Talk:Michael Behe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. Creationism Portal This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. Michael Behe is part of WikiProject Lehigh Valley, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Michael Behe article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Behe in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of Behe is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Notes to editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Michel Behe article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries.

Archives

2003 – April 2006 April 2006 – January 2008

Contents 1 Michael Behe's Religious Belief 2 Article continues to be biased, libelous, childish 3 PZ Myers quote 4 Expert witness? 5 Timmer article on Behe 6 Problem of focus

[edit] Michael Behe's Religious Belief

Can anyone find a reference confirming Behe's religious belief? He's listed as an "American Roman Catholic". This is particuarily relevant as I have heard him described as an atheist (or at least a stated agnostic), giving extra weight to his intelligent design stance (as it minimises confirmation bias). A reliable reference to his religious history would be pertinent to this article, I think. Confuseddave (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article continues to be biased, libelous, childish

WP:NPA-ridden, histrionic WP:SOAPboxing that made no attempt to make any substantiated discussion of the article's content userfied to User talk:GusChiggins21. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PZ Myers quote

I respect PZ Myers, but think we're better quoting the actual judge's words, rather than his summary of them. I've tried to format the reference correctly, but legal documents are arcane things... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, I hate formatting court docs too :) WLU (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expert witness?

Someone just added Category:Expert witness. I'd say it's a bit of a stretch. WLU (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Too large a category to be meaningful, I would have thought. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timmer article on Behe

Molecular Machines: Michael Behe, a Discovery fellow, has advanced the argument that some aspects of cellular life are analogous to machinery, and thus must have required the same attentive design that a machine does. This proposal is flawed on a number of levels, and has not gained enough traction within the biological community to rise to the level of anything beyond a distraction. But items Behe might consider molecular machines did appear in the talks, and their role was informative.

The proteasome is one complex of dozens of proteins that was mentioned in a couple of talks. Despite the enormous complexity and large number of specialized proteins in a proteasome, evolution readily explains its origins through gene duplication and specialization. Simplified forms, with fewer proteins, exist in Archaea and Bacteria. Not only are these simple versions of the proteasome an indication of its evolution, the gradual increase in its complexity allowed researchers to use it to infer evolutionary relationships among the three branches of life.

Similar analyses were performed with actin and tubulin, essential components of the complex skeletons that support Eukaryotic cells. Structural relatives of these genes appear in Bacteria and Archaea, where they appear to act to separate cell components even in the absence of a complex skeleton. An essential component of some Eukaryotic RNA interference systems also shows up in Archaea, where it does something completely unrelated to RNA interference. In all of these cases, parts of the supposedly designed machinery exist elsewhere, where they perform more limited but often related roles. Their use in determining evolutionary relationships didn't so much as elicit a blink from an audience of scientists.

[1] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem of focus

Hi, I'm not a wikipedia guy, so I'll just state my thoughts here. Capable wikipedians can change the article if they agree.

As of June 1, 2008, this article is less about Michael Behe than about what people think of Michael Behe. I came here to learn about Behe's teachings, his biography, etc. What I got instead was a well-crafted response, a polemic against Behe in careful encyclopedic language. Something's not right here.

I read the warning at the top of this page. I guess my complaint is the same one that's always raised. But at least for me, this is different. I have no stake in the Intelligent Design controversy. I'm a guy who checked out this article out of sheer curiosity. Meaning: I'm curious about who Behe is and why he's important. I already knew that he was controversial, and that the scientific community is overwhelmingly in favor in evolution. That's not why I came here. This should be an article *about* Michael Behe, right?

Consider, for a radical and patently unfair comparison, that even the article on Hitler (say) is devoted almost entirely to Hitler's life (ie., Hitler's beliefs, his actions, his legacy, etc.) and not the consensus on what a horrible person Hitler was. ID is pseudoscience, fine. Say that and move on. There are other pages devoted to that anyway. As it is, this article on Michael Behe reads like a hit piece. 116.232.31.250 (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Behe is (in)famous for:

1. His advocacy of ID
2. His claim of irreducible complexity
3. His paper with Snoke, which had to effectively 'eat' under cross at Dover
4. His ineffectual testimony at Dover and in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns -- both of which cases ended with the judge citing his testimony as lending support to the oppositions' cases.

As far as I can see the article covers this rather well. Behe's life-story (unlike Hitler's) isn't noteworthy (or well-documented), so we don't give it detailed coverage. His notable beliefs are covered. As are his only noteworthy "actions" -- testifying on these cases. It is unclear whether he will have any lasting "legacy", so this cannot be covered at this stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a hit piece. Welcome to the Intelligent Design project. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)