Intelligent Report on Intelligent Design

Michael Powell does a good job of just telling me what the heck is going on in the world with Pa. Professor Testifies Of Doubts About Darwin on A13:

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution came under sustained attack in federal court here Monday as biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe argued that the theory fails to account for the complex biological machinery that scientists find in the corners of the human cell.

Behe, who teaches at Lehigh University, is one of the intellectual founding fathers of "intelligent design," which holds that aspects of life are so complex as to be best explained as the work of a super-intelligent designer.

"The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming," Behe told the court. "Intelligent design is based on observed, empirical, physical evidence from nature."...

The case concerns a lawsuit brought by parents to prevent teachers from being required to tell students a little bit about intelligent design. Here's a handy pro-and-con in the story:

Behe grounds his argument in his study of biochemical processes. In particular, he focuses on the bacterial flagellum, which is driven by a rotary engine composed of protein and located at an anchor point inside the cell membrane. This powerful organic machine comes equipped with a crankshaft and propeller. Behe argues that this machine is irreducibly complex -- meaning it could not have evolved because it needed all of its parts to work.

Behe's theory is deeply controversial. Earlier in the trial, Darwinian biologist Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University argued that the pieces of the flagellum could function independently and slowly, and over many millions of years evolved to work in concert with other parts...

That's all it takes, guys. Thank you, next story.

Update: Newsbusters' Ken Shepherd stopped by in the comments section to note he has a different view.

Comments

[Ken Shepherd]

Mr. Fotos:

I similarly blogged about this NewsBusters.org today.

http://newsbusters.org/node/2339

[David Denning]

Q. We're walking along the road and we find a mousetrap, a watch, or a television - things that have the definite appearance of being designed by something with a certain degree of intelligence (perhaps with the exception of the television). Do we immediately assume that God made the mousetrap, watch, television?

Michael Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum, with its 30 to 40 essential parts (just how many essential parts are there, Michael?) is too complex to have evolved. Sixty years ago, Behe would have said the same thing about the nucleus (it has dozens of interconnected parts) and the mechanism for turning genetic information (however that was stored - we just didn't know then) into physical characteristics of the cell and body (at that time this seemed to be related to proteins, but we really didn't know much). Sixty years ago, the Michael Behe's (MBs) of the world would have claimed that the nucleus and its internal components (the nuclear machines) were evidence for intelligent design. Say no more, and investigate no further.

Fortunately, no one was listening to the MBs. Now, after immense amounts of exciting research, we have a very clear picture of the information coding system for all life, its fidelity and variation through the generations, and the manner in which the information code is turned into the biochemical components of the cell. This is biochemistry, Michael! Nothing in science is stronger evidence in support of evolution theory (and there are mounds and mounds of other evidence from geology and biology!) than the workings of the genetic code - strangely enough, revealed in detail by biochemistry and molecular biology. Does Behe know anything about his own field?

Q. If we walked down the road and ran into Michael Behe with the parts of a mousetrap attached to his tie, should we wonder why the structure just didn't come together from the design?

[Ken Shepherd]

Thanks for the link. Powell did do a good writeup. I thought the lede was a little loaded in favor of making it sound more inflammatory than his testimony was, otherwise it was good. The placement deep in the paper rather than closer to the front was really where I have an issue with the Post.