Michael Behe On Falsification

_{GilDodgen
December 26, 2006

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the DVD Case For A Creator, in the Q&A section, Michael Behe was asked, How would you respond to the claim that intelligent design theory is not falsifiable?

Behe responded:

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.

Comments

GilDodgen: Yes, you have just pointed to the effective rhetorical strategy of ID. Proponents of ID must be careful never to propose any specific process by which the intelligent designer works. At the same time, they must exploit the willingness of Darwinian theorists to propose a specific process by which evolution works. In this way, the Darwinians assume a heavy burden of proof that they can never satisfy, and the ID proponents win the debate when the Darwinians fail to satisfy that burden of proof. Behe is particularly astute in pursuing this rhetorical strategy.Arnhart_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

How would we know that this was not in fact intelligent design at work, and that what we were observing were the steps in the implementation of the design?
We might not be able to know for sure, but it would be very powerful and persuasive evidence for traditional Darwinian mechanisms.GilDodgen_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs asks a legitimate question: "How would we know that this was not in fact intelligent design at work, and that what we were observing were the steps in the implementation of the design?" The answer is that we wouldn't know absolutely--there is the possibility that the designer wanted to deceive us. But if it happened with "step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations" each functional in its own right, then this would be what the Darwin predicted. Design, though evolutionary as observed in human technology, has saltations and irreducible complexities that Darwin didn't predict. ID is a detection strategy, not a process, as Gil Dodgen says, but one expects those who accept ID to also be interested in the process--did life "evolve" as the Darwinists say, or is human technology the better model?Rude_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen, "ID is a theory of design detection, not process." Exactly, that's what people are not willing to understand. In my view, ID has to aspects. 1- Paradigm, that is we don't deal with nature as if it's a product of a blind watchmaker (and thus we don't say this is "junk DNA") 2- Detecting design, how to know if something is designed.IDist_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Gil writes, "As for Jack Krebs' challenge: If Behe's experiment were performed and a flagellum did evolve by random mutation and natural selection, we could observe the process taking place, and see the step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations. We could identify the survival value of each change in the process and sequence DNA to observe which mutations were responsible for the changes. This would pretty much sink ID." I'm thinking that people are not getting my point. I'm not offering this scenario in order to discuss what would "sink ID." I'm asking a different question: what would see that might be evidence that ID had taken place, not evidence that it hadn't. Let me try a different angle. Suppose we did see, as Gil writes, "the step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations. We could identify the survival value of each change in the process and sequence DNA to observe which mutations were responsible for the changes." How would we know that this was not in fact intelligent design at work, and that what we were observing were the steps in the implementation of the design?Jack Krebs_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Arnhart:
Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria?
ID is a theory of design detection, not process. Darwinian evolution is a theory of process, and it is therefore incumbent upon proponents to demonstrate that the proposed process actually has the creative power attributed to it. As a theory of design detection which makes no claims about a particular process, this same burden of proof does not exist for ID. As for Jack Krebs' challenge: If Behe's experiment were performed and a flagellum did evolve by random mutation and natural selection, we could observe the process taking place, and see the step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations. We could identify the survival value of each change in the process and sequence DNA to observe which mutations were responsible for the changes. This would pretty much sink ID.GilDodgen_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

bfast, thanks... been a while since I read it. It would be nice if evolutionist would test the 20 or so co-opted events too. Isn't 20 or more co-opted events just as magical a dream as any? What are the odds? Has anyone reported on that type of stat? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm thinking I might not sit on the grass because it may co-opt my a&%..., then I'd have yet another lawn to mow.Michaels7_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Bob OH, "bFast (@12) - but you're not using falsification: you're using induction." This is true. While Behe's challenge that the bacterial flagellum is unevolvable is a falsifiable challenge, the fact that there are potentially an infinite number of similar scenerios that could be brought up makes for a position that is not formally falsifiable. On the flip side, though NDE is theoretically falsifiable by demonstrating that there is one feature that is not evolvable, it would seem unfalsifiable in that there are always more possible pathways that could be conceived that might allow the dear thing to have evolved via NDE. Ie, as you said, "falsifiability" at some point breaks down -- no matter which side of the fence you are on.bFast_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

[...] UD has a quote from Behe about falsifiability. This criterion seems to a wandering fragment of scientific methodology doomed to roam behind the wreckages of phil/sci incoherence. Before scotching ID on issues of falsifiability, it should be noted that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is essentially unfalsifiable. Not inherently so, nor in all cases, nor in the final analysis (the eonic effect makes many claims for natural selection in human evolution essentially baseless). If you consider what is being said about natural selection you can see that while it is easy to claim NS is falsifiable, in practice it is very difficult to arrive at the correct data. That’s the reason Darwin’s theory persists ad infinitum. All you is to repeat the claim over and over, and get howler monkeys and Pharyngulas to shout contemptuously at critics, and you have it made. Look at the claim that language is the result of adaptive selectionism. This claim is a very wild generalization, but has never been proven, and disproving it is impossible in the absence of the facts, to say nothing of shouting howler monkeys and Pharyngulas. If we had the facts, we could proceed, but verification/falsification requires an immense field of observations over dozens to hundreds plus generations of organisms over vast fields of geographical existence. So the question of falsifiability is a bit vexed. In fact, looking at the eonic effect, we can see that the thesis is essentially falsified because we can see the real scale and process by which an evolutionary sequence occurs. Look at the Axial Age in light of the issue of language. The sudden flowering of immense literatures almost as if on cue shows the way evolution has its finger in the pie, not just of language emergence, but of advanced linguistic behaviors. That makes Darwinian claims seem a bit speculative. As to ID, very similar criticisms apply directly. Generally, Popper’s criterion has found immense popularity, but his methodology of science is basically incoherent, and his criterion, in any case, has been the object of a considerable critical literature, which never enters the public debate over Darwin. The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that's just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don't expect it to happen, but it's easily falsified by a series of such experiments. [...]Darwiniana » Falsifiability, the eonic effect, and Darwinism_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Jack, linkcrandaddy_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

"Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria?" I will tell you if you tell me what is the size of my shoes I am wearing when typing these designed words.IDist_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Crandaddy writes, " "If we impose the requirement of falsifiablity then it has to be applied equally. How is it possible, in principle, to falsify the RM+NS explanation for the origin of the flagellum? Comment by DaveScot Ã¢â‚¬â€ December 27, 2006 @ 1:18 pm" Dave, I took the liberty of moving your comment to this thread. I hope you don't mindÃ¢â‚¬â€œCrandaddy" I'm confused - where did this comment from DaveScot come from? I don't see it above, and I haven't posted on any other thread lately? But anyway, I'm not discussing falsifiability - other people are having that conversation. I am asking the following questions: Suppose something interesting like the development of a flagellum arises in a population of flagellum-less bacteria in a laboratory setting Could this have happened by ID?, and if so, how would we know? How would we distinguish the hypothesis that exclusively natural processes were involved in the development of that flagellum from the hypothesis that ID was involved. What evidence would bear on answering this question? This is not a falsification question - this is a confirmation question. (FWIW, I agree with those who say that the naive falsification scenario is not very useful. So as far as I can tell, DaveScot's question doesn't have much to do with the specific questions I'm addressing here.Jack Krebs_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Arnhart,
Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria?
Please explain to us why this information is necessary to draw a valid design inference.crandaddy_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

The standard for Darwin and Design are the same. Let's let designers design, and let's let chance and necessity do its thing. I see designers design every day, so far I have not witnessed chance and necessity produce anything close even to Ã¢â‚¬Å“the appearance of designÃ¢â‚¬Â. But you're asking for more than design detection--which is an area where ID should be a fruitful model. In regard to when I suppose we look to the geologic column and one imagines there are also biological indicators, but for how, haven't the ID folks (WmAD for one) been talking about reverse engineering? It's one thing to detect design in the Great Pyramid, it requires other skills to determine just exactly how it was built. By the way--do you think conservatives should disavow the very idea that the Hebrew God of history has interfered in the course of history?Rude_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Arnhart, Does a forensic pathologist have to identify exactly how and when a poison was introduced into a body in order for his finding that poisoning was the cause of death to be accepted? Of course not. It would help buttress the conclusion, but it's not required. Remember that Darwinism is making the sweeping claim that it adequately explains all biological complexity - all - and so there is no need - none - to investigate any role of intelligence. You've obviously read Darwin's Black Box, so you're familiar with what Behe's actual claims are. His claims and those of Darwinism are not symmetrical, so the burden of proof needn't be as reflexively symmentrical as you demand.landru_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Arnhart: "Intriguing as your scenario for intelligent design may sound, critical details are overlooked. The question we must ask of your intelligent design scenario is one for which many proponents of intelligent design have little patience: but how exactly? Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria? " I agree, this IS an excellent question and it does deserve some kind of answer. Though not an "exact" answer, the solution to this question is that the designer created the complete DNA code for the flagella to be fully operational, once instantiated. Whether as a "hidden" subroutine that was eventually activated at the proper time (i.e. front-loaded), or as part of a fully functioning bacterium fully formed (as oponents of common descent might prefer) might be a question answerable in the future, just as close examination of computer code can reveal aspects of the code's orignal design and subsequent evolution.SCheesman_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Jack If we impose the requirement of falsifiablity then it has to be applied equally. How is it possible, in principle, to falsify the RM+NS explanation for the origin of the flagellum? Comment by DaveScot Ã¢â‚¬â€ December 27, 2006 @ 1:18 pm Dave, I took the liberty of moving your comment to this thread. I hope you don't mind--Crandaddycrandaddy_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Bob OH (a) falsification has been pretty much rejected by philosophers of science as a model for science (and, actually, naÃƒÂ¯ve falsification was rejected by Popper in 1933!). Would you agree that if something is neither falsifiable nor verifiable then it's a just-so story?DaveScot_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

In DARWIN'S BLACK BOX, Behe acknowledges that evolutionary biologists can develop scenarios of how evolution could have constructed "irreducibly complex" mechanisms. But this is insufficient, he complains. "Although they might think of possible evolutionary routes other people overlook, they also tend to ignore details and roadblocks that would trip up their scenarios. Science, however, cannot ultimately ignore relevant details, and at the molecular level all the 'details' become critical" (65). After offering an example of an evolutionary scenario, Behe comments: "Intriguing as this scenario may sound, though, critical details are overlooked. The question we must ask of this indirect scenario is one for which many evolutionary biologists have little patience: but how exactly?" (66) Ok, Behe, some might respond, let's apply to you the standards of proof that you apply to Darwinism. Intriguing as your scenario for intelligent design may sound, critical details are overlooked. The question we must ask of your intelligent design scenario is one for which many proponents of intelligent design have little patience: but how exactly? Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria?Arnhart_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

bFast (@12) - but you're not using falsification: you're using induction. The reason for Popper introducing falsification was that induction doesn't work, because the next case could always be the example that actually works. This is particularly so when the hypothesis is that the designer only intervenes occasionally: in order to falsify the design inference you have to show that it doesn't work in any case. Just a couple of personal observations on this: (a) falsification has been pretty much rejected by philosophers of science as a model for science (and, actually, naÃƒÂ¯ve falsification was rejected by Popper in 1933!). (b) I love the idea that the designer would be thoughful enough to give bacteria outboard motors. Sod the science, this is fun! BobBob OH_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Michaels7, not only did Matzke's paper have 20 or so co-option events, but he co-opted a mechanism that appears to have devolved from the flagellum.bFast_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

ooops and I meant to ask, how likely is that?Michaels7_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

If I remember correctly, didn't Matzke's paper have about 20 or so co-option events that must take place?Michaels7_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Chunkdz, My point is that there are people with eyes that cannot see. People with arms and/ or legs they cannot use. IOW just getting the part, eye, arm, leg is not enough to get a functioning eye, arm, or leg. Matzke's argument fails with homology and homoplasy. Most often one is favored over the other "just because". And you are right- even homologous proteins do not mean a bac flag can be self-assembled.Joseph_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Jehu #14 Pretty good summary of the situation. Of course we could easily add a number of major points, but we shouldn't have to. Joseph #21, "This debate is about intelligent design vesus the materialistic alternative of sheer-dumb-luck." Fine enough. If a phenomenon can be reasonably accounted for by sheer-dumb-luck, then the appropriate conclusion to come to. Jack Krebs #22: "It seems to me that such a statistical analysis would be staggeringly complex and involve data that we could possibly gather." Possibly not. If we knock out an entire gene, and a new one has taken its place, the gene must have come from somewhere. If we find that a gene duplication happened, we should be able to trace where the source gene that got duplicated came from, etc. If an incalculable phenomenon happened, our experiment would hardly have proven NDE. However, what if a calculable handful of mutations happened? What if the calculations suggest that chance mutational events, within our pool of bacteria, could reasonably account for it? In this case, we should conclude that NDE is supported in our experiment.bFast_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Mats, "but NDE wins easily on the philosophy department" That one made me laff out loud. Thanks!mike1962_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
And I will say it again- with the bac flag as with all appengages, systems and subsystems, just their existence is not enough. They all still require some sort of command and control in order to be any use to the organism. Without C&C they are a waste of materials and energy.
Good point, Joseph. One that needs to be hammered home. Matzke argued that since the chemotaxis mechanism is used in other systems within the cell that it could have been coopted to be used by the flagellum. What he fails to elucidate is HOW this occured. Or HOW the assembly mechanism evolved at the same time the binding sites were moving. So far the argument seems to be "homology proves that it evolved", but if you focus on the details of assembly and control, the complexity of it all absolutely overwhelms the explanatory power of the neoDarwinian synthesis.chunkdz_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬Å“How about the second part of Behe's comment, that proposed Darwinian mechanisms are highly resistant to falsification?Ã¢â‚¬Â That's what caught my eye. I think Behe is spot on with this one. How do you falsify blind watchmaker evolution? It predicts everything and nothing all at once. If it happened, it's evolution. If it didn't happen, it's evolution. Evidence is found which contradicts the theory, and stories are simply invented to get around the evidence. Why? Because it couldn't have happened any other way. The only way Darwinism is going to go away is some type of earth-shattering observation, like a flagellum developing from scratch given certain environmental conditions, as discussed here.shaner74_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

To Jack Krebs, I would say ID would be a reasonable inference in Dr Behe's scenario if and only if every (or almost every) subsequent generation contained a mutation/ mutations that were required to re-construct the bac flag that was originally messed with. And I will say it again- with the bac flag as with all appengages, systems and subsystems, just their existence is not enough. They all still require some sort of command and control in order to be any use to the organism. Without C&C they are a waste of materials and energy. And yes, something tells the bac flag to rotate CW, CCW and at what speed. Then it also has 'stop', so it won't burn out and won't just swim by the food. Did I mention it can by rotating CW, and in a 1/4 turn, stop and rotate CCW? Command & ControlJoseph_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬Å“There are Darwinists on various debate forums lately claiming that Behe has left the ID camp and has gone to NDE." Behe's new book is coming in summer. check here: http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206 "In this tour de force of evidence and logic, Michael Behe draws on the most extensive and detailed genetic studies available - - concerning the genomes both of human beings and of our worst diseases, especially malaria - - to reveal a stunning fact: Darwin's theory of common descent is decisively proven, but his mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is woefully, irrefutably insufficient to account for the evolution of life on earth. With The Edge of Evolution, the theory of intelligent design finally has its masterwork, a comprehensive scientific statement that draws the line between random and non-random mutation in nature; defines the principles by which Darwinism evolution can be distinguished from designl fits design theory together with the findings of cosmology, chemistry, and physics into an overarching theory of the universe; and lays out a research program, with predictions, to counter the failed predictions of Darwin's enthusiasts. The Edge of Evolution is certain to be one of the most controversial books of science published in years. Critics have dismissed design theory as mere disguised creationism, and claimed that it is unscientific and/or just another "God of the gaps" argument, yet they cannot say the same about Behe's new work. Studies of DNA have revealed the various types and rates of mutation. That information, combined with population sizes, makes it possible to define the mathematical limits of Darwinism - - and they are radically circumscribed. Extrapolating from studies of malaria, E Coli, HIV, and the human genome, to the entire history of life on earth, proves that random mutation plays only a minor role in evolutionary change."IDist_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next