Difference between revisions of "Michael Behe"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverting liberal bias)
(Undo revision 1105864 by MattyT (talk))
(9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
 
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
−
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]] who wrote ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'' and ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', books which present a case for [[intelligent design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the  
+
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist, author and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]]. His books include ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'' and ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', which both highlight the inherent problems with [[evolution]]ary theory and present a case for [[intelligent design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the bacterial [[flagellum]], are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this [[evidence]] that the [[flagellum]] must have been [[design]]ed.  
−
bacterial [[flagellum]] are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this evidence that the flagellum must have been designed. This idea has been discredited by some members of the scientific community <ref>http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html</ref>, although as of yet no consensus has been reached.
+
  
−
Behe also said:
+
== Education ==
 +
 
 +
Michael Behe received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the [[University of Pennsylvania]] in 1978, where his dissertation was on sickle cell disease, and he subsequently spent four years researching aspects of [[DNA]] structure at the [[National Institutes of Health]] before joining the Lehigh faculty in 1985.<ref name="Behe">http://www.post-gazette.com/magazine/20010208behe6.asp</ref>
 +
 
 +
== Criticism of evolution ==
 +
 
 +
Behe observed:
  
 
:"There is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations."  ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>
 
:"There is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations."  ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>
Line 9: Line 14:
 
Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>
 
Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>
  
−
Behe also accepts ''common descent'':
+
Behe has a skeptical view of the [[pseudoscientific]] idea of "common descent":
  
 
"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>
 
"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>
  
−
Unlike true [[creationists]], Behe believes in many of the principal tenets of [[evolutionary theory]], such as an earth billions of years old, descent from common ancestors, and even [[natural selection]] within closely related organisms.
+
It is common for [[evolutionists]] to engage in [[Liberal name-calling|namecalling]] against Behe, to which he responds:<ref name="Behe"/>
  
−
Many critics of Behe see his arguments as being ''ad incredulum'', or "from incredulity".
+
{{cquote|In a way it actually makes me feel good when Darwinists call me names. First, it shows that they are having a tough time coming up with actual arguments against design. It also shows that they aren't the coolly logical persons they would have everyone think they are.}}
  
 
== Behe's Criticism of the Materialistic Science of Francis Crick ==
 
== Behe's Criticism of the Materialistic Science of Francis Crick ==
−
In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. <ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}
+
In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. <ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}
  
 
==Peer review of his ideas==
 
==Peer review of his ideas==
−
 
 
During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of intelligent design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals.  Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>
 
During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of intelligent design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals.  Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>
  
Line 36: Line 40:
 
:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.
 
:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.
  
 +
Critics claim that the peer review for Behe's book was not as thorough as journal peer review, yet fail to make meaningful comparison to the questionable peer review done for pro-evolution papers published in journals.
  
−
Unfortunately the peer review for Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, was not as rigorous as he had previously thought.  It was further established a few minutes after the above testimony that one of the reviewers did not read the book and only gave his approval based upon Behe's reputation. In fact this same reviewer provided the deciding factor for publication.
+
Behe has recently published a peer-reviewed paper on the observation of evolutionary mutations. Prominent evolutionist Jerry Coyne has praised it, but warned that creationists may draw the wrong conclusions.<ref>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/behes-new-paper/</ref> Behe has responded to Coyne.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/the_first_rule_of_adaptive_evo041811.html</ref>
−
 
+
−
:Q.  She advised her husband to give me a call. So unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript. ... In November 1998, I finally met Michael Behe when he visited Penn for a faculty outreach talk. He told me that, yes, indeed, it was his book that the publisher called me about. In fact, he said my comments were the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the book. Interesting, I thought. <ref> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>
+
−
 
+
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
Line 49: Line 51:
 
[[Category:Scientists]]
 
[[Category:Scientists]]
 
[[Category:Intelligent Design Theorists]]
 
[[Category:Intelligent Design Theorists]]
 +
[[Category:Authors]]
 +
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Revision as of 15:30, September 20, 2014

6748yuhg.jpg

Michael Behe is a biochemist, author and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His books include Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, which both highlight the inherent problems with evolutionary theory and present a case for intelligent design. He argues that molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, are irreducibly complex. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this evidence that the flagellum must have been designed.

Education

Michael Behe received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978, where his dissertation was on sickle cell disease, and he subsequently spent four years researching aspects of DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health before joining the Lehigh faculty in 1985.[1]

Criticism of evolution

Behe observed:

"There is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations." Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186[2]

Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. [3]

Behe has a skeptical view of the pseudoscientific idea of "common descent":

"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."[4]

It is common for evolutionists to engage in namecalling against Behe, to which he responds:[1]


“ In a way it actually makes me feel good when Darwinists call me names. First, it shows that they are having a tough time coming up with actual arguments against design. It also shows that they aren't the coolly logical persons they would have everyone think they are. ”

Behe's Criticism of the Materialistic Science of Francis Crick

In 1992, the science magazine Scientific American published an interview which explored Sir Francis Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia as a proposed hypthesis for the origin of life on earth.[5] Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following:

“ The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. [6] ”

Peer review of his ideas

During Behe's testimony at the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, opponents of intelligent design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:[7]

Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?
A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.
Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.
Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.
Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?
A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

Critics claim that the peer review for Behe's book was not as thorough as journal peer review, yet fail to make meaningful comparison to the questionable peer review done for pro-evolution papers published in journals.

Behe has recently published a peer-reviewed paper on the observation of evolutionary mutations. Prominent evolutionist Jerry Coyne has praised it, but warned that creationists may draw the wrong conclusions.[8] Behe has responded to Coyne.[9]

Notes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 http://www.post-gazette.com/magazine/20010208behe6.asp
  2. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719
  3. ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm
  4. ↑ Darwin Under the Microscope
  5. ↑ http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis by David P. Woetzel
  6. ↑ http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis by David P. Woetzel
  7. ↑ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177
  8. ↑ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/behes-new-paper/
  9. ↑ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/the_first_rule_of_adaptive_evo041811.html
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michael_Behe&oldid=1105889"