Friday, February 17, 2006
Befuddled in Bethlehem
.
Well, if Behe says he was misquoted, we will have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Just.
Normally, I’d have no problem with accepting the word of a scientist who said that a journalist had mistaken or misstated his work. But Behe has credibility problems of his own, since he has no compunction about abusing the words of others. Of course, if Behe wants to better his credibility, he could take the occasion of the tenth anniversary reissue of Darwin’s Black Box, that he claims will show that there has been no progress whatsoever on the evolution of "irreducibly complex" systems, to correct the quote mines he included in the original. I’ll not hold my breath.
Actually, Behe’s complaints have to do more with what Ken Miller is quoted as saying in the article, what Judge Jones said in his decision in the Dover school board case and whether the article confused the flagellum of a sperm with the flagellum of a bacteria than with bad attributions. But here is the quote that Behe claims the journalist, Jeremy Manier, made up:
Even more amusing is what Behe has to say about Judge Jones:
The really hilarious bit is Behe’s statement that he was "given no chance to read" the papers and books the plaintiffs produced by the plaintiffs.
Earth to Michael Behe: You were called to the stand as an expert witness. You may have even received pay or other remuneration for being an expert witness. You held yourself out, under oath, to be an expert. You made claims in your expert testimony that there was no scientific literature giving an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. It is reasonable to expect an expert to be familiar with the scientific literature in the field he is claiming expertise in.
Trust me Dr. Behe, bringing out the fact that you weren’t familiar with the literature was not "bad courtroom theater," it was quite good evidence of the value of the whole of your testimony.
I previously addressed a Chicago Tribune article and its quotes of Michael Behe. Behe has complained on the Discovery Institute blog, "Intelligent Design The Future," that the "Chicago Tribune Reporter Puts False Words in My Mouth, Leaves Out Those That Didn't Fit His Script." (Thanks to "analyysi" for pointing to this.)
Well, if Behe says he was misquoted, we will have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Just.
Normally, I’d have no problem with accepting the word of a scientist who said that a journalist had mistaken or misstated his work. But Behe has credibility problems of his own, since he has no compunction about abusing the words of others. Of course, if Behe wants to better his credibility, he could take the occasion of the tenth anniversary reissue of Darwin’s Black Box, that he claims will show that there has been no progress whatsoever on the evolution of "irreducibly complex" systems, to correct the quote mines he included in the original. I’ll not hold my breath.
Actually, Behe’s complaints have to do more with what Ken Miller is quoted as saying in the article, what Judge Jones said in his decision in the Dover school board case and whether the article confused the flagellum of a sperm with the flagellum of a bacteria than with bad attributions. But here is the quote that Behe claims the journalist, Jeremy Manier, made up:
"They've admitted, under oath, that they have no direct evidence for design at all," Miller said.
That's true, Behe said; his focus has been on arguing that some systems could not have evolved naturally. He said he has no idea how complex biochemistry actually came about, no suggestions for testing how intelligent design occurred, and he knows of no scientists who are planning such tests.
"Trying to figure out how something was designed -- where or when, or by whom -- are different questions and much more difficult to address," Behe said.
And here is Behe’s complaint:
I did not say it is true that there is no direct evidence for design, as the piece makes it seem. The structure of a system is direct evidence for design, ala Mount Rushmore. I said that one can't easily find out how design occurred; for example, how Stonehenge was designed, which stumped people for a long time after they knew it was purposefully designed. I stressed that design is falsifiable, and therefore testable. That statement is nowhere to be seen in the piece. I also stressed that Darwinism is for all intents and purposes unfalsifiable. That didn't fit the story line either.
Note how Behe does not deny that he lacks any suggestions for testing how intelligent design occurred and knows of no scientists who are planning such tests. How the rest of his statement lines up with Behe’s constant refrain on the stand in Kitzmiller that "we infer design by the purposeful arrangement of parts," I will leave to the reader to figure out, merely pointing out that if we have direct evidence of the purposeful arrangement of parts, what need do we have to infer design?
Even more amusing is what Behe has to say about Judge Jones:
[Manier] repeats the ACLU attorney's words about work on the immune system not being "good enough" which the judge in his decision put in my mouth. They make me seem petulant using the other attorney's words. I point out the misattribution of those words in my response to the Dover decision, published by Discovery.
Following his links, we eventually arrive at a pdf file, "Whether Intelligent Design is Science: A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District." Here is Behe’s complaint about the "good enough" comment:
(11) In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe)).
Several points:
1) Although the opinion’s phrasing makes it seem to come from my mouth, the remark about the studies being "not good enough" was the cross-examining attorney’s, not mine.
2) I was given no chance to read them, and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater. Yet the Court treats it seriously.
As far as I have been able to tell (not reading the whole of his testimony over again), Behe did not use the words "good enough." But neither can I find any instance of the plaintiffs’ cousel using it either. The simplest explanation is that Judge Jones was characterizing Behe’s testimony when he was asked if it was still his opinion, first expressed in Darwin’s Black Box, that the "theory of Darwinian molecular evolution, has not published, and so it should perish," to which, after much quibbling, Behe replied:
[B]y . . . publications, I mean detailed rigorous accounts for complex molecular machines, not just either hypothetical accounts or sequence comparisons or such things. (Trial testimony, October 19, 2005, p. 19-22)
Again, I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if the Judge fairly characterized Behe’s attitude toward what he would accept as evidence for "Darwinian evolution" (and his equivocations about what that means) and merely point out the disparity between that standard and what he accepts as "direct evidence" for design.
The really hilarious bit is Behe’s statement that he was "given no chance to read" the papers and books the plaintiffs produced by the plaintiffs.
Earth to Michael Behe: You were called to the stand as an expert witness. You may have even received pay or other remuneration for being an expert witness. You held yourself out, under oath, to be an expert. You made claims in your expert testimony that there was no scientific literature giving an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. It is reasonable to expect an expert to be familiar with the scientific literature in the field he is claiming expertise in.
.
Surely, as an expert in the field, making assertions about the state of the literature, you would have kept up with the scientific literature in that area. If so, you should have been familiar with at least most of these 58 publications. That your excuse is that you first needed to read the papers and books the plaintiffs produced speaks volumes.
Trust me Dr. Behe, bringing out the fact that you weren’t familiar with the literature was not "bad courtroom theater," it was quite good evidence of the value of the whole of your testimony.
.
Comments:
<< Home
John Pieret:
"As far as I have been able to tell (not reading the whole of his testimony over again), Behe did not use the words "good enough." But neither can I find any instance of the plaintiffs’ cousel using it either."
Hmm. Behe used the words "good enough", but he didn't say, that they aren't good enough. In fact, he said, that it was NOT "that they aren't good enough."
From here:
Question: Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?
Behe: These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject.
"As far as I have been able to tell (not reading the whole of his testimony over again), Behe did not use the words "good enough." But neither can I find any instance of the plaintiffs’ cousel using it either."
Hmm. Behe used the words "good enough", but he didn't say, that they aren't good enough. In fact, he said, that it was NOT "that they aren't good enough."
From here:
Question: Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?
Behe: These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject.
Judge Jones:
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))."
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe said, that "it's NOT that they aren't good enough", and the judge still argued, that Behe had said, that "it was not "good enough." "
I think, that the judge has put words in Behe's mouth.
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))."
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe said, that "it's NOT that they aren't good enough", and the judge still argued, that Behe had said, that "it was not "good enough." "
I think, that the judge has put words in Behe's mouth.
You're kidding, right?
Here are the full set of questions (what is it with creationists and quote mining?):
Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?
A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject.
Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?
A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.
In other words, Behe is asked if a (wholly unreasonable) step-by-step description of how the immune system evolved is what he is demanding and he says that even that wouldn't be enough!
Now for a little education in the law: neither the questioner on cross nor the Judge is required to accept a witness' characterization of his own testimony. The opposing lawyer can continue to question the witness and, as in this case, where the witness testifies in ways that contradict his own characterization, the lawyer can argue that the contradictory position has been established and the judge can accept it. There isn't the slightest doubt that Behe was saying that the articles weren't 'good enough' (since they didn't try to provide the unreasonable evidence Behe demanded). The only criticism that might be justified is that the Judge probably shouldn't have put the phrase in quotes when he was just (correctly) characterizing the testimony. If this kind of literary criticism is the best that Behe and you can do, ID is really done with.
And while we are here, let's not forget that Behe is demanding this massive level of evidence to counter his totally unevidenced "Just Not-So" argument that the immune system can't evolve by known mechanisms. Behe can can somehow "infer" a designer, with undefined but still incredible abilities, with nothing more than his failure to be able to imagine how something can evolve, but claims that his opponents have to not only be able to imagine those pathways and provide evidence for those pathways but have to document them in detail far beyond what any ID proponent has provided! Does the word "chutzpah" ring a bell?
Let me apply some science according to Behe: the astrological signs say that ID is going to have a bad year.
Here are the full set of questions (what is it with creationists and quote mining?):
Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?
A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject.
Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?
A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.
In other words, Behe is asked if a (wholly unreasonable) step-by-step description of how the immune system evolved is what he is demanding and he says that even that wouldn't be enough!
Now for a little education in the law: neither the questioner on cross nor the Judge is required to accept a witness' characterization of his own testimony. The opposing lawyer can continue to question the witness and, as in this case, where the witness testifies in ways that contradict his own characterization, the lawyer can argue that the contradictory position has been established and the judge can accept it. There isn't the slightest doubt that Behe was saying that the articles weren't 'good enough' (since they didn't try to provide the unreasonable evidence Behe demanded). The only criticism that might be justified is that the Judge probably shouldn't have put the phrase in quotes when he was just (correctly) characterizing the testimony. If this kind of literary criticism is the best that Behe and you can do, ID is really done with.
And while we are here, let's not forget that Behe is demanding this massive level of evidence to counter his totally unevidenced "Just Not-So" argument that the immune system can't evolve by known mechanisms. Behe can can somehow "infer" a designer, with undefined but still incredible abilities, with nothing more than his failure to be able to imagine how something can evolve, but claims that his opponents have to not only be able to imagine those pathways and provide evidence for those pathways but have to document them in detail far beyond what any ID proponent has provided! Does the word "chutzpah" ring a bell?
Let me apply some science according to Behe: the astrological signs say that ID is going to have a bad year.
I don't know much about US law system. (I'm European.) However, I haven't seen before, that when someone says, that "it's not that they aren't good enough", then judge quotes him: he simply insisted that ... it was not "good enough." " So I said, that "I think, that the judge has put words in Behe's mouth."
If I have understood Behe's position correctly, he perhaps thinks, that immune system has produced by theistic evolution. Not by random mutations and natural selection, but still by evolution.
Judge Jones wrote:
"he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough.""
Behe's question is:
"how the immune system or irreducibly complex components of it could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection."
Behe himself commented Court:
The Court here speaks of “evidence for evolution”. Throughout the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the word “evolution”, and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism.
John Pieret wrote:
There isn't the slightest doubt that Behe was saying that the articles weren't 'good enough' (since they didn't try to provide the unreasonable evidence Behe demanded).
There is no doubt, that if someone is presented with 100 peer-reviewed publications about subject A, that is not 'good enough' for him, if he is looking for evidence about subject B.
If articles are addressed to a different subject, then you can perhaps say, that they are not "good enough"... but then you should to add, that the question is not about how many articles was presented, but about subject.
If I have understood Behe's position correctly, he perhaps thinks, that immune system has produced by theistic evolution. Not by random mutations and natural selection, but still by evolution.
Judge Jones wrote:
"he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough.""
Behe's question is:
"how the immune system or irreducibly complex components of it could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection."
Behe himself commented Court:
The Court here speaks of “evidence for evolution”. Throughout the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the word “evolution”, and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism.
John Pieret wrote:
There isn't the slightest doubt that Behe was saying that the articles weren't 'good enough' (since they didn't try to provide the unreasonable evidence Behe demanded).
There is no doubt, that if someone is presented with 100 peer-reviewed publications about subject A, that is not 'good enough' for him, if he is looking for evidence about subject B.
If articles are addressed to a different subject, then you can perhaps say, that they are not "good enough"... but then you should to add, that the question is not about how many articles was presented, but about subject.
Well, I'm not inclined to rehash Behe's testimony vis a vis the totality of what he's said elsewhere. But Behe is definitely not a theistic evolutionist, insofar as he denies that evolution is sufficient to explain life as we observe it today. Of course, he does his best to confuse the issue at every turn so he can continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
This explanation of his quote mining and his ambiguity about what he means by "Darwinism" demonstrates the problem.
If Behe was really testifying in favor of theistic evolution, why do IDers hate it so much?
And Behe is still demanding an unreasonable amount of evidence for whatever it is that he thinks "Darwinian evolution" is, so the Judge was not mischaracterizing his testimony, even if Behe didn't use those exact words.
Post a Comment
This explanation of his quote mining and his ambiguity about what he means by "Darwinism" demonstrates the problem.
If Behe was really testifying in favor of theistic evolution, why do IDers hate it so much?
And Behe is still demanding an unreasonable amount of evidence for whatever it is that he thinks "Darwinian evolution" is, so the Judge was not mischaracterizing his testimony, even if Behe didn't use those exact words.
<< Home
