Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

Update from Robert Wright, editor-in-chief of Bloggingheads.tv, Aug. 30: This diavlog has now been re-posted. The decision to remove it from the site was made by BhTV staff while I was away and unavailable for consultation. (Yes, even in a wired world it's possible to take yourself off the grid. Here's how I did it.) It's impossible to say for sure whether, in the heat of the moment, I would have made a decision different from the staff's decision. But on reflection I've decided that removing this particular diavlog from the site is hard to justify by any general principle that should govern our future conduct. In other words, it's not a precedent I'd want to live with. At the same time, I can imagine circumstances under which a diavlog would warrant removal from the site. So this episode has usefully spurred me and the BhTV staff to try to articulate some rules of the road for this sort of thing. Within a week, the results will be posted, along with some related thoughts on the whole idea behind Bloggingheads.tv, here.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

PZ Myers reviews "The Edge of Evolution" in two parts: Part I, Part II.

Excerpt from the latter:

"Out of outrage" pretty well sums up my feeling that Behe has been given a platform by Bh.tv. There was a time when I would have expanded upon how appalled I am at such a choice; now, I know it's not worth the bother.

I've listened to a few seconds of this diavlog, enough to hear John McWhorter call Behe's nonsense "a very important book." I can't remember the last time I lost so much respect for someone so quickly. [Added: I'm reminded of the last line of the excerpt I posted last night.]

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Ye gods.

From Kitzmiller v. Dover
 

Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Just some starting context for Professor Behe's views:

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Am I missing something? I mean I love John McWhorter but wouldn't Sean Carroll, John Horgan, PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, Neil Shubin, George Johnson, Bob Wright etc., been more appropriate interviewers? Or would none of them do it?

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

McWhorter says in the opening moments that he initiated this. Blame's all his.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

I'm betting Behe wouldn't be available for debate with most of the people on that list.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

PZ excerpts Ken Miller's review of Behe's book.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Richard Dawkins's review of Behe's book.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Jerry Coyne's review (PDF) of Behe's book. [Added: HTML version found.]

[Added] Also, Jerry Coyne's review of Behe's earlier book, Darwin's Black Box.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

My respect for McWhorter is diminished by this. Behe has been refuted soundly and repeatedly (see the Dover case, e.g., or specific arguments against "Irreducible Complexity".)

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright review a paper Behe coauthored in 2004.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

The TalkOrigins FAQ page on Behe and "irreducible complexity."

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Grab the popcorn: this is bound to be a good thread.

(Doubtful I'll actually watch the diavlog.)

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

The reception so far:

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...s/lynchmob.gifhttp://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...s/lynchmob.gifhttp://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...s/lynchmob.gifhttp://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...s/lynchmob.gif

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Heh. (This is in reference to a Behe paper mentioned as a prior to this paper.)

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Mark C. Chu-Carroll's review of "The Edge of Evolution."

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Blake Stacey has gathered up a bunch more links related to "The Edge of Evolution." And I do mean a bunch. Great effort.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Nick Matzke (via PZ) looks specifically at Behe's malaria claims.

two ways a skunk could evolve
 

consider two male proto skunks fighting. Both skunks are equal. Winning the fight or achieving a draw allows the skunk to live another day. Even emitting a slight smell during the fight could drive off the attacker because all other factors are equal. Over generations the smelly skunk gets more odorous and is increasingly able to survive skunk on skunk fights.

the 2nd way for the smell to evolve is for the proto skunk to have a 2nd trait that gives it a competitive advantage. Over generations, for every slight decrease in competitive advantage of the 2nd trait, the skunk gains an equally slight increase in its ability to emit an offensive odor.

Re: This is
 

Points for self-referentiality: 10/10.

Re: Hoping (Hopey)
 

It always comes back to kidley's racism, in the end.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Those guys are adorable.

Re: TERRIFY
 

No, kidley. I am not "terrified." I'm merely sick of religious nonsense being given such a privileged position, especially when it attempts to pose in scientific clothing that has been unanimously rejected by people who actually know what they're talking about.

Keep rooting for wingnuttery for wingnuttery's sake, though. At this point, you've got nothing left to lose.

Re: Welcome
 

Well, John, you've gained kidneystones as a fan to replace the loss of me. I hope that makes you happy.

Re: Welcome
 

That's OK. John has a new fan in me as well. Hi John! Thanks for the wonderful and enlightening interview with Professor Behe!

Re: TERRIFY
 

Feh. You posted a series of citations specifically on topic intended to refute an argument. Kidney posted a few oddly formatted, ... what, I don't have a noun, ... a set of posts that add up to an irrelevant ad hominem argument; one that he's repeatedly made to no apparent effect, up 'til now. The juxtaposition speaks for itself.

BOB MAKE IT STOP
 

Oh, my god. It wasn't enough to have that first Discovery Institute guy on, now you have to get Michael Behe? In my opinion, the most basic criterion for being on bloggingheads is that you should be at least interesting if nowhere near right. Seriously, blow your "irreducible complexity" out your ass. What a useless discussion.

schism! new site!
 

We've got a few programmers among us (including me). I bet we could crowd-source a new site. It can't be that hard! It's not like we need to FedEx cameras around the world to do this. We can match what Bob's paying his talkers. We could even get bjkeefe and kidneystones to moderate. :)

If this creationism thing keeps up no one will want to be on bhtv anymore. A spinoff site is better than no site for us regular viewers.

Who's with me?

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Its a bit sad for someone who claims to use a scientific background and approach to continue making the claim that certain biological structures and processes are "irreducably complex" and that no attempts have been made in scientific literature to explain their development when the literature does in fact explore their development.

On the other hand, even if nobody had yet studied these structures and developed theories as to how they developed, jumping from that to the claim that "these are complicated and we don't yet understand their development so it must be magical creation" would remain mighty unpersuasive. Its a bit strange that John McWhorter finds that argument compelling and interesting.

I'm a bit more interested in why one should consider complexity evidence of magic. Why not elegant simplicity? Why should a magically created flagellum have or need components? Why should a cell have or need complex components and structures rather than just magically working?

Re: BOB MAKE IT STOP
 

And when did McWhorter decide he was a scientific expert? What is up with all of his assertions about what's plausible and what's not in molecular biology? Does he really think he could go toe to toe with Dawkins, or PZ, or ERV?

Why has McWhorter decided that this ridiculous charlatan, with a long history of having been repeatedly debunked by by his peers, not to mention his shaming in a court of law (decision written by a G. W. Bush appointee,) is worth a public conversation or an hour of a person's time? I'm forcing myself to watch, but, when I mentioned above that McWhorter had lost some of my respect, I had no idea just how awful his contribution was gong to be to this travesty.

John should learn some economics.
 

John has a hard time imagining how order can emerge from chaos. Maybe he should read Hayek and learn some economics. Incredible orders, way out of bounds for our imagination, arise all the time all around us.

Also if he thinks that the step from protein to complete humans is totally incredible, how does he conclude that there must be a design behind it? If it's so incredible then no one could have ever designed it: that's my reaction.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

One thing we can all learn from this edition of Bloggingheads is that rational responses to ID are rare indeed. Anger is a response to a real threat. If ID is a ghost idea with no substance then why bother fighting it so hard? I tend to ignore things that are silly rather than get all worked up into a rage. Try it some time, it's good for the blood pressure.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

That's a good question, actually. I think John, unfortunately, is somebody whose reason abdicates when his religious beliefs are challenged. That, at any rate, is how I interpret his stance here.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

In various states in the US, ID has been inserted into the scientific curriculum. That is in fact something that frightens and angers me, for one. I take the establishment clause of the US Constitution seriously, and when charlatans promote significant attacks on the border between science and religion, I think the proper response is to do everything you can to refute them.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Sometimes, anger is a response to a real threat. But not all times. One other common source of anger is irritation at having to rebut the same old nonsense over and over and over and over, from people who are too stupid and too superstitious to merit the privileged attention they keep receiving. Read this.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

keefe, I don't think yer gonna get much of a response from idnet.com.au

Re: BOB MAKE IT STOP
 

Your alarm bells should have gone off within the first minute of the diavlog, when it became apparent that most of McWhorter's previous "knowledge" of evolution came from reading Behe's other book.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

Or IRQ Conflict, I suspect. But that's okay. Sometimes it's worth posting a response for the benefit of other readers.

Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)
 

John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.