The Open Letters File

| 105 Comments | 3 TrackBacks

To summarize the recent Open Letters series, some time ago a student of HIV, Ms Smith posted a list of binding sites found in the HIV-1 protein Vpu that contradicted Dr. Behe’s assertion that HIV has evolved no new protein-protein binding sites. Central to this was the demonstration that HIV-1 Vpu had evolved into an ion channel, a viroporin. Over two months later, Dr. Behe wrote a response, which did a disservice to Ms Smith on many levels, most especially by ignoring the key argument about Vpu viroporin. I remonstrated with Dr. Behe about this in an Open Letter. Dr. Behe publishing a series of responses to this open letter, which I responded to post by post as they were published.

As you may realize, Dr. Behe has finally conceded that he was wrong, and Vpu viroporin represents a real example of protein-protein binding. I have suggested that he issue an erratum to this effect, thanking Ms Smith for bringing this example to his attention (and the HIV Vpx duplication, which he also claimed didn’t exist). This is the very stuff of science, we all at some stage support ideas that were wrong, but when we realize they are wrong, we give them up. I thank Dr. Behe for acknowledging his mistake.

Along the way we have also learned that Dr. Behe’s citations don’t actually support his statements in “edge of Evolution”, his estimation of HIV mutation rates and effective population numbers is off by orders of magnitude, and his rationale for excluding viral protein-cellular protein binding has no biological basis (and is inconsistent).

For ease of perusal, I have put the links for all the Open Letters into this one post.

The Original Open Letter, where I protest at Dr. Behe’s treatment of Ms Smith.
An Open Letter Part 2, where I detail Vpu viroporin and point out that Dr. Behe’s references do not support his assertions.
An Open Letter Part 3, where I chide Dr. Behe for his continuing poor treatment of Ms Smith.
An Open Letter Part 4, where I go into more detail about why Dr. Behe’s attempt to exclude certain binding sites is not valid.
An Open Letter Part 5, where I dig even deeper into binding sites, and show why Dr. Behe’s attempt to exclude certain binding sites is not valid in even more detail.
An Open Letter Part 6, where I point out that Dr. Behe’s population and mutation rate estimates for HIV are wrong by orders of magnitude.
An Open Letter Part 7, where I thank Dr. Behe for admitting he was wrong, point out that “impresessedness” is not a biologically valid standpoint, and show that yet another reason for excluding viral protein-cell protein interactions is invalid.

3 TrackBacks

Dear Gentle Readers: At the bottom of this essay, I’m collecting links to reviews of Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution, replies to reviews and so forth. Well, now the burden is off me, and I can devote my book-reviewing time to good books,... Read More

Questions from Stranger Fruit on November 20, 2007 9:06 PM

Have fellows of the Discovery Institute been caught plagiarizing? You decide. Does the Discovery Institute lie? You decide. Does Behe get owned by a grad student? You decide. Bad week for the cdesign proponentsists by the looks of it. Oh,... Read More

The deadline for submission of blog posts for the 2nd Science Blogging Anthology is over. We have received 468 entries (after deleting spam and duplicates - the total was 501) and a jury of 30+ judges has already started reading... Read More

105 Comments

Way to go Ian, execellent job!

An excellent piece of scholarship, sir. We thank you.

Something very unusual happened: having found himself in a corner because of the well substantiated and professionally written Open Letters by Dr. Musgrave, and facing the choice, either to stubbornly continue refusing to admit his mistakes, thus damaging his already seriously damaged reputation even further, or finally admit that the “mere grad student,” and “a woman” bested him, Dr. Behe made a step in a right direction. He admitted that he was wrong. I applaud his admission.

While this may serve to partially repair Behe’s standing in the scientific community, this must be just the first step. To recover the respect of scientists (rather than of ID advocates) Dr. Behe should (besides an apology to Abbie Smith) finally respond to many other critical comments to his pro-ID work, and admit his errors pointed out by a number of critics. One example is my critique of Behe’s treatment of probabilities and complexity (see for example here and here), to which Behe has not been responding for eight years. The above story shows a possible reason for Behe’s ignoring critique such as that I offered: if he likewise simply ignored Abbie’s posts, he would not face the hard choice between admitting his error and defending an indefensible position.

For a scientist with many years of work behind him, Behe’s 35 scientific publications is not a very impressive record. Now Dr. Behe has an opportunity to respond finally to critique such as that I suggested, to admit that his treatment of probabilities and complexity was inadequate, and return to a biochemical lab for a real research instead of writing books aimed at gaining cheap popularity among general population and an acclaim by the ID crowd. That is the only way he may recover a respectable standing in the scientific community.

Congratualtions! Getting Behe to admit that he is wrong about anything is a major accomplishment. We should make sure that this public admission of error is freely available to all who want to see it. We also need to carefully document the lengths that ERV and Ian had to go to in order to get this one grudging admission. Maybe then people will realize that Behe is just as wrong about almost everything else he says as well.

The mere fact that he was wrong about something is not the important thing. As many have pointed out, scientists are wrong about things all the time. The difference is that they are usually not wrong because they made sweeping generalizations in a field they know nothing about and ignored all evidence that contradicted them. They usually admit that they were wrong when the evidence is provided without stooping to name calling and sexist remarks to try to divert attention from the fact that they were simply wrong. One simple rebuttal article is usually enough for a real scientist to admit error, or come up with more evidence in support of his thesis.

The fact that it took this much effort to get Behe to admit that he was wrong about one relatively minor point shows that his arguments are not driven by evidence but by willful ignorance. Why not just admit that this one example was a mistake and that he reaslly isn’t an expert in this particular field? Why not stick to the examples in his own field that have solid evidence … what? … oh, never mind.

Now to get him to admit that he was wrong about saying that the immune system couldn’t have evolved.

He admitted he was wrong, but in a very grudging and ungracious manner.

I must admit I am having second thoughts…I mean what did Behe do really with his apology??

I mean, you basically have a complex mixture of interacting components inside Behe called traits. These were past from his ancestors. He is simply the end result of an endless number of natural interactions which designed the being you see before you. Evolution wise, they guy was incapable of doing anything else, his genes made the apology happenlong before Behe was born, so were probably giving him way to much credit. Do we thank the ATM machine that gives us our money? No we expect it to perform as design based on its original plan, modified through constant improvement as with the intriduction of new models. Proteins do much of the chemical work inside Behes’ cells, so they largely determine what those traits are. But those proteins owe their existence to Behe’s DNA, so that is where we must look for the origins of this apology.

Come to think of it, Behe was barely involved in the apology process, just a speck at the end of a Billion year line leading to the ability to apologize.

Behe’s admission of error doesn’t even count, because he also dishonestly stated that the error was not significant to his thesis, when clearly it was. Behe hasn’t admitted error where it actually counts, in terms of demonstrating to his acolytes that the entire basis of the book is wrong.

Unbelievable. They’re still defending him

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educ[…]iller-trial/

I admit I don’t know much (ok, any!) about this topic, but from what I can read, it looks to me like they’re just picking nits. That sound about right?

What would it take for thos people to finally admit that they (or their chosen representative) was wrong, and a “darwinian” critic was right?

It would be interesting if we could have some kind of substantive historical comparison between Behe’s response to critiques and some other examples of scientists changing their minds about pet theories. I cannot recall who said it, but the notion that long term change in scientific thought requires the passing on of the original proponents of a theory is rather intriguing here. Clearly most scientists are more than willing to change their minds in the face of some good evidence. At the same time most prominent theories due seem to have adherents who cling to the bitter end inspite of evidence nearly everyone else has found more than convincing. I wonder to what extent their is a psychological parallel in the two sets of behavior.

Reynold Hall: What would it take for thos people to finally admit that they (or their chosen representative) was wrong, and a “darwinian” critic was right?

If God were to tell them, “you were wrong, Darwin was right.”

Not only “grudging and ungracious,” but in his 5th and final (?) post, Behe still claims an exception for cellular proteins:

“Cellular proteins must continually exist in a confined space, dense with many other cellular proteins, and so they are normally selected to not bind to most other cellular proteins. In other words, for eons the surfaces of cellular proteins have been honed so as to not interact with almost any other protein in a very concentrated cellular milieu.”

That argument would have had me going 10 years ago, which means that even the subset of his target audience that’s not hopelessly compartmentalized might give him the point on that round. But the overriding point is that, even if there are no good “before and after” examples of cellular protein changes in a eukaryote lineage (thanks to poor fossilization if cellular compounds), Behe is clear that “impressive” mutations (those beyond the “edge”) must have occurred, just by looking at closely related species. So the question everyone should be asking is “Why on earth is he avoiding looking for them and, heaven forbid, testing them?” Even if (combining Dembski’s and Nelson’s admissions) Behe has no “mechanistic theory,” and nothing more than a “bag of powerful intuitions,” he should be able to use his calculations to pinpoint when, and in what lineages, those “i-mutations” occurred. Oh, and be clear whether or not they are indeed “design actuation events.”

Technical refutations are valuable and necessary, but Behe’s complete refusal to elaborate on his ideas, in contrast to his endless elaboration on “Darwinism,” is the most devastating argument against them. Second, or maybe tied, is the refusal of Behe and those IDers who appear to think that “i-abiogenesis” occurs in lieu of “i-mutations” to openly debate their differences, as real scientists do.

I read through some of the critiques and if was rather odd to see them saying of course it could have evolved it’s got all this population to sacrifice to natural selection? What I find intriguing is that they don’t seem to realize that is exactly what has been promoted for years. Given sufficient time populations are able to sample all the sequence space they need to evolve new functions if they are useful. There claim is the equivalent of saying that in the 200+ dimensions of an enzyme there are no connections between associated areas of functions. Considering that humans really struggle to imagine 1 extra dimension. How would one have enough arrogance to believe that I can accurately reason that these kind of connections between different functions don’t exist in sequence space? We’ve already located numerous examples of close contacts in sequence space. It just so happens that all of the different possibilities make it a rather long term problem to work out every detail.

Stanton I think it would be a mistake to say that, because you could not prove to that person that it was not in fact the devil testing their faith.

If God were to tell them, “you were wrong, Darwin was right.”

Naw, wouldn’t make a bit of difference. It is almost impossible to turn a crackpot.

God has already told them not to lie, that commandment of what used to be the 10 commandments. And not to kill either. They lie constantly and occasionally murder those they disagree with.

It’s 400 years after Copernicus, we’ve been to the moon, have robots driving around on Mars, a space probe around Saturn, and a space station in orbit around the earth. 26% of the fundies still believe the sun circles the earth.

Bach Wrote:

Come to think of it, Behe was barely involved in the apology process, just a speck at the end of a Billion year line leading to the ability to apologize.

Of course an alternative would be that the “Designer” deliberately designed him to do everything that he did until he got caught by people who were designed to expose him.

As far as I can tell, the commenters at UD seem to primarily be arguing that this is within the limits of the EoE. For example:

[quote]Don’t fall into Musgrave’s trap of conflating the two examples of minor Darwinian evolution. The whole point is that something like this might be expected to be within the powers of Darwinism for viruses. The problem is that they’re taking the factors surrounding viruses and extrapolating that as somehow providing evidence for higher organisms even though the situation is very different.[/quote]

Bornagain also accuses Ian of dishonesty in his population numbers argument :

[quote]In Musgrave’s attempt to get around Dr. Behe’s hard number of 10^10 for HIV he tries to use the smoke and mirrors of effective population size used in population Genetics. Yet I looked at Behe’ sources in His book and they do in fact take into account the effective population size that is used in population genetics to arrive at there number. So Behe’s number is thoroughly thought out and firm as a rock.[/quote]

Leading to this strong accusation:

[quote]In my opinion this was a desperate attempt at distortion on your part and you should be ashamed to call yourself a scientist, since apparently finding the truth has no meaning for you![/quote]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educ[…]iller-trial/

This “distortion” led bornagain to investigate the binding site that “is so impressed with”:

[quote]From my limited knowledge of the subject, it seems the protein/protein binding site he is so excited about, is actually a additional “refining” protein binding site of the one that actually allowed the HIV to gain access to humans in the first place.[/quote]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educ[…]mment-149133

Apologies for the messed up quotes!

his rationale for excluding viral protein-cellular protein binding has no biological basis (and is inconsistent).

Two deletion mutations sighted. Evolution at work!

There’s some pretty comical comments over at UD. I’ll let the biophreaks handle the relevant content, I just have to note this from “Patrick”:

“The oddball part is that none of these examples have enough informational bits to be CSI.”

And not a calculation in sight, as if we needed another demonstration that CSI was a meaningless catch-phrase used primarily to provide a simulacrum of mathematical legitimacy.

JGW said[#135635]: “There [sic] claim is the equivalent of saying that in the 200+ dimensions of an enzyme there are no connections between associated areas of functions.” ID wonks enjoy painting mental pictures of “hills” in fitness space that can only be traversed through lower-fitness, thus unselectable, “valleys.” In dozens or hundreds of dimensions, however, absolute hilltops are rare to the point of nonexistence. Even if half a dozen dimensions reach a maximum simultaneously, a couple of others are still trending upward. Please, all you biologists, don’t let them get away with this inaccurate 3D oversimplification.

(Don’t overheat your brains with the visualizations. Even the most hardened mathematicians cannot begin to encompass the 196,883 dimensions of the Monster Group.)

“Don’t fall into Musgrave’s trap of conflating the two examples of minor Darwinian evolution. The whole point is that something like this might be expected to be within the powers of Darwinism for viruses. The problem is that they’re taking the factors surrounding viruses and extrapolating that as somehow providing evidence for higher organisms even though the situation is very different.”

So, let’s see, Behe claims that this is something that viruses just can’t do through natural means and therefore he concludes that all of evolution must be wrong. He is shown to be absolutely wrong and the response, well you still haven’t proven that anything else can do this. Bite me. You prove that they can’t.

Mutations occur in all organisms. All organisms undergo selection. What could possibly stop this type of adaptation from happening in any organism given enough time. The evidence is very clear that indeed it has happened many times. Ignoring the evidence is pure ignorance and stupidity.

Behe claimed that if you couldn’t find this type of change in viruses then it would be unlikely that such changes could occur in other organisms. Since he was proven to be wrong, it does not imply by any stretch of logic that anyone has proven that it could not occur in other organisms. Indeed, if it can occur in just a few years in viruses, it is almost inevitable that things like this would occur in other organisms given enough time. No one ever claimed that this proves that it can happen in other organsism, just that the result is consistent with all the other evidence that shows that it in fact did.

When you are proven to be wrong admit it and move on. No one will respect anything else.

Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV.

Doesn’t it sound like one of Dembski’s Notpologies - he’s willing to concede - but doesn’t actually? WILLING to concede that this APPEARS to.… doesn’t outright say it. Still, it’s quite a preparation to concession from an ID creationist.

Could someone please enlighten me as to what, exactly, Behe’s “restricted choice” is? As applied to both HIV and malaria,it sounds an awful lot like variation and natural selection to me. The more I read his retractions and corrections, the more his “theory” changes to sound like Darwinian evolution. Pretty soon, I think he’ll just back himself into a corner and declare that ID and evolution are compatible and he thought of them both. Mendelian geneticists watch out - you’re next I think. Designer genes and all that.

Back to lurking.

Olorin has just inspired the next Cranks Cluedo post. Thanks Olorin!

If I were a Darwinian evolutionist I might suggest that Behe was passed down the apology trait due to males wanting to mate with females, thus they needed the apology trait in order to get the women to agree to mating.

Thus Behe not so much apologized to Ian, but said he wanted to have sex with him.…in an evolutionary sense..

Of course a modern terminology for such an act would be F-ck You! So maybe Behe wasn’t apoogizing after all, just speaking in a language a Darwinian Evolutionist would understand.

I suspect that Bach’s post can be attributed to repressed fantasies.

That incredibly mature mode of thinking Bach is exactly the same kind of sloppy reasoning that somehow twists natural selection into a theory that “demands” Eugenics. It’s OK Bach my school has some opening in it’s 7th grade and we teach both Virtue and Logic.

Typo’s fixed! Thanks folks, I had to write this (and indeed most of the series) late at night after marking exams, so my attention to spelling, even with the help of spell checkers, was not what it could have been.

JGB–

Famous cases of scientists admitting they were wrong include Arthur Smith Woodward’s acceptance of the “Taung Child,” Raymond’s Dart’s skull of a juvenile Australopithicus africanus, as a hominid. It took Woodward a long time, but, fortunately, Dart lived a long time.

Linus Pauling, on the other hand, admitted Watson and Crick’s model of DNA was right and his own was wrong even before Watson and Crick’s paper was published in Nature.

Richard Leakey took longer to admit the date of 2.9 my for the “1470” skull, discovered in 1972, was wrong. The currently accepted date is 1.8 my. But he did back down eventually. (Bornagain, on the other hand, is still using a Leakey quote from the period when Leakey was defending the older date, although I have now corrected him a total of four times!)

Lord Kelvin hedged his bets when he claimed the earth couldn’t be more than some hundreds of thousands of years old, and added something like “unless a completely new form of energy is discovered.” So when atomic energy was discovered, nobody had to say the great man was wrong. They called him “prescient!”

But if you really want an example of a scientist backing down on his pet theory, read Francis Crick’s “What Mad Pursuit.” He practically gloats about some of the things he got wrong. Which may explain why he had such a productive scientific career.

Hats off to Ian Muskgrave’s “open letters” series. You’re a great asset to PT and science in general. And hat’s off to Behe for responding to at least some of the objections.

I hope we see some “open letters” addressed to Dembski and Wells soon regarding the latest version of Pandas.

Oops, I’ll take that “k” back. No sense in wasting a perfectly good “k” (Musgrave/Muskgrave).

trrll Wrote:

ID, in contrast, strives to make its hypothesis as vague as possible, to avoid any possible observational or experimental test. It is this, fundamentally, that identifies ID as religion rather than science.

Ironically that makes ID even more like religion than classic creationism. At least the latter spells out some testable hypotheses regarding the whats and whens, and occasionally engages in healthy YEC-OEC debating. The problem is that, even overlooking how specific creationist hypotheses failed the tests, by the 1980s the mutually contradictory creationist positions were hopelessly deadlocked. That forced at least one “species” of creationism to adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach - even before “Edwards v. Aguillard” forced the hasty relabeling of it as ID.

Hats off to Ian Musgrave’s “open letters” series. You’re a great asset to PT and science in general. And hat’s off to Behe for responding to at least some of the objections.

This is excellent work, and appreciated.

But.

I can’t help thinking that the exchange plays into Behe’s hands to a degree. It’s an example of what Frank J called “the Catch-22 of pseudoscience,” above. Sure, Behe finally capitulates on the factual errors, after a lot of noncommital and irrelevant mumbling. And we understand that it’s not a minor point, that the objection in this case really does go to the heart of Behe’s claims in EoE. But the faithful, by and large unable to follow the argument or understand the import of the errors, just see scientists digging further and further into one specific point until Behe does finally admit error, begrudgingly and without conceding his thesis.

Why Behe still looks good to some is that 1) They don’t see the import of the concession and so can write it off as an inevitable minor error –one that took a great deal of persistance on the part of ERV and Ian (among others) to expose– while continuing to believe that his thesis is viable, and 2) Their hero looks courageous by finally admitting to error. The take-away for the already convinced is: The mean ol’ Darwinistas picked some minor point and hammered it into the ground because they couldn’t refute the larger argument at a fifth-grade reading level and look: our boy Mike is still standing! ‘Tis but a flesh wound!

The take-away for the already convinced is: The mean ol’ Darwinistas picked some minor point and hammered it into the ground because they couldn’t refute the larger argument at a fifth-grade reading level and look: our boy Mike is still standing! ‘Tis but a flesh wound!

That, and Behe hasn’t in the slightest agreed to use the scientific method. All he and his cohorts have to do, under their “standards”, is use some other criticism of “Darwinism”, and supposedly their claims are supported. No need for them to, you know, come up with any evidence for their claims at all.

It’s sort of sad, actually, to fight them at all on their own grounds, even when they’re wrong about something that substantial. It suggests to the “faithful” that, after all, Behe is doing science, it’s just that he was wrong on ‘this one point’ (at these times they become forgiving, for once). So they can just try again using the same pseudoscientific false dilemmas and assertions that (in essence) they have no burden to produce any evidence that design has occurred in life.

Not that it’s a bad thing to show their incompetence even within their own incompetent view of science–indeed it is a good thing. But we can never let up on the fact that even had Behe been right on the details of HIV, that would have done absolutely nothing to bolster ID’s claims to be science.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

CJO Wrote:

The take-away for the already convinced is: The mean ol’ Darwinistas picked some minor point and hammered it into the ground because they couldn’t refute the larger argument at a fifth-grade reading level and look: our boy Mike is still standing! ‘Tis but a flesh wound!

Yeah, we have seen this part of the shtick before.

The reinforcement for this is currently being promulgated with the slick movies and CDs showing many of the beautiful examples of life on this planet. The message: “How can all this beauty be the result of blind, random forces? It must have been designed.”

And, of course, the hint is dropped, somewhere in all this, that those mean ol’ Darwinists have dark, evil minds that are unable to see and appreciate the beauty (and design) around them, so they want to turn everyone else into the ugly beasts that they are.

Pretty, shiny things are designed and appreciated by good people. Evil people like ugly, grotesquely shaped things that are black and produced by chaos.

So the emotional manipulation reaches down to the childish fears in their audience. I’ve seen it done already on one of the religion channels (I think the Coral Ridge Hour).

“evil minds that are unable to see and appreciate the beauty” in the exquisite design of HIV and malaria. Such Philistines we are!

The message: “How can all this beauty be the result of blind, random forces? It must have been designed.”

And never mind that our appreciation of beauty in nature arose so as to appreciate what was already there. If things looked different than they do, we’d have evolved to appreciate that, instead.

Henry

Ironically that makes ID even more like religion than classic creationism. At least the latter spells out some testable hypotheses regarding the whats and whens, and occasionally engages in healthy YEC-OEC debating. The problem is that, even overlooking how specific creationist hypotheses failed the tests, by the 1980s the mutually contradictory creationist positions were hopelessly deadlocked. That forced at least one “species” of creationism to adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach - even before “Edwards v. Aguillard” forced the hasty relabeling of it as ID.

Yes, I think that there was a time when creationism was science, or at least “natural philosophy.” The creationists of Darwin’s day debated such issues as whether a single creation event was sufficient, or whether some form of non-Biblical creationism (e.g. multiple creations) was required for consistency with the evidence. The problem for modern creationists is that all genuinely scientific forms of creationism were well on their way to being rejected based upon experimental and observational data even before Darwin came along to provide a clear explanation for the evolution that was so obvious from the fossil record.

Ravilyn Sanders responded to me, about evolution vs. abiogenesis–

“The way the creationist mind works, “I don’t believe A, nor do I believe in B, so it proves A is identical to B”. In their mind there is really no difference between the theories about the evolution of life, the origin of life or the origin of universe. It is all scientific mumbo jumbo to them.”

That’s undoubtedly true for the creationist rank-and-file, Ravilyn, but for Dembski, Wells, and Luskin, I don’t buy it. I think they know perfectly well that when they conflate evolution and abiogenesis they are twisting words and misleading their audience. In my darkest moments, I even suspect they take a sadistic pleasure in seeing how many lies they can get their trusting supporters to swallow.

Mr Christopher wrote in comment 135750

I hope we see some “open letters” addressed to Dembski and Wells soon regarding the latest version of Pandas.

No, they are not scientists and educators who have beaten up on any graduate students, so no open letters to them. They will get what’s coming to them though. I’m working on a post at the moment. However, such detailed posts take a great deal of my free time, which I could be using to spend with my family, or doing astronomy. Refuting page after page of nonsense gets bone-wearying after a while.

But Dembski and the DI are coming in for a little bit of trouble , which may dwarf my small critiques.

Mike Elzinga wrote in comment 135770

Pretty, shiny things are designed and appreciated by good people. Evil people like ugly, grotesquely shaped things that are black and produced by chaos.

Now, to be fair to Dr. Behe, he addresses this issue head on and concludes that the “designer” does design things that are horrible as well (see especially pages 238-239).

Denying design because it causes terrible pain is a failure of nerve, a failure to look the universe fully in the face.

Dr. Behe does acknowledge that “all things squat and nasty” are the work of the “designer” and departs from many of his ID compatriots in this stance, and we should not lump him in with them.

Now, to be fair to Dr. Behe, he addresses this issue head on and concludes that the “designer” does design things that are horrible as well (see especially pages 238-239).

Understood, Ian. And thanks.

But I was commenting on what some of the rank-and-file churches are still doing on the religion channels.

I suspect they have their own agenda, but they draw from the ID literature and the credits acknowledge the DI’s prepared materials.

Einstein dropped the cosmological constant from his later accounts of relativity. I’d call that a louder admission than any putative “biggest mistake in my life” quotation.

Agreed, William. And thanks for filling in my sloppy omission.

I don’t think Behe would ever say that the immune system could not have evolved. Behe’s approach seems to say that the evolution of the immune system must have been the result of intelligent design at at least one point along the evolutionary path, perhaps at the very beginning.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ian Musgrave published on November 18, 2007 7:16 AM.

An Evolution Prediction was the previous entry in this blog.

sex, lies and a math mistake is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter