The Science Stories that Failed [Intelligent Design]

Discovery Institue - Evolution News and Views Blog ^ | 4/7/06 | Discovery Institute

[Kenny Bunkport]

The Science Stories that Fizzled (and the one that Might Have Been)

There were three kinds of stories that could have developed from the news that Science magazine released a paper by professors at the University of Oregon's Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology that supposedly falsifies Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity (as an indication of intelligent design). That Science accompanied the paper with an interpretive piece by Christoph Adami of Claremont, underscores the coup Science hoped it had accomplished. What, studying the paper and commentary, should be done with this news?

The first possible story was the one that Science hoped: that finally someone in the science world had done actual research to refute Behe's theory. Hence, intelligent design could be dismissed conclusively as bad science.

Trouble was, in preparing this first story line, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal science writers contacted us and asked for our scientists' reaction. Mike Behe did answer and conclusively. So did Steve Meyer. There was no way thereafter to say that Thornton et al had made a conclusive case.

Both the Times and the Journal ran stories, all right, and there was a tone in both stories that this was important research, but both papers also downplayed it. After all, if it had been a Darwinist knockout punch, it might have warranted the big story treatment. But the fact that the study was very well refuted by Discovery scientists meant that both the Science article claim and our refutation would have to be covered in some detail in any big story. And that would reveal to any objective observer that Thornton, et al, had failed.

The second option, therefore, was the one chosen: run the story, but downplay it. Story one became story two--the minor leagues account.

However, the third way to cover this story--and the superior way if you think that readers have a right to know what actually is going on in the science world--would have been to tell the truth: the Darwinists, having failed to show (despite Judge John E. Jones' contention, following the ACLU, in the Dover case) that ID is "not science", determined to answer it--as science--after all. This finally concedes that Behe and his colleagues have been doing science all along (see also Behe’s essay in Traipsing Into Evolution). So, we now at last see the hope of moving the ID and evolution debate away from Darwinian name calling and motivation mongering and engage it where it deserves to be debated: in science. So, score one for ID.

But, in addition, the fact that the Thornton paper so manifestly fails in its aim to falsify irreducible complexity should alert true science-followers that there not only is a debate going on in science, but that the ID people are winning it. Ten years ago, Behe could not get science journals to let him reply to the captious rebuffs of his critics. Now, days after publication of the tenth anniversary edition of Darwin's Black Box--a tremendously popular book for a science subject, with a quarter million copies in print-- with added material by Dr. Behe, Science magazine has attempted to refute Behe's main scientific contention--and failed.

But does the Oregon Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (with all its public funding) really fail? How would the readers of Science, or the New York Times for that matter, know?

The only way is if the editors of Science invite Behe to reply on their pages. Since they have not been known to be very open to real scientific debate--only ideological assertions--on this topic in the past, we decided to print on our website the replies to the Science article that Dr. Behe and Dr. Meyer gave to the reporters for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Since, reading their resulting articles, you can see for yourself that Behe's and Meyer's points are hardly acknowledged at all, you also can conclude that those publications are as self-referential and fearful of fair debate as is Science itself. Thank goodness for the blogosphere and the 20,000- 25,000 or so of you who follow this site each day!

But, let's hope. Science, the Times and the Journal are edited by human beings and human beings can learn and change their minds. (What human beings do not do, of course, is evolve.)

[Grebrook]

I've never really understood why people want either argument put in public schools. Here's an idea, why don't we strike Darwin and Intelligent Design from school standards, and just not talk about the origins of life, since that's a parents job? We shouldn't be teaching sex education, should we? Why? Parent's rights. Well, we shouldn't teach origins of life, from either a pro-atheist or pro-God viewpoint.

But then again, I hate public school, and I'm all for dismantling it. So who cares anyway.

[js1138]

DI had an opportunity to testify at the Dover trial and chickened out.

[bronxboy]

I don not see why the "scientific" community is so afraid of intelligent design? I wonder if they realize they are stifiling debate the same way the catholic Church did in the middle ages? I am sure they do not see it that way. After all anyone who disagrees with global warming, stem cell research, etc is automatically blackballed and called a nut. The scientific community of today reminds of that old saying that nothing of consequence will be discovered after 1900.

[antiRepublicrat]

This finally concedes that Behe and his colleagues have been doing science all along (see also Behe’s essay in Traipsing Into Evolution)

Not quite. Individual scientific efforts under the mantle of ID can be refuted by science. This doesn't make all of ID science. Archaeological science is used to support religion, so does that mean religion is science?

[Coyoteman]

I've never really understood why people want either argument put in public schools. Here's an idea, why don't we strike Darwin and Intelligent Design from school standards, and just not talk about the origins of life, since that's a parents job?

The theory of evolution concerns what happened to life once it began. What you are talking about is abiogenesis, a whole different field of study. You would be just as close to the mark by criticizing germ theory.

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea. Earlier notions of abiogenesis, now more commonly known as spontaneous generation, held that living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat. (That idea, which has long been known to be incorrect, will be called "Aristotelian abiogenesis" in this article.)

Source: Wikipedia.

[Zeroisanumber]

Here's an idea, why don't we strike Darwin and Intelligent Design from school standards, and just not talk about the origins of life, since that's a parents job?

The Theory of Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origins of life on Earth.

[ventana]

You can cut right to the chase by clicking here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uoregon.edu%2F%7Ejoet%2F&btnG=Google+Search

This lets you see the Science article's author's website, wherein the term Irreducably Complex does not appear.

But you can also click on the cached version, and see that he indeed used to have it in there.

Oops.

[Tribune7]

The Theory of Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origins of life on Earth.

Not everybody agrees with that

[glowworm]

>>This finally concedes that Behe and his colleagues have been doing science all along (see also Behe’s essay in Traipsing Into Evolution)

>Not quite. Individual scientific efforts under the mantle of ID can be refuted by science. This doesn't make all of ID science. Archaeological science is used to support religion, so does that mean religion is science?

There are some aspects of religion that are allegories and some are fact. Archaeology and science is giving day by day information about what is proven fact and what is not. Only the greatest of fools would not admit there are errors of ommission and commission in all religious texts.

In the case of Christian scriptures, for instance, most of the Jewish texts (Old Testament) was accepted ,in blanc, without question, during canonization. Any factual conclusion about ID should eventually become clearer as time progresses, and not more cloudy. In my own view, as a Christian, there is enough facts there to convince me that the Creator did a supreem job.. Science, in my view, is the slow revealing of the wonders of His Intelligent Design..

Peace to all!

[tallhappy]

This Science article is lucicrous in its triviality. Kennedy is pathetic. I doubt he'll last long.

The stupid thing is they now have brought Behe's irreducible complexity in to the realm of peer reviewed discussion.

They legitimized IR with this incredibly silly and trivial study.

[wallcrawlr]

And make sure you also see this thread posted earlier today:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611434/posts

^{Revelation 4:11}Intelligent Design
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info

[LiteKeeper]

Obviously. someone at Berkeley thinks that the study of evolution includes the study of origins.

[LiteKeeper]

Only the greatest of fools would not admit there are errors of ommission and commission in all religious texts.

You are calling the ast majority of evangelical Christians "fools." We believe that the Bible is inerrant, and without error. That it is "theopneustos" - "God-breathed" - that God inspired the writers of Scripture to record history as is, warts and all.

[connectthedots]

We're winning!!

[Coyoteman]

We're winning!!

Not sure if you mean you have more posters on your side on this thread or ID is winning overall, but either way I'll play along with the gag.

Here is some data that is pretty tough to wish away. Enjoy!

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[glowworm]

>>Only the greatest of fools would not admit there are errors of ommission and commission in all religious texts.

>You are calling the vast majority of evangelical Christians "fools." We believe that the Bible is inerrant, and without error. That it is "theopneustos" - "God-breathed" - that God inspired the writers of Scripture to record history as is, warts and all.

I do NOT believe all Christians are uniform and have the same theology and need to spout the same Dogma. I have spent a lot of time studying the scriptures and the Critical data about authorship. I don't insult any sect but think I can freely express MY views.

For instance.. does any real student dispute the Last Chapters of Mark as not being "penned in" to finish the Chapter?. My KJ Bible has a specific NOTATION to this effect.. The worst thing a Christian should do is try to defend "wart-ridden" errors. It gives the Anti God critics all the ammunition they need to discredit all Scripture.

It seems that my Lord & Savior used "fools" a lot of time when it meant following Blind Guides of the religious majority.. who lead Blind Souls straight into a ditch. God Bless..

[Tribune7]

As does Boston College

And the Medical College of Wisconsin

The Chicopee Public School System

Michigan Technological University

etc.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Who is DI? or what?
Thanks.

[js1138]

Discovery Institute.