Not for the faint of heart: the continuing dismemberment of Michael Behe

Thanks for the link!

This quote from Rodney Caston's blog appeared right below this post in my RSS reader, and strikes me as truly describing the ID argument:
A poorly constructed argument is like a piano in need of tuning, even if you hit all the right notes; it still will sound flat.

In Darwin's Black Box, he posited that genes for modern complex biochemical systems, such as blood clotting, might have been "designed billions of years ago and have been passed down to the present ... but not 'turned on'." This is known to be genetically impossible because genes that aren't used will degenerate, but there it was in print.

— Sean Carroll

A designer wanting to front-load the evolution of life need not have inserted useless genes... in a unicellular organism, where mutations would erase them in a few million years. Instead, the designer could have designed genes that could be adapted to multiple functions, so that a gene could serve one function in a unicellular organism and another in a multicellular organism. Flexibility - not micro-managing - is the key.

— Krauze

The irreducibly complex biochemical systems that I have discussed in this book did not have to be produced recently. It is entirely possible, based simply on an examination of the systems themselves, that they were designed billions of years ago and that they have been passed down to the present by the normal processes of cellular reproduction. Perhaps a speculative scenario will illustrate the point. Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not "turned on." In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.) Additionally, suppose the designer placed into the cell some other systems for which we cannot adduce enough evidence to conclude design. The cell containing the designed systems then was left on autopilot to reproduce, mutate, eat and be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer the vagaries of life on earth. During this process, pace [Ken] Miller, pseudogenes might occasionally arise and a complex organ might become nonfunctional. These chance events do not mean that the initial biochemical systems were not designed. The cellular warts and wrinkles that Miller takes as evidence of evolution may simply be evidence of age.

a-- Are we supposed to believe that 'used' means something different from 'turned on'? If by 'turned on' Behe meant genes which are coded into proteins in the cell (or, in a minority of cases, coded into RNA for some other use than making proteins) then Sean Carroll quite properly made the point that genes which aren't 'turned on' will not be subject to natural selection, and will thus degenerate due to mutations.
If by 'turned on' Behe meant something other than 'coded into proteins or at least RNA' then Behe owes not only Carroll but the entire scientific community a huge apology for wasting their time with sloppy, inaccurate writing. The only thing you should blame Sean Carroll for is possibly giving Behe more credit than he deserves.

Everyone is missing the really big story in Behe's new book.

As I have indicated on my blog, he concedes so much to Darwinian science--the limited power of natural selection working on random mutation, common descent, the evolution of the human species from primate ancestors shared with chimpanzees, the rejection of Biblical creationism as "silly," and a move towards theistic evolution--that the Discovery Institute is going to regret sponsoring and promoting this book. As soon as people have a chance to read this book carefully, they will see that this is a big defeat for "scientific creationism" that subverts the moral and religious agenda of the Discovery Institute. After all, Behe even questions the goodness and omnipotence of the intelligent designer in deliberately creating malaria!

How exactly did Carroll "misrepresent" Behe?

Behe clearly wrote that the "designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not 'turned on.'"

The entire "designs" were inactive, not just the genes. Sounds to me like Behe envisioned the genes for these systems having no prior function before they were "turned on" at a later time.

a -

If Carrol said something wrong, which I am not convinced of, it doesn't make Behe right.

Putting that aside, can you explain to me, in your own words, how, physically, (including reference to supernatural intervention if you wish), a "complex biochemical system" could be "present" but not "turned on", without mentioning "genes"? Please be as detailed as possible. Describe which biochemical system you refer to, and exactly how it is physically "present but not turned on" in some lineages.

Before you start, let me tell you that mainstream scientists are aware of many regulated systems, for example, the lac operon of E. coli. But such systems are nearly always "turned on" or "off" through regulation that ultimately impacts on gene regulation.

Wow. Behe has really gone off the deep end with his new book. But at least he answers some questions left over from his first. For example, "When did a designer intervene in the development of life?" Well, apparently it's been doing this practically all the time if it has to oversee the modification of any change involving >2 specific nucleotides. For the number of species on the planet and their rate of appearance, we might expect to see one or two interventions happening somewhere within our lifetimes.

Also, this suggests a further elaboration of what constitutes a 'minimal' IC system: Any system requiring >2 interacting changes with each change representing at least a single nucleotide. So, one needn't see two whole, tightly interacting proteins being formed de novo but simply greater than two amino acid changes in pre-existing ones.

Clarissa-- You're in need of medical help. Talk to somebody soon, and don't worry whether they accept God and/or evolution. Just make sure they have a degree from a real school.

Clarissa: Kansas citiznes for scientism has banned EVERY member of our group. I have confusion and my liver is swollen, Boredrs threw me out but they quit serving diet colas anyway

Clarissa's back? Wasn't PT supposed to have banned Clarissa/Grady/Emanuel?

Behe insisted that he accepted common descent, though, and acknowledged all this evidence that, for instance, chimpanzees and humans are related by common descent, while saying that it was impossible for them to have evolved naturally from one to the other.

Note to Frank: Read a little more of the article before asking questions.

It seems that, despite his concession of common descent that he is trying to throw a bone to YECs and OECs by at least putting Genera in the "gray area," thus allowing a possibility for intervention to Homo. He does put Phyla safely in the "designed" category, which should please Stephen Meyer, because his only claim to fame in terms of peer-reviewed "ID research" is incredulity about the Cambrian explosion. And that too doesn't specifically deny common descent or propose an alternate mechanism of phylum origin.

Of course, by any reasonable definition we have observed species change in real time, so Behe is clever enough to leave that out of the equation. Interestignly, that means that Adam and Eve could have been a different species. But if YECs and OECs can overlook common descent, I guess they could add that to their denial.

Isn't Behe's "Black Area" in his niftly little racing stripe pretty much like Oolon Coluphid's use of the babelfish? "It proves you [God] exist, therefore you don't. QED."

Behe wrote that designs (irreducibly complex biochemical systems) were not "turned on", but Carroll quoted him as saying, that genes were not "turned on".

I'll help you.

Another review for your reading pleasure:

http://tispaquin.blogspot.com/2007/06/wheels-off-wagon.html

So much to read, so little time.

Just caught Larry Arnhart's interesting comment above, and since I enjoy his writing, will check it out. Whetever the specifics of Behe's claims, it sure sounds like the DI can't go on indefinitely trying to have it both ways.

Putting that aside, can you explain to me, in your own words, how, physically, (including reference to supernatural intervention if you wish), a "complex biochemical system" could be "present" but not "turned on", without mentioning "genes"? Please be as detailed as possible. Describe which biochemical system you refer to, and exactly how it is physically "present but not turned on" in some lineages. Before you start, let me tell you that mainstream scientists are aware of many regulated systems, for example, the lac operon of E. coli. But such systems are nearly always "turned on" or "off" through regulation that ultimately impacts on gene regulation.