This one is hard to believe, but it popped up yesterday at the creationist website of the Discovery Institute. The thing is titled Behe Answers Best Objections to Irreducible Complexity, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
On a new episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!] Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe addresses what Philosophy for the People host Pat Flynn [Who?] considers some of the best objections to Behe’s central intelligent design argument.
You probably know who Michael Behe is, but for those who don’t, we’ll repeat what most of you already know. He’s not only a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, he’s also a tenured professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. His colleagues at Lehigh are so impressed by his brilliance that they publicly disassociated themselves from him by issuing this statement: Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”.
Also, as most of you know, Behe was the Discoveroids’ star witness in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. We wrote about his catastrophic appearance there in Michael Behe’s Testimony. Remember that link, because we’ll refer to it soon.
Okay, back to the Discoveroids. They say:
As far back as the 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box [Link omitted!], Behe has argued that certain features in biology are irreducibly complex. That is, they require numerous essential parts, each carefully fitted to its task and integrated with the other parts, in order for the molecular machine or system to function at all.
Irreducibly complexity again? Groan! Wikipedia has a good article on it — see Irreducible complexity. Let’s move along. The Discoveroids tell us:
Two examples are the bacterial flagellum motor and the blood clotting cascade. Such systems are, in Behe’s words, irreducibly complex and could not have arisen through any blind and gradual evolution process. The better explanation for their origin: intelligent design.
This is exactly the same stuff Behe argued about way back in the Kitzmiller case. As we describe in our earlier post to which we already linked — his arguments were totally demolished. The Discoveroids continue:
Since Darwin’s Black Box became a bestseller a generation ago, Behe has attracted opponents in places high and low. Following the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, Flynn says that some of the attacks on Behe have been hysterical, but some have been more thoughtful.
Yes, Behe has attracted opponents. The big question is: Does he have any followers? (Other than his fellow Discoveroids, of course.) Ah well, let’s read on:
Flynn focuses the discussion on what he regards as some of the more substantive and interesting objections, beginning with one from a noted philosopher who is partly sympathetic to Behe’s work, Plantinga himself. Behe gamely responds. Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]
And now we come to the end:
To see Behe’s responses to common and key objections collected in a single book book, get your copy of his newest book, A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics. [Amazon link.]
There’s not much we can say, except to remark that it’s rather amazing how Behe clings to his old and utterly rejected arguments. Well, he’s a Discoveroid, so what else would we expect?
Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.