Talk:Irreducible complexity

Peer review claims. inaccuracy in section

The article claims that Behe's notions have been peer reviewed and cites his testimony in the Dover trial as such. However, there are many problems with this (including the fact that Jones found this testimony uncovincing). If one reads further in the transcript for example, one finds the following quote from one of Behe's supposed reveiewers:

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.

I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later.

And then in the next session titled A Blessing Years Later, Dr. Atchison writes, After some time, Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, the Free Press, 1996, was published. It became an instant best seller and was widely acclaimed in the news media.

It is currently in its 15th printing and over 40,000 copies have been sold. I heard about it, but could not remember if this was the same book that I received the call about from the publisher. Could it be?

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.

10 minute telephone calls do not constitute peer review. Of the other claimed reviewers, others suffer similar problems. For example, Morrow, another reviewer, in fact labeled the book as pretty close to worthless and as a result the book was not published by the initial publisher. This does not constitute peer review and to claim otherwise does a disservice to Conservapedia and its readers. JoshuaZ 22:27, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Flaws

Cut from intro:

Such examples have been showed to be flawed, for example precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System. This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways. Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.

This section makes an argument. It would be better if it merely described facts and reported conclusions.

Say, rather, that Dr. A argues that ionic channels serve as precursor's to the flagellum's motor. Verbiage such as shown to be flawed implies that Dr. A's version is correct and that ID proponents are incorrect.

A balanced article would present both sides and draw no conclusions. How about this?

Behe's argument is disputed by Dr. A & Dr. B on the grounds that ...

Can we work together on this? --Ed Poor 09:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

How about this?

It has been argued that such examples are flawed. Kenneth R. Miller, for example, describes precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System. Nick Matzke suggests that this is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; suggesting that of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways. Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Even Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.

WhatIsG0ing0n 09:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

That's better. Please put it back, and let's see if it sticks. --Ed Poor 10:57, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Behe's flawed argument

You do realize that everything Behe says can be flipped around to discredit Christianity/God right? ColinR^talk 01:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Since its inception, opponents have done whatever they can to discredit Christ and Christianity. They said he used demonic power to cast out demons, etc. I doubt that anything a Christian anti-evolutionist says would give an advantage to the the people trying to discredit Christianity or God.

If some Creationists wish Behe would just shut up, I'd like to know more about it. Perhaps it would be material for a broad article on Science and religion. I'm a student of science and also a religious man, hence my interest. --Ed Poor 08:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)