Abnormal Interests

« Don't Forget the Ninth Amendment
Main
More Genetic Support for the Out of Africa Hypothesis »

October 18, 2005

Local Reporting of Behe's Dover Testimony

While driving home from work this afternoon (yes, I do work on occasion), I heard a report on the Dover trial on my local all news radio station, KFWB . Here is what the reporter read.

A biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and he believes God is behind them.

Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class. Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether intelligent design can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

And she read no more.

It turns out that these are the first two paragraphs of an AP report on Behe's testimony. The whole AP story is itself bad but it must be seen in the context of several AP stories on the trial and it does indicate, if shockingly briefly, that most scientists think that Behe is wrong.

There is a great difference between what science can explain and what it has already successfully explained and, as far as I know, every example of complexity that Behe thinks requires a designer has been explained by way of the natural processes of evolution. In addition, the complete article has this on Behe's testimony:

Behe contributed to "Of Pandas and People," writing a section about blood-clotting. He told a federal judge Monday that in the book, he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting "is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design."

Two points: First even Behe is not claiming that blood-clotting goes unexplained by evolution. He just doesn't like the quality (or perhaps the fact) of the explanation. Second, science has adequately explained it. You can judge for yourself the quality of the scientific explanation and Behe befuddled attempt to unexplain it by reading the account at Talk Origins.

Before getting back to the radio coverage, I want to say a few more things about the AP story. First, it is not only just a he said/she said story, it is fringe account/majority account story with the majority account getting the much smaller portion. And what little is said of the account of evolution offered by the overwhelming majority of scientists is largely incorrect. Here is an example of what I mean,

Mainstream scientists have rejected intelligent design as scientifically untested and contend that its supporters focus on attacking evolutionary theory rather than providing evidence for design.

While the second clause is correct as far as it goes, it is just not true that "mainstream scientists have rejected intelligent design as scientifically untested." Mainstream scientists reject intelligent design because its central intuition is untestable not untested and the examples offered in support of that central intuition have, when tested, failed.

Now that my rant about the AP article is over, please go back and read what was said on the radio. You will find not a single hint that Behe's testimony was nonsense. In fact, those who have naive intuitions on this subject or dogmatic beliefs on this subject will be reinforced in their errors.

Other things to complain about and to celebrate:

PZ Myers at Pharyngula explains what was wrong with the New York Times coverage of Behe's testimony in a single paragraph.

And the NY Times continues its impressive record of mediocrity and bubble-headedness in its reporting of creationism with another tepid "he said/she said" blah piece by a religion reporter. "Expert Witness Sees Evidence in Nature for Intelligent Design", huh? How about "Expert Witness Sees Jesus in Tortilla"? It's the same thing.

The Los Angeles Times repeats a little more of the AP article than I heard on the radio but they never get to the part about what mainstream scientist have to say.

Jason at Evolutionblog directs us to a very good article by Hannah Rosin at Slate on Behe's testimony. Would that all reporting was in this league!

Posted by Duane Smith at October 18, 2005 4:27 PM | Read more on Evolution |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1407

Comments

Posted by: afarensis at October 18, 2005 5:40 PM

Posted by: afarensis at October 18, 2005 5:43 PM

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.

Tags: