Home |
Feedback |
Links | Books
Correspondence w/ Science Journals
Response to critics
concerning peer-review
Michael Behe, Discovery Institute
© 2000 Michael Behe. Originally published at the Discovery Institute’s website.
All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission.
Introduction
Note: Though Behe is not a creationist, this response to criticism is provided here for the benefit of those considering the questionable nature of today’s mainstream evolutionary paradigm. |
|
uch of the material shown posted as “responses
to critics” on this website was originally submitted to several science
journals for consideration for publication. In every case it was turned
down. Below I have included the correspondence between the journals and
myself. Names of journals and individuals have been omitted. The take-home
lesson I have learned is that, while some science journal editors are
individually tolerant and will entertain thoughts of publishing challenges
to current views, when a group (such as the editorial board) gets
together, orthodoxy prevails. Admittedly the conclusion is based on a
small number of experiences, yet years go by while the experiences
accumulate. So far my experience with philosophy journals has been quite
different, and I have published a reply to specific criticisms in
Philosophy of Science (Behe, Michael J. (2000). Self-organization
and irreducibly complex systems: A reply to Shanks and Joplin
Philosophy of Science 67, 155-162.)
A Brief Response
I initially emailed the editor of a journal in the
field of evolution about the possibility of publishing a full-length
reply-to-critics paper. As seen below, he suggested a very much-shortened
paper. The shortened version essentially consisted of section II from the
article “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade”
on this website. I argued that Darwinian scenarios need to include more
than just a general invocation of gene duplication to be justified. The
correspondence includes: (1) an email from the editor to me; (2) my letter
back to him; (3) his letter rejecting the manuscript; (4) the criticisms of
the reviewer; (5) a response letter from me.
[The following is an
email from the editor of the journal.]
Subject: Re: inquiry about
submission Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:21:54 0500 From: [the editor]
To: "Michael J. Behe" <MJB1@LEHIGH.EDU>
Hi Mike,
I'm torn by your request to submit a (thoughtful) response to
critics of your non-evolutionary theory for the origin of complexity. On
the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the
scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is
counterproductive. But on the other hand we have fixed page limits for
each month's issue, and there are many more good submissions than we can
accept. So, your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that
would be extending the current paradigm.
What I would suggest you
do is to write something quite shorta letterthat would fit in, say,
three pages or so of [the journal]. Then, if your letter is sufficiently
provocative and lively, I might have an easier time convincing the other
editors of its worth.
|
[The following is my next response to the editor.]
June 11, 1999
Dear Professor . . . ,
Here is the short response to critics that I discussed with you
earlier, which I would like to be considered for publication as a letter
in the [journal]. I hope you find it to be fruitfully provocative. The
text is a little less than 3,000 words, which I calculate should fit in
about three pages, as you suggested. Since it is a short letter, I didn’t
include an abstract; if one is needed, the first paragraph could serve. I
have listed the names of a few potential reviewers on an attached page.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Behe Professor of
Biological Sciences
|
[The following the editor’s response to my letter]
July 12, 1999
Dear Dr. Behe,
Because of
the controversial nature of your letter to [this journal], and concern
about whether it would be appropriate for a scientific journal, I asked a
senior [journal] advisor to take a look at your submission. As you will
see, the accompanying review identifies many apparent flaws in your
arguments, and also questions the basic premise of your arguments, that
complex systems cannot be dissected to reveal individual components’
roles. I concur with this reviewer’s sentiment: complex systems are being
unraveled!
So, I am going to take the liberty as Editor not to
seek additional reviews, and deny the request to have your letter
published in [this journal]. I would like to encourage you to seek new
evidence for your views, but of course, that evidence would likely fall
outside of the scientific paradigm, or would basically be denials of
conventional explanations. You are in for some tough sledding.
Sincerely,
[The editor]
|
[The comments of the senior advisor follow]
Review of “Obstacles to gene duplication
as an explanation for complex biochemical systems” by Michael Behe.
In the section "Meaning of explanation," the author harps on the
extreme difficulty of elucidating complicated cellular interaction systems
and of tracing the evolution of biological complexity. It is ironic that
he should voice his concerns just as technical as well as conceptual
progress has opened the door to investigating on a much larger scale than
heretofore the mechanisms of development, and the increase in gene
interaction complexity along certain lines of descent. Michael Behe is
depicting a hopeless situation for the biological sciences, or at least
for their evolutionary aspects, just as biology is proceeding through a
glorious age.
A classical error of people who believe that complex
gene interaction systems and other complex biological systems present an
insuperable difficulty to evolutionary science is to imply that every
component of the system has or has had only one function. In reality,
every gene, or its ancestors, or its duplicated brothers and cousins, or
all of these, usually exert multiple functions and can be re-mobilized for
building up new complex systems or can be dropped from a complex system
without being dropped from the functioning genome. The function of the
system itself may change (an oft quoted morphological example: folds that
act as gliders related to wings); intermediate stages function differently
from the terminal stage considered, but do function, indeed. If
evolutionary pathways were difficult to find, nature faced these
difficulties and solved them. The scientist’s job is just to follow
nature, and that he believes he can do.
It is interesting to
showBehe examines this claimthat by knocking two genes out of
this cascade, the resulting organisms are less abnormal than those that
have lost only one of two genes. Yet, it is by no means necessary to be
able to provide such a demonstration. Not being able to provide it does
not authorize anyone to consider the system as “irreducibly” complex, in
Behe’s metaphysical sense of irreducible.
On the other hand, the
mutational acquisition of modified or new functions by duplicated genes
has been witnessed many times by sequence comparisons and other
approaches, and there is no trace of an “irreducible” difficulty here
either, despite Behe’s claims.
This reviewer is no authority on
the blood clotting cascade, but if a plausible model for its evolutionary
development, compatible with all known facts, has indeed not been
generated so far, the remaining question marks are not threat to
scienceon the contrary, they are a challenge added to thousands of other
challenges that science met and meets. In this instance, too, science will
be successful.
Is that too bold a prediction? On the contrary, it
is not bold. If science, in the modern sense of the word (defined by its
method), were only just beginning its career, onlookers would naturally be
divided into optimists and pessimists. But, as young as science still is,
its accomplishments have verified over and over again that the world of
the observable and the measurable is understandable in terms of the
observed and measured. Pessimism in this respect has come to lack
intellectual status.
In the face of this evidence, Dr. Behe’s
stance is quasi-heroic, but it is heroism at the service of a lost and
mistaken cause. He is not deterred by the fact that molecular biology is
only about 50 years old, that during this period it has generated an
almost overwhelming amount of fundamental understanding, that more
understanding is obviously on its way; further, that the study of the
molecular bases of development had to wait for its turn: it was able to
take off seriously only within the last decade. All of these studies will
be amplified if there is peace in the world, and many biological problems
that Dr. Behe today uses as drums to proclaim his faith will be solved in
ways that cannot be but disappointing to him.
The trust expressed
by the present referee is based on the lessons of several hundred years of
history of science. It is really a very short history judged in terms of
human history in general, and, considering the recorded accomplishments,
it takes a fair amount of intellectual “chuzpah” to reproach science for
the understanding that it has not yet achieved.
This reviewer
thinks that there is a great deal of misunderstanding around the role of
intelligence in the world. The world itself, through the interactions that
take place under the reign of natural law, manifests a sort of
intelligencean intelligence much greater than our intelligenceout of
which our intelligence has very likely arisen as a product. No wonder,
then, that, to our intelligence, the universe appears intelligent: there
is a close kinship between the universe and our mindas one would expect,
since our intelligence is shaped so as to permit us to get along in the
world. (“. . . So as to permit us . . .”: language often induces us to
seem to express the presence of an intent when none is implied; none is
here.) Consistently to use the phrase “intelligent design” instead of God
is almost cheating, since this use has an ambiguous relation to the
presence in the universe of a sort of intelligence that, except perhaps in
a pantheistic sense if one wishes to think so, has no implication
regarding the existence of a God. God, here, stands for a being that
combines consciousness, will, and universal power.
Of course
science has its limits, but they are surely not where Behe places them;
they are not, indeed, in the realm of biological evolution. The perception
of science’s limits will evolve as science itself evolves, and the limits
won’t furnish an argument in favor of intelligent design in the sense of a
design imagines by a universal “person.” The argument will be in favor of
the finiteness of the analytical powers of the human mind. The limits of
science will probably be recognized as being, in part, imposed by the
position in the universe of the intelligent (human) observer. Whatever
God’s role in the universe, if any, biology will be understood without
reference to him. That is implied by the essence of science.
Behe
wants to be able to say that this is not so, and he needs to say it very
quickly, because every day any conceivable ground for making his statement
shrinks further. The faith of scientists is that the world of phenomena
can be understood, and that the transformations of this world leading up
to the present state of affairs can be understood. Developments conform
every day that, progressively, scientists are winning this bet. Whatever
is discovered, the most surprising as well as the less surprising, will be
part of nature: the supernatural has no place in the observable and
measurable.
Metaphysicians who want science to speak out in favor
of their beliefs, if not demonstrate them, are already put in a tight spot
by the science of yesterday and have nothing to fear more than the science
of tomorrow.
In this referee’s judgment, the manuscript of Michael
Behe does not contribute anything useful to evolutionary science. The
arguments presented are weak.
Incidentally, publication in a
scientific journal of this article could not be construed as anything
resembling a First Amendment right. Naysayers such as Michael Behe have
not been muzzled. They have repeatedly aired their point of view, and so
be it.
If Behe were right in spite of all, it would become
apparent in due time through failures of science. It would be very much
out of place to denounce such failures now, since they have not occurred.
Having not yet understood all of biology is not a failure after just 200
years, given the amount of understanding already achieved. Let us speak
about it again in 1000 years. Meanwhile, metaphysicians should spare
scientists their metaphysics and just let the scientists do their workor
join them in doing it.
|
[My next letter to the editor follows]
July 19, 1999
Dear Dr. . . . ,
Well, I guess I
should have expected it, but I have to admit I’m disappointed. For the
record I’d like to point out that the “senior [journal] advisor” who
reviewed my recent submission (“Obstacles to gene duplication . . .”)
didn’t react to my actual arguments in the paper, but to associations he
made. The manuscript did not argue for intelligent design, nor did it say
that complex systems would never be explained within Darwinian theory.
Rather, it just made the simple, obvious, and unarguable point that gene
duplication by itself is an incomplete explanation. Apparently, however,
my skepticism about Darwinism overshadowed all other points. Everything I
wrote beyond the first sentence was pretty much ignored or dismissed
without engagement. I should also point out that, on the one hand, my
paper discussed published experiments on specific genes in the clotting
cascade of mice, the published misinterpretation of those experiments, and
why that shows we need more information than sequence similarity to
explain the origin of the cascade and other systems. The senior advisor,
on the other hand, discussed our “glorious age” of biology, the history of
science, how the world has “an intelligence much greater than our
intelligence,” God as “a being that combines consciousness, will, and
universal power,” and so on. Yet he thinks he’s being scientific and I’m
being metaphysical. Go figure.
I must admit I’m quite surprised by
your current stance, Dr. . . . . In our email correspondence you wrote
that you were “painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific
community to non-orthodoxy” and that you would entertain a manuscript from
me that was “sufficiently provocative and lively.” That led me to believe
that I could express skepticism of Darwinism and still have a hearing. But
then in your rejection letter you worry about “the controversial nature of
your letter to [the journal]” as if you weren’t expecting controversy, and
you choose to send the manuscript to be reviewed by someone who says
things like “If evolutionary pathways were difficult to find, nature faced
these difficulties and solved them” (so there!)not exactly the
sentiments of someone with an open mind. Well, perhaps you’ve had a change
of heart. That can happen if one discovers that the “close-mindedness of
the scientific community” has some bite to it. But as the senior advisor
bravely writes, “Let us speak about it again in 1000 years.” Perhaps by
then the readers of [the journal] will be able to handle skepticism.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Behe Professor of Biological
Sciences
|
A Lengthy Response
Later in the
summer of 1999 I submitted a lengthy “Reply to Critics” paper to a biology
journal that publishes long articles. Included in the article was most
everything shown on this website with the exception of the articles on
mousetraps, “The Acid Test,” and sections III and following of the article
on blood clotting. Here follows the correspondence, starting with the
response I received, my reply, a second letter from the journal, and my
final reply.
[The response of the editor follows]
23 July 1999
Dear Dr. Behe:
Thank you for submitting your
manuscript, “Reply to My Critics,” to [this journal]. Although the
manuscript is interesting, it is our firm policy not to publish articles
that are primarily rebuttals to criticism. Thus we cannot publish your
article in its present form.
Although I have no idea whether the
proposal I am about to make would receive the endorsement of the other
editors, there would be no point in even presenting it to them without
your concurrence. The notion of intelligent design is one that may warrant
further exploration, even though the topic has been dealt with extensively
by both practicing scientists and philosophers of science. Should this
exploration take the form of contrasting viewpoints in articles by two
persons, published in the same issue, on the more general aspects of the
topic, then our editorial policy of presenting current issues of
significance in the biological sciences might be satisfied.
Recast
in more general terms, your article could present the “pro” side of the
issue, and in that context it could address some of the criticisms that
have appeared since your book was published, but it would have to provide
a much broader perspective. In particular, it would have to assume a
readership that is not familiar with your book, at least not in any
detailed way. An accompanying article could present the “con” side of the
issue, again taking a general perspective. No doubt your book would figure
prominently in both articles, but the theme would be modern concepts of
intelligent design rather than a specific publication.
This
approach would almost certainly reach a broader readership than a detailed
response to specific criticisms. It also has the added advantage of
allowing you to present a synopsis of your entire case rather than just
defending specific aspects of it. Such a paired set of articles would
imply that the topic is important, and therefore would attract additional
readers.
Let me know whether this proposal is agreeable to you. If
so, we could discuss it at length at a future meeting of the editors
(which may not be possible until Fall). I have no particular person in
mind to present a contrasting viewpoint, and certainly we will not seek to
identify one until we know what your response is to this suggestion.
We do appreciate your interest in [this journal] as a forum for
your ideas, and perhaps it will be possible to work out a mutually
agreeable arrangement.
Yours sincerely,
[The editor]
|
[My next response follows]
August 4, 1999
Dear
Professor ...,
Thanks very much for your letter of July 23. Yes,
the proposal you outline would be agreeable to meto contribute an
article from a broad perspective discussing the “pro” side of modern
concepts of intelligent design, to appear in the same issue as an article
taking the general “con” side. I agree that such an arrangement would have
advantages, including attracting the attention of a larger readership. I’d
be glad to discuss specifics with you if the proposal receives the
endorsement of the other editors. Please let me know when a decision is
reached. Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
|
[The editor’s next response follows]
9 February 2000
Dear Dr. Behe:
We are sorry to have been delayed in getting back to you about the
possibility of organizing a dialogue on the question of purposeful
intelligent design. We have explored the notion with a number of
individuals and have had extensive discussion among ourselves over a
period of time.
The editors have concluded that the journal should
not undertake this project. The reasons are varied, but primarily they
reduce to our general feeling that it is not possible to develop a
meaningful discussion when the fundamental assumptions of the arguments
are so different: on the one hand, the concept of intelligent design
beyond the laws of nature is based on intuitive, philosophical, or
religious grounds, while on the other, the study and explanation of all
levels of the living world, including the molecular level, is based on
scientific fact and inference.
As you no doubt know, our journal
has supported and demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the
very beginning, and believes that evolutionary explanations of all
structures and phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a
position such as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific
grounds, cannot be appropriate for our pages.
Although the editors
feel that there has already been extensive response to your position from
the academic community, we nevertheless encourage further informed
discussion in appropriate forums. Our journal cannot provide that forum,
but we trust that other opportunities may become available to you.
Yours sincerely,
[The editorial board]
|
[And my final response is below]
February 22, 2000
Dear [editorial
board members]:
Thank you for your letter of February 9 informing
me that you have decided not to organize a dialogue on the question of
purposeful intelligent design in the pages of [your journal]. I
nonetheless very much appreciate the time and consideration you have given
the issue. I agree with you that “the fundamental assumptions of the
arguments are so different.” In fact, your letter itself confirms this.
While you attribute the conclusion of intelligent design to “intuitive,
philosophical, or religious grounds,” I attribute it to the same
“scientific fact and inference” you claim for Darwinian evolution. I
suppose this is one of those issues where people disagree about what
“science” means. Again, however, I do appreciate your considering the
project. Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
|
Home | Feedback | Links | Books | Donate
| Back to Top
© 2024 TrueOrigin Archive. All Rights Reserved.
powered by Webhandlung
|