From so simple a beginning…

Why is Michael Behe so intent on embarrassing himself? It is one thing to subscribe to a point of view, perhaps even unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, but it’s quite another to be simply and solidly wrong. It seems that yet again, that’s what Behe is, in his new book (or actually old book in a new cover) which again to the point of ad nauseum wants to invoke the ID argument on “scientific” basis. I have already written about how Behe has unscrupulously tried to sneak in ID in a cheap scientific tuxedo in his past book “Darwin’s Black Box”. After that, Behe has been repeatedly refuted and embarrassed, most brilliantly by Kenneth Miller (whose book “Discovering Darwin’s God” still stands as probably the best invalidation of ID…and Behe) the Brown University professor.

Now, Miller again soundly lands ID on its back in his review of Behe’s new book. Unfortunately, the review is in NATURE and so subscriber-only. But the gist of Miller’s arguments is not only that Behe is wrong again, but he is attempting a rehash of his old argument about “irreducible complexity”, which he had waxed upon in his old book. Unfortunately, Behe’s book is publicly available, where people can be falsely dazzled by his ’scientific’ arguments. Miller should also makes his review public, and we need to cite the flaws in Behe’s arguments on blogs and public forums to dispel false conceptions.
It is unerringly surprising, even for an “amateur Darwinist” like me, how Behe manages to overlook the most basic principles of evolution and natural selection. Recall that Behe’s basic argument was deceptively simple; that human beings and biological entities in general are so complex, that take away even one part out of these complext machines and they won’t function. Ergo, it is impossible that they would have formed by gradual accumulation of parts one after the other, and hence must have been “designed”. But annoyingly, this is exactly how they were in fact formed, and it has been repeatedly demonstrated in dozens of cases that even a partial construction of these complex entities (such as the eye) were in fact functional in history, contrary to Behe’s arguments. Their function might not have been as refined as that of the whole, but this fact precisely points to the workings of evolution as the inveterate tinkerer, who gradually, with errors and successes, finally fashions a workable organelle, body part, or entire organism, which by the way is still far from being perfect (just think of our poor back). This proposition has been supported by ample evidence, including that from fossils which clearly shows partially formed substructures for these complex structures, that were partly functional.

It’s pretty amazing that Behe attempts a rehash of this argument in slightly different form, which is again maddeningly simple, and maddeningly wrong. Consider one example of his basic hypothesis; drug resistance in parasites and viruses has always (rightly) been touted as an example of evolution and natural selection. In the malaria parasite Plasmodium, there are two mutations that have to take place in order to gather resistance to antibiotics. The odds of both mutations happening are 1 in 10^20, abyssymally low. Behe takes this fact as proof that a corresponding set of mutations in human would also be so improbable so as to take billions of years to manifest itself. The reason this argument is amazing is that it makes one wonder whether Behe even studied biology or science at all, since like before, it is not necessary that both the mutations occur simultaneously on the same gene in the same individual. There is one mutation, and then it confers some resistance, and then there’s another one sometime, and then it confers some more, and then natural selection selects for the mutations once they confer a distinct advantage on the organism. In fact, the organisms which have the first mutation are fitter and so are chosen favourably by natural selection for the next round of survival. Inherent in this process is the sacrifice of trillions of members of the population who could not stand the heat and died. It’s simple; again, these mutations are cumulative, and take place through a process of tinkering rather than simultaneity and instant creation. In fact, isn’t this argument really a tedious revision of every simplistic fourteenth century argument for the existence of God?: human beings are so complex that only God could have created them. And it is also a revision of every nineteenth century (and unfortunately, twentieth and twenty-first century) argument too: human beings are so complex that they could not have arisen by ‘chance’. Behe and scores of others are living in both the fourteenth century and the nineteenth century state of denial when they again invoke such arguments, which should belong in the dustbin of historical dissenting objections that have been countered by reams of data and evidence. Miller makes this point very well, and more importantly cites recent references which Behe is unaware of. In general, Miller cites at least five or six references in his short Nature review alone, each refuting one fact or the other which Behe claims is part of his central argument. It cannot get any more ‘objective’ than this.

And that is what really irks me. In the highly publicised Dover school trial of 2005 in which ID was blankly rejected by the judge, Behe was shown dozens of peer-reviewed articles documenting natural selection in the immune system, and he showed total ignorance of this literature. If he had any self-respect left after that, he would not have written another book without consulting the literature thoroughly, and yet, wondrously, there he is doing exactly that. Like I said, it’s one thing to simply have a misguided opinion, but it’s another thing and absolutely shameful and embarrassing to simply say something publicly when one is not even aware of basic evidence to the contrary that exists out there. Michael Behe has frankly brought this shame upon himself by writing this book, and anyone who criticises his critics by saying that they indulge in ad hominem attacks should be made aware that these are actually not ad hominem attacks, but accurate assesments of Behe’s standing. If someone says that Behe is ignorant, bigoted, and pushing a clear political and partisan cause, it’s hardly an ad hominem attack. If he continues to write books that display ignorance even of primary scientific literature and tout opinions in spite of massive evidence to the contrary, why shouldn’t one denounce him using these words. Ad hominem attacks cease to be so if they reflect true facts. I don’t want to sound hateful and say that Michael Behe should be fired from his post at Lehigh University or denied tenure, and he certainly has every right to write books, no matter how crackpot they may be. But I don’t see really how he is doing his job as a research professor at a research university by spending most of his time expounding upon these misguided ideas. If the folks at Lehigh want to use strict criteria and definitions of university research, they may not have any other option but to fire Behe. It is to be noted that Lehigh has already issued a clear disapproval of Behe’s opinions.

Considering Behe’s repeated expositions of arguments in favour of ID and either rejection or ignorance of the scientific literature, it is happily at least becoming clearer that he is not pushing any scientific agenda that calls remotely for serious scientific revision. What if there’s a scientist who repeatedly publishes arguments that water is not H2O but actually H2Te (Tellurium)? If not anything else, one thing would be sure; that either he is genuinely delusional, or he is obviously pushing an agenda other than a scientific one. Fortunately, we can probably discount the possibility that Michael Behe is delusional. These days, I don’t feel as much anger at the ID movement as I pity it. Books like Behe’s make it clear how desperately the movement is trying to cling to science to support its contentions. This is an inherent paradox; if science supports ID, then ID actually descends into the realm of science and no longer remains supernatural. But when science is not supporting it, its proponents tenaciously try to recruit science to defend themselves, at the same time denouncing evolution! This is absurd to the extreme, and could be neatly cited as the archetypal example of hypocrisy, if there was any. In fact, it soundly subscribes to the definition of a hypocrite given by ‘George Bush’s favourite philosopher’ Jesus Christ; a hypocrite is one who does not apply the same standards to himself (ID in this case) as he applies to others (evolution in this case). The faithful need not look any further than among their own.