Michael Behe On Falsification

_{Gil Dodgen

December 26, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

How about the second part of Behe's comment, that proposed Darwinian mechanisms are highly resistant to falsification?GilDodgen_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

how can Behe still be using that example? if a flagellum (or other functionally irreducibly complex structure) developed under his conditions, how would it refute (falsify) design? It wouldn't falsify frontloading! It wouldn't falsify intervention by supernatural God! and so onrb_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Could Common Descent happen in the lab? Is there a Common Descent hypothesis that Common Descent can happen in the present moment, in small ways, and is likely to be happening as we speak someplace in the world, or are all Common Descent hypotheses about distant events in the place?Joseph_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, As an after thought you ask in 22, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Could ID happen in the lab? Is there a ID hypothesis that ID can happen in the present moment, in small ways, and is likely to be happening as we speak someplace in the world, or are all ID hypotheses about distant events in the place?Ã¢â‚¬Â If youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re asking whether the designer of life as we know it will create on command from usÃ¢â‚¬â€in the labÃ¢â‚¬â€then no, I suspect not. But the beauty of ID is that we are designers par excellence. We can not only design, we can study the process. Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot be observedÃ¢â‚¬â€itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s only a hypothesis about events in the unobservable past. Some folks are disturbed when we compare Ã¢â‚¬Å“the appearance of designÃ¢â‚¬Â in living things with the design found in man made things. They say itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a category mistake. And so they argue from ignorance: Because we were not there when the designer designed we cannot call it designÃ¢â‚¬â€it is therefore chance and necessity of the gaps. But then what do I know Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ might we be able to observe design in the lab? Perhaps just as the growth and development of life on the planet is not subject to a materialist explanation, so also the growth and development of an embryo might not be subject to a purely materialist explanation. I guess what Behe is saying is that if chance and necessity can be shown to do the job then ID is falsified--there would be no need to invoke design. I suppose the opposite would be true as well--if we could actually observe the Designer at work then there would be no reason to chalk it all up to pure dumb luck.Rude_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs: I wonder if the question you're asking is really this: how can we distinguish ID from NS? IOW, per an inversion of Behe's comments posted by Jehu, if the flagellum is ID, the system producing it is ID. By an iterative process, the process producing the flagellum is ID, etc. Finally, we would have to say that everything is pre-programmed, or "front loaded", and that what ensues in fact ensues because of the ID present at the highest level/deepest core of the the developmental program. Hence, if the flagellum developed, once knocked out, then how is it possible to distinguish this process from a purely NS driven one since it would look like a "natural" development? My answer to that would be the following: If you "knock out" the genes that are required, I don't believe you could any longer call the system "front-loaded". Hence, if the flagellum were to develop, the sensible conclusion is that NS brought it about. There are two levels of complication to this answer that remain. One is: does the fact that the flagellum developed after being knocked out simply mean that there is a 'restorative function' built into this "front loaded" genome? But this possibility is low, if not nil, since if this were the case, then one would only have to look at a population of bacteria in which, for some mechanical reason, the flagellum was broken off/torn off and where the bacteria 're-grew' the flagellum. It seems to me if that were the case, we would have heard about by now since the Darwinists would have used that as a case against ID. The other complication has to do with how we see the Designer working. If we take a sort of Deist position, or a Platonist position a la Denton, then we would say everything is "front-loaded" and there you have it: everything necessary is present and it simply 'unfolds'. If, OTOH, you take something like the PEH, one can see the Designer as being the one who intervenes in bringing about chromosomal changes. Now this all becomes a case wherein the degree, or-- perhaps better stated-- the heirarchical locations of "front-loading" are thrown into doubt since this 'rearrangement' results in a different type of "front loading". This, then, further complicates the first complication since it is possible to argue that the development of the flagellum is at a level/location below that of the last "front-loaded" program level. In response to this scenario, I would argue that if this is, indeed, the way that "front loading" operates, then it would seem that other seemingly IC systems might also be "at a level/location below that of the last "front-loaded" program level"; hence the absence of a general phenomena would be contra-positive of ID.PaV_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Back up in comments 4 and 6 I asked some questions that only bfast has responded to, even though they were pretty directly related to the point Behe was making in the opening quote: if a flagellum were to arise in a population of bacteria which had had there original "knocked out", how could we determine whether that flagellum arose exclusively by natural causes or whether intelligent design was involved. That is, is ID something that could happen in the present in the lab? and if so, how could we know? Bfast then said,and I agree with this, that this answer would depend on which ID hypothesis (he used the word "sub-theory") one were entertaining. Then, in comment 8, bfast wrote, "I would suggest that if statistical analysis of the chance events that had to have happened calculate out, I would be content to conclude that random processes produced a flagellum." I'll note first that this doesn't address the positive question of how would we know that ID was involved, other than implying the general ID position that if the odds of something happening naturally are too small, then ID is inferred. But, with all that, let me followup on this quote from comment 8: Question: given Behe's hypothetical lab situation, what kind of statistical analysis could you do to show that "the chance events that had to have happened calculate out?" It seems to me that such a statistical analysis would be staggeringly complex and involve data that we could possibly gather. You have billions of bacteria, a sizeable proportion of which are undergoing cell division every minute, and thus billions of opportunities for genetic change. You also have billions of "survival moments" going on all the time (presuming the bacteria are in a environment where there is some selective advantage for motility and in which resources are scarce enough that some reasonable proportion of bacteria don't survive.) Taking the two of things into account over an extended period of time (let us say a few years) creates a probability tree of immense complexity. Is this analysis feasible? Could / would a ID proponent in the above scenario be able to do this in order to show that the event in question was improbable enough to infer ID? ======================================================== However, I'd also like to point out that this train of thought deflects us from my original question. Could ID happen in the lab? Is there a ID hypothesis that ID can happen in the present moment, in small ways, and is likely to be happening as we speak someplace in the world, or are all ID hypotheses about distant events in the place?Jack Krebs_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

bFast: To some extent, I think that science must bias towards the Ã¢â‚¬Å“natural causesÃ¢â‚¬Â expanation. Both intelligence and design are natural. This debate is about intelligent design vesus the materialistic alternative of sheer-dumb-luck.Joseph_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Chris Hyland: You actually have to show how ID explains this better than evolution. But ID is NOT anti-evolution. IOW your sentence is incorrect. A more correct way to say what you did is: You actually have to show how ID explains this better than the blind watchmaker. Also is Jack Krebs suggesting there isn't any way to objectively test the materialistic anti-ID position? That should mean we have to remove it from science classrooms...Joseph_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

More from Dr Behe:
]Ã¢â‚¬Å“CoyneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the Ã¢â‚¬Å“acid testÃ¢â‚¬Â on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry HallÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of ScienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: Ã¢â‚¬Å“However, structures and processes that are claimed to be Ã¢â‚¬ËœirreduciblyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ complex typically are not on closer inspection.Ã¢â‚¬Â (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22) Now, one canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have it both ways. One canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable. In fact,[I] my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal.[/I] Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven. How about Professor CoyneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.Ã¢â‚¬Â
(bold added)Joseph_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

It is a pity no one answered Jack Krebs #6. I have never seen an ID supporter attempt to answer this and yet it goes right to the heart of the problem. Unless you say something about how ID is implemented then any set of events is compatible with it.Mark Frank_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

There are Darwinists on various debate forums lately claiming that Behe has left the ID camp and has gone to NDE. It sound like they are conflating Behe's long expressed belief in common descent with a rejection of ID. They aren't the brightest bunch. Behe has a sequal to DBB coming as has been pointed out.tribune7_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Ill take just one example: "Evolution of Singel Cell Organisms ID again carries the day because an honest look at the evidence shows no indication of phylogeny." You actually have to show how ID explains this better than evolution. You can't just say evolution can't explain this therefore ID.Chris Hyland_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Yes, Mike Behe is simply right.klauslange_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

Jehu, ahh, but NDE wins easily on the philosophy department! Beat that!Mats_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

Here's how I see the score card. First Cause of Matter. ID wins easy because material causes cannot cause mater itself. Therefore, a non-material cause is necessary to explain the existance of matter. Fine tuning of physical laws. ID wins because the probability of laws that allow life arising by chance are so low as to be impossible. The Big Bang, Another easy ID win because it is really the sum of the previous two. Fine tuning of the earth Easy ID win because again, all of the conditions necessary to life that are found on earth are so improbable by chance that design is more probable. Origin of Life ID wins on this so easy it is not even funny. Life is IC. Evolution of Singel Cell Organisms ID again carries the day because an honest look at the evidence shows no indication of phylogeny. Evolution of Complex Organisms ID wins. Why? Two words: "Cambrian Explosion." Fossil Record of Complex Organisms ID wins because of the absence of transitional fossils and stasis. I could go on but it is late. I see ID as way ahead of NDE. There might be some areas where NDE makes a good argument but I haven't seen one in so long that it is not coming to me right now.Jehu_{December 27, 2006
December
12
Dec
27
27
2006
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

"TheyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re probably just having seizures of denial.. the violent opposition to truth phase is taking a toll on their psyches." I've been debating Darwinists/atheists for many years and it actually does seem to me that their reasoning capacities have gone done over the past years. I've never seen such an inability to reason from A to B to C before. Nor such a clear failure to understand or even discern simple logical implications. I'm wondering if their relativist stance has some sort of neurological logic breaking tendency and is thus draining away their ability to critically analyse logical arguments clearly. Strange.Borne_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

Bob OH, in post #1, paragraph 2 I suggested that exactly that would happen. However, after plan A, plan B and plan C were to be falsified, it would cause many, including me, to question IC beyond first life. First life, on the other hand, remains firmly in the domain of "unexplained by science".bFast_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

To follow on from Jack's questioning, if someone carried out the experiment, and showed the flagellum evolving, why couldn't ID supporters just rely by saying "OK, so the flagellum wasn't designed. But system X was". As I understand it, Behe's position is that a lot of systems do evolve through natural selection, it's only a few that have to be designed. Anyone care to comment? BobBob OH_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

ps. They're probably just having seizures of denial.. the violent opposition to truth phase is taking a toll on their psyches.JGuy_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

"There are Darwinists on various debate forums lately claiming that Behe has left the ID camp and has gone to NDE. Anyone know anything about this? " - Borne I doubt that very much. If that were true, he would look pretty silly considering his sequel to 'Darwins Black Box' is due to be coming out next year.JGuy_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

To some extent, I think that science must bias towards the "natural causes" expanation. I would suggest that if statistical analysis of the chance events that had to have happened calculate out, I would be content to conclude that random processes produced a flagellum.bFast_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

I've got to learn to edit before I post: I meant "2. On the other hand, at the far end of the spectrum, I would NOT think that the front-loading hypotheses would have much bearing on this event,..."Jack Krebs_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Thank bfast. You write, :However, even if we did see a flagellum develop, it would challenge IC, but would not necessarily challenge other ID hypotheses such as PEH or front-loading. Alas, this is why ID in general cannot be falsified, only the sub-theories developed from the ID framework can be." Even if we saw things happen step-by step in the broad sense of seeing various stages of the development of the flagellum at different places in a sequence of many generations, what could we see or not see that would help us decide whether exclusively natural processes were the cause, or whether ID had been involved? What type of evidence in this case might help one decide if some form of ID had actually happened in the lab? As you point out, answering this question would depend on what "sub-theory" of ID one were entertaining - you mention three, but there are others. So let's try to think more specifically here, to flesh out this exercise: what are various possible sub-theories, and how would each address this question of whether we might have witnessed ID in the lab? Let me start: 1. If if one generation every child bacteria suddenly had a fully functioning flagellum where once there was none, that would be very strong evidence for the "poof" model of ID. 2. On the other hand, at the far end of the spectrum, I would think that the front-loading hypotheses would have much bearing on this event, as the front-loading was originally activated billions of years ago. (I may be wrong about this conclusion - perhaps a front-loading advocate would like to offer his thoughhst.) 3. In the middle somewhere is the "intervention by an intelligent agent" sub-theory. In this case, one could certainly argue that the intelligent agent decided to interven, maybe slowly over many generations, to bring a flagellum about. What evidence might or might not support this hypothesis?Jack Krebs_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, if we were able to observe a flagellum develop in a bacteria, we would likely see it do so step by step. If not, if it suddenly did a "poof" and had a fully functioning flagellum, well that would cause a stir. However, even if we did see a flagellum develop, it would challenge IC, but would not necessarily challenge other ID hypotheses such as PEH or front-loading. Alas, this is why ID in general cannot be falsified, only the sub-theories developed from the ID framework can be.bFast_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

Here is a serious question, and the quote from Behe gives me an opportunity to ask it: Behe writes, "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." Let me suppose for the sake of argument that someone were to do this, and in fact sometime along the line the bacteria would develop a flagellum. How would we know that intelligent design was not the cause of that flagellum arising? Why could we not argue that we had witnessed a case of intelligent design in action?Jack Krebs_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

That would be bigger than Antony Flew if true.shaner74_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

There are Darwinists on various debate forums lately claiming that Behe has left the ID camp and has gone to NDE. Anyone know anything about this?Borne_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

I really think that suggesting that ID = irreduceable complexity is a bit of a stretch. To suggest that irreduceable complexity is the irrecuceable complexity of the bacterial flagellum is also a stretch. It is perfectly obvious that Behe's view that the flagellum could not have been produced via the neo-Darwinian process is falsifiable. However, if the flagellum was falsified, I have no question that other IC challenges would arise to replace it. It would probably take the destruction of a half-dozen to a dozen of such IC claims to cause Behe and those of similar bent to abandon the hypothesis. However, that is also not an infinite challenge. Of course the greatest single challenge of irreduceable complexity remains to be the challenge of first life. On this topic, science seems to be very far from having found a solution. Until a reasonable path from molecules through DNA can be found, and a demonstrable path to self-reproducing molecules in concievable prebiotic conditions, this will remain to be an unscaleable mount improbable. I remember trying to play simple "what if" games with Matzke over on TT. I used the unexpected results found in the human HAR1F gene as my test case. (The human HAR1F differs from the chimps by 18 base pairs, thought the chimp's HAR1F differs from the chicken's by 3.) In the context of a real genetic challenge to NDE, Matzke could not even put himself into the hypothetical position of having the "theory" challenged. I, therefore, have come to the conclusion that for many evangelists of NDE, the "theory" is as falsifiable as the virgin birth.bFast_{December 26, 2006
December
12
Dec
26
26
2006
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply