviewer to make faith claims in the name of science?
> Is that too bold a prediction? On the contrary, it is not bold. If
science,
> in the modern sense of the word (defined by its method), were only
> just beginning its career, onlookers would naturally be divided into
> optimists and pessimists. But, as young as science still is, its
> accomplishments have verified over and over again that the world of
> the observable and the measurable is understandable in terms of the
> observed and measured. Pessimism in this respect has come to lack
> intellectual status.
Neither pessimism nor optimism are "intellectual." They are attitudinal,
being derived from a person's faith. Pessimism is unhealthy if it stops
us from continuing in a fruitful investigation. Yet, optimism can be
just as equally damaging if it keeps us going in bankrupt ventures. In
both cases, the situation arises due to our preconceived faith concerning
the circumstances. Let's not start making claims that now even our
attitudes have gained "intellectual status."
> In the face of this evidence, Dr. Behe's stance is quasi-heroic, but it
is
> heroism at the service of a lost and mistaken cause. He is not deterred
> by the fact that molecular biology is only about 50 years old, that
during
> this period it has generated an almost overwhelming amount of
> fundamental understanding, that more understanding is obviously on its
> way; further, that the study of the molecular bases of development had
> to wait for its turn: it was able to take off seriously only within the
last
> decade. All of these studies will be amplified if there is peace in
the
> world, and many biological problems that Dr. Behe today uses as
> drums to proclaim his faith will be solved in ways that cannot be but
> disappointing to him.
The reviewer proclaims his or her own faith in the same sentence they
deride Behe's. To state as though it were a fact that present biological
problems "will be" solved in darwinist ways is to misrepresent one's own
faith commitments. At best the reviewer should say that he/she "hopes"
such will be the case.
Besides, it is unscientific to appeal to future possibilities as a
dismissal of present problems. This is because the futuristic potential
for the problems getting worse is just as likely as that of the problems
getting better. There is nothing wrong scientifically if a person wants
to point out how a particular "explanation" is presently flawed. To
dimiss these possible objections in favor of a nebulous, fanciful concept
of "what the future holds" is not science but a rearguard action to
protect one's sacred cow.
> The trust expressed by the present referee is based on the lessons
> of several hundred years of history of science. It is really a very
short
> history judged in terms of human history in general, and, considering
> the recorded accomplishments, it takes a fair amount of intellectual
> "chuzpah" to reproach science for the understanding that it has not
> yet achieved.
Now the reviewer openly admits his/her "trust" (i.e. faith) in science's
future explanatory success. It is interesting to note the opinion that
Behe, et al., "reproach science" for its lack of understanding life's
advent. This is not the case. Behe reproaches darwinism, not science or
even evolution (if I understand him correctly). The reviewer apparently
perceives any objection to darwinism as an objection to "science" itself.
> This reviewer thinks that there is a great deal of misunderstanding
> around the role of intelligence in the world. The world itself, through
> the interactions that take place under the reign of natural law,
> manifests a sort of intelligence--an intelligence much greater than
> our intelligence--out of which our intelligence has very likely arisen
> as a product. No wonder, then, that, to our intelligence, the universe
> appears intelligent: there is a close kinship between the universe
> and our mind--as one would expect, since our intelligence is shaped
> so as to permit us to get along in the world. ("...So as to permit us
> . . .": language often induces us to seem to express the presence of
> an intent when none is implied; none is here.) Consistently to use the
> phrase "intelligent design" instead of God is almost cheating, since
> this use has an ambiguous relation to the presence in the universe
> of a sort of intelligence that, except perhaps in a pantheistic sense
if
> one wishes to think so, has no implication regarding the existence of
> a God. God, here, stands for a being that combines consciousness,
> will, and universal power.
Here the reviewer states his/her faith that the Universe "manifests a
sort of intelligence" which has given rise to our life and our
intelligence as its "product." Suddenly, all the objections to ID which
came previous to this paragraph need to be turned onto the reviewer. It
is not enough to state these claims and then say that the "presence of
intent" is not implied. This is self-contradiction and if it's meant to
be some sort of refutation of ID, then it's incredibly weak and innately
philosophical.
> Of course science has its limits, but they are surely not where Behe
> places them; they are not, indeed, in the realm of biological
evolution.
> The perception of science's limits will evolve as science itself
evolves,
> and the limits won't furnish an argument in favor of intelligent design
in
> the sense of a design imagines by a universal "person." The argument
> will be in favor of the finiteness of the analytical powers of the
human
> mind. The limits of science will probably be recognized as being, in
> part, imposed by the position in the universe of the intelligent
(human)
> observer. Whatever God's role in the universe, if any, biology will be
> understood without reference to him. That is implied by the essence
> of science.
The true "essence of science" is the commitment that the Universe is
intelligible to human thought. It is the belief that there is
regularity, consistency, orderliness, and uniformity in the place of
chaos, sheer randomness, and an anything-goes kind of setup. How this
"essence" could possibly be interpreted as implying that the
non-existence or irrelevance of God boggles my mind. When Copernicus,
Galileo, and Kepler discovered natural laws in motion, they believed they
were discovering how God put things together. I bring this up only to
demonstrate that one's presuppositions are entirely responsible for
whatever intepretations we have of nature at work. Let's stop using
science as a platform for proclaiming our philosophical interpretations
of reality.
> Behe wants to be able to say that this is not so, and he needs to
> say it very quickly, because every day any conceivable ground for
> making his statement shrinks further. The faith of scientists is that
the
> world of phenomena can be understood, and that the transformations
> of this world leading up to the present state of affairs can be
understood.
> Developments conform every day that, progressively, scientists are
> winning this bet. Whatever is discovered, the most surprising as well
as
> the less surprising, will be part of nature: the supernatural has no
place
> in the observable and measurable.
When do we ever get to see the reviewer mention Behe's paper and
specifically how its methods fail scientifically or have experimental
errors. Isn't that what referees are supposed to do? More pontification
on what the future has in store for us is just no substitute for real
science.
> Metaphysicians who want science to speak out in favor of their beliefs,
if
> not demonstrate them, are already put in a tight spot by the science of
> yesterday and have nothing to fear more than the science of tomorrow.
Apparently, the reviewer doesn't think this applies to his or her own
metaphysics.
> In this referee's judgment, the manuscript of Michael Behe does not
> contribute anything useful to evolutionary science. The arguments
> presented are weak.
Now we finally see a mention of the paper the reviewer was supposed to
referee. It's about time. But all we find is more pontifications. We
are told Behe's arguments fail, but we're never told why. Apparently,
the reviewer thought their philosophical speculations were good enough
without having to engage in the nitty-gritty science.
> Incidentally, publication in a scientific journal of this article could
not be
> construed as anything resembling a First Amendment right. Naysayers
> such as Michael Behe have not been muzzled. They have repeatedly
> aired their point of view, and so be it.
>
> If Behe were right in spite of all, it would become apparent in due
time
> through failures of science. It would be very much out of place to
> denounce such failures now, since they have not occurred. Having
> not yet understood all of biology is not a failure after just 200
years,
> given the amount of understanding already achieved. Let us speak
> about it again in 1000 years. Meanwhile, metaphysicians should spare
> scientists their metaphysics and just let the scientists do their
work--or
> join them in doing it.
Oh, well. I guess we'll all be dead before we're allowed to raise any
legitimate scientific questions regarding darwinist theory. What if
Einstein took this approach with Newtonian theory? It was a little more
than 2 centuries when Einstein, working from irregularities in Newton's
Laws, developed relativity theory. What would have happened if the
establishment told him to wait another 800 years before bringing up his
objections?
If the above review is typical of what's happening in today's peer
review, then may God help us all.
Steve C.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 05 2000 - 15:11:30 EDT