Abnormal Interests

Let's start with the target populations. You might think that the target population was the scientific community or even those with interest in science, but you would be wrong. The target populations are the decision makers who influence research funding and education and the already believing or wavering public. If you don't believe me, read his first paragraph and his next to last sentence, combine these quotations with the fact that he does not give a single bit of evidence for ID beyond naive intuition and see if you still have doubts.

In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not. (Behe's first paragraph)

Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. (Behe's next to last sentence)

These two quotations effectively frame the whole article: Mr. politician, "Don't worry, ID makes good sense and the public will get you if you don't agree." Man in the street, "Naive intuition and numbers are on your side. Its OK to believe in ID and to take appropriate action."

How does Behe develop brand awareness? Well, a free article in the NY Times is a good start. In addition, he ties ID, correctly, to the current events; the recent, much publicized, trials and legal actions involving various efforts to restrict the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Leveraging off this, Behe is able to attach his ideas to the ongoing debate that almost everyone has heard of and to do it positively. This also gives his article some legs. Even if one does not remember the details of his article, there is a very good chance that the target audience will have a enhanced positive view toward ID the next time one of these legal battles is in the news.

How does he increase the desirability of his brand? First negatively, he claims that ID is not that old time religion. They (or at least he) even believe in evolution! Remember, "Its not television, its HBO." But they do not believe that "random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life." Don't be afraid of the US constitution, Mr. Politician. Behe effectively tells his faithful, "Let's not talk about who the designer might be (wink, wink, nod, nod); its not scientific to discuss such things." The claim is of course questionable but that is not my purpose.

Positively, we, ID advocates, are really and truly, honest to goodness, scientists. Note the byline at the bottom of the article:

Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.

Behe is a scientist at a university you have heard of and the author of a book that seems to be on biochemistry, a very difficult and obscure subject. In addition, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture is associated with all this. Whatever that is, it sure sounds good.

Behe calls on a diverse set of important sounding authorities like Paley, Francis Crick and Bruce Alberts. These are important people in the history of biology. Never mind that two of them were never ID advocates (follow the link to Panda's Thumb above) and one, Paley, would have been appalled at Behe's idea that "he believes in evolution."

To summarize Behe's efforts to improve his brand's name: First, ID is safe. Second, ID is scientific. Third, everyone, even great scientists, believe in it. Forth, it feels good.

Finally, want does Behe do to decease the desirability of his competitors brand? Like the Miller - Bud beer wars there is no need to be subtle and he isn't.

Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.

There is a lot is this last paragraph of the article. ID's opponents are narrow minded. They "can't accept design." They have "special restrictions." They are in the minority. (Note this is the minority of the general population not the minority of scientists. Behe, himself, is in fact in a very small minority of scientists, particularly, biologists.) In addition, ID's opponents can not see the obvious "facts" that anyone with two eyes can see.

Perhaps a little more subtlety, Behe participates in a special kind of name calling. Note the repeated use of the words "Darwinian" and "Darwinists." These words, which biologists almost never use, have two functions. First, it makes it appear that scientists believe in something that is the results of the reflections of only one man, Darwin. Second, these words have a kind of cultic sound that implies that Darwinians are slavish followers of their cult leader. In other words, it implies that ID's opponents are members of some alien religion. Words with these general structures are Buddhist, Maoists and Marxists (note Marxian). These "ists" just don't sound good to many people and the attempt is to put modern scientific biology in the same camp of things that just don't sound good.

Behe also points out that modern biology does not have all the answers. As they say in the Miller - Bud beer wars, "I can't taste my beer." Well, what can one say? It wouldn't be a very useful theory if it arrived full blown with all the answers. However, to those who want all the answers, is just isn't very satisfying.

This whole branding exercise attempts to make ID seem increasingly scientific and science increasingly less so, even more like a religion. And for the target audience, I think he does a very good job. In addition, it was free!

Perhaps the NY Times should have charged for the advertisement because their interest in being balanced led them over the edge. This article should have had a "read at your own risk" disclaimer or, better, a wrapper that recommended the pointing and laughing which the article deserved on its merits.

Those who have read Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, Creationism's Trojan Horse, the Wedge of Intelligent Design, Oxford, 2004, will not find anything new in what I have said. I hope they will at least agree that I have used Behe's article to further document what Forrest and Gross have so completely explained and illustrated. Those who have not read Forrest and Gross, should.

Update (February 13, 2005):

ZP Myers has reported at PandasThumb and on his own site on Bruce Alberts' letter to the editor in the NY Times strongly rebutting Behe's op ed article. All three are must reads. Remember, Behe cited Alberts as it he, Alberts, somehow supported Behe's position.