Talk:Michael Behe/Archive 1

message: * Although he claims this is scientific and supported by evidence, the majority of the scientific community consider it to be baseless pseudoscience.  
* The scientific community was unimpressed.  
* Critics also answered Behe's example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex device by "reducing" a mousetrap part by part until it consisted of a spring only, but was still somewhat capable of trapping a rodent.)
The above are phrased in such a way as to make Wikipedia endorse these criticisms of Behe's work.
I'd like to see evidence, such as a survey of a "majority" of the scientific community calling Behe's idea pseudoscience. I bet the most anyone can come up with is a large number of biologists saying they disagree. Note that biologists by no means are a majority of scientists, so the fix would have to be "majority of biologists". Also, scientific journals are full of peer-reviewed articles that contradict other researchers' results and findings. Merely saying I disagree with you is by no means the same as condemning your ideas as pseudoscince.  
I daresay the phrasings above were added by a Wikipedian who vehemently disagrees. If so, I humbly request that he source the statements or modify them.
As for the idea that a spring can catch a rat, I'd like to see (a) the source and (b) an explanation of (1) how a torsion spring can catch a rodent and (b) assuming it can, what this has to do with the reducibility or irreducibility of a designed thing like a mousetrap. In other words, please fix this and put it back. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
:You are quite right that science doesn't work as a popularity contest.  You can find a tongue-in-cheek list of scientists who reject creationism, including "intelligent design" at Project Steve (and multiply out by those not called Steve).  A better indication of acceptance of a theory is the number of papers published in the scientific literature.  Now this does indeed include papers that may be contradictory, (the possibilty of type I and type II errors notwithstanding), but how many of these are there on design theory?  And how many of these contradict the theory of evolution by natural selection?  It is accurate and fair to report that the scientific community thinks Behe is a pseudoscientist.  If ID is true it will be shown eventually by paradigm shift. :) Dunc|☺ 16:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there are systems which would cease functioning if simplified is not controversial.  The controversy is over Behe's attempt explain this with God, which is inherently unscientific, while ignoring some very simple and demonstrably correct natural explanations.  Without the invocation of God, irreducible complexity isn't unscientific, but it also has no further purpose. In other words, it's only interesting in the context of ID, which makes it an ID propaganda term, not anything scientists might care about.  For a parallel, consider the bizarre emphasis on a micro/macro-evolution distinction by creationists. Alienus 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three deletions

message: When Behe's ideas are called "pseudoscience" in the article I think this makes Wikipedia look bad.  You don't see Britannica and other encyclopedias using this tone which looks unprofessional and immature.  I think it should be changed.
7/24/05  kdbuffalo
:You are wrong. The article does not call them pseudoscience, it says that "many" "in the scientific community" call it pseudoscience. That's just the truth. You can change the wording if it looks "immature" to you, but the content of the sentence is a necessary piece of information. Would you want to create the wrong impression in Wikipedia readers that Behe's ideas are accepted in the scientific community? --Hob Gadling 12:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
::I'd rather impress upon the readers that Behe's ideas are just that: his.  What the scientific community believes, what I believe and what anyone else believes are irrelevant.  An encyclopedia's duty is to present ideas as presented by their sources, not evaluations of those ideas by others.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.67.39 (talk • contribs) October 19, 2005.
:::No, you are completely wrong.  Wikisource is there for quotes and primary sources.  If we just present de-contextualised information we are failing in our mission.  Guettarda 17:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: another entry

message: Why is it relevent to say that "Professor Behe has a number of articles published in the mainstream scientific literature"?  He's a professor of biochem - of course he has published, or he would not be tenured.  If he had published on ID in the literature it would be noteworthy.  If he had credentials in the field of evolutionary biology it would be interesting...but saying he has published in his field is trivial.  The opposite would be worth saying, of course, that he has no publications in peer-reviewed science in the field for which he is best known.  Guettarda 17:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behe's pubs 

message: I thought the definition of it was that there are systems on the biomolecular level sufficiently complex to make it suc that if it were not put together exactly as it is, it would not work at all, so that a gradual development towards the structure would not occur.  For example, the cellular "motors" in some forms of bacteria, like flaggelettes.  Any thoughts on this?
Pjanini1 22:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost. The "irreducible" part means that there are no simpler systems that can do the same. But of course there can be more complex systems that can do it. So your "not put together exactly as it is" is not quite correct. Also, this shows that Behe's concept has a loophole allowing irreducibly complex system to evolve, contrary to what Behe believes. --Hob Gadling 12:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: irreducible complexity

message: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
If you would like to re-introduce the weasely information, please note this page: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.67.39 (talk • contribs) October 19, 2005.
:Point taken.  But I notice you removed (weasel worded) statements about the scientific community's views about Behe.  The consensus is pretty clear, but it would be incorrect to say that all scientists disagree with him.  How should one go about saying : "The scientific community pretty much thinks Behe's work is creationist pseudoscience"?  The page on weasel words doesn't seem to be entirely clear about such things to me (though I might just be being stupid).  --Plumbago 17:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article links to this text, right after "This includes the Department of Biological Sciences at his own Lehigh University.", so I think that ought to cover it.  If you disagree, let me know why.  Also, please sign with 4 ~'s. Alienus 17:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words 

message: AlsatianRain, why do you think the sentence is uninformative? JoshuaZ 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous sentance seems to me to pretty much map out the state of things. "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including the Department of Biological Sciences at his own Lehigh University."  There we've got rejection of specific claims by specific parties (or semi-specific; the scientific community and his uni.  But that "his claims about intelligent design have been characterized as pseudoscience" doesn't tell us anything new, especially as we aren't being told who characterizes them as pseudoscience. -- AlsatianRain 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've convinced me. JoshuaZ 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ID, including Behe's particular flavor or it, being pseudoscience is one of the more common objections and as such it is notable enough to remain in the article. I've added a cite. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pseudoscience 

message: An anon inserted January 18 as Behe's birthday, however, I can't readily substantiate it.  If anyone can find a source, please re-insert it.  Guettarda 12:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday