The Flagellum: The Icon of Courage by Michael Behe

As most readers at TSZ may already know, I disagree with Michael Behe on several issues (that I’m aware of) the one being common descent… I have expressed my doubts as to why Behe views common descent as a no problem for ID… To state my opinion again, I find that Behe is ‘publicly neutral’ on issues he can’t currently scientifically defend. He simply focuses on the empirical evidence that supports his views, such as the inabilities of mutations and natural selection to evolve complex structures, such as a bacterial flagellum, in small, gradual steps of Darwinian Evolution… Too me, his philosophy is cost effective (very smart) as it probably saves him a lot of unnecessary ‘beatings’ that he taken from Darwinists over the years…

Thanks to Behe’s determination to expose Darwinian Ideology, the Iconic Flagellum became not only the trademark of Intelligent Design movement, but to many, like myself, the Icon of Courage of Micheal Behe, who as one of the very few put almost everything in his life on line in the famous Dover Trial, when most, if not all scientists sympathetic to ID, abandon him and declined to testify in court against the Darwinian Ideology…

This OP is a tribute to courage of all those, like Behe, who were willing to sacrifice their career to oppose and expose the so-called main steam ideologies, like Darwinism….

Although I have already alluded to it many times in the past that there are many possibilities of experimentally falsifying the theory of evolution, this OP is meant to go beyond of that…

Here is why…

Richard Lenski has been trying to experimentally prove the  theory of evolution in his lab for over 25 years by growing E-coli bacterium…We all know the results…bacteria is still bacteria…It has not changed into another species of life..

Why not do the same and try to help the bacterium without a flagellum to grow in the lab anything resembling a flagellum and prove the omnipotence of natural selection?

Great idea! 

As Michael Behe has stated himself, such an experiment would be a double-edge sword. It would not only prove the evolutionary predictions that the bacterial flagellum has evolved, it would, at the same time, totally discredit the ID movement for good by the same means…It’s a sufficiently simple experiment and very similar to Michael Lynch’s one just with a different goal in mind…

Why has it not been done so far?

Are Darwinists  perhaps resistant to the experimental falsification of their own theory? If yes, why would that be?

Is it perhaps because Darwinists are already aware that if a bacterium without a flagellum produced components that could later be used in a flagellum, unless those components were of immediate benefit to the organism, natural selection would tend to weed those bacteria out of the population because of the waste of energy that other bacteria are not experiencing? 

Let’s listen to what Micheal Behe has to say about that…

I can only add that the evolutionary theory faces another problem, which I have already mentioned in my previous OP: The self-assembling molecular machines, like the flagellum. It is not only obvious to an unbiased observer that the self-assembly process of molecular machines defeats any evolutionary speculations for the abilities of random process to evolve such a mind boggling assembly process not only in the gradual steps of Darwinian Evolution, but any other mechanism known today. It also clearly shows that life processes, like the self-assembly of the molecular machines in the living systems, reach beyond what we currently know about life and can’t be explain by any known forces, such as chemical bonds… I would argue that some know processes, such as quantum processes, including quantum entanglement, as well as quantum information, could be involved in the self-assembly process. The disruption of quantum entanglement or quantum information,before or during the self-assembly process would prevent the assembly of the flagellum, which would prove such a claim.

0

75 thoughts on “The Flagellum: The Icon of Courage by Michael Behe

  1. From the OP:

    This OP is a tribute to courage of all those, like Behe, who were willing to sacrifice their career to oppose and expose the so-called main steam ideologies, like Darwinism….

    It sure must be quite the sacrifice to exchange careers and get all of that money out of selling books to gullible creationists.

    0
  2. “Darwinian evolutionary theory sure seems to be the main paradigm of evolutionary biology today as expressed by commenters here at TSZ.” – Mung

    Do biology; respect Darwin’s contribution to the field. What’s so hard about that?

    Stop with the misplaced hyperventilation every time you equivocate between ‘evolutionary biology’ & ‘Darwinism’ as if that were an excuse to stop thinking. What’s up with the bad Darwin trip in Seattle? Get over the Darwin fetish.

    What’s that? Oh right, you don’t have one. Sure. Got it. ; )

    It’s obvious already that a person can’t even start talking about ‘evolution’ on things that matter most without leaving aside Charles Robert, the animal butcher, Darwin of Down, England for more important & uplifting thinkers & figures. The all too eager need for a scapegoat is behind many of the almost patently absurd things the DI has done over the years. It’s not like people are running into the arms of D.S. Wilson’s propagandistic ‘Evolution Institute’ en masse, are they?

    Being a supporter of the DI & IDism/IDT nevertheless still appears as tantamount to having an inferiority complex & putting it on display as a badge for neo-creationism. Why wouldn’t Mung seek a better disposition & more credible approach separate from the DI? Oh, right, Darwin is to blame for his choice to donate to the DI too. ; )

    0
  3. Gregory: Oh, right, Darwin is to blame for his choice to donate to the DI too.

    When have I blamed Darwin? I am merely pointing out the facts, which you seem rather uncomfortable with. When Darwinism is dead I’ll gladly cease pointing out that it is alive and well. It’s not even sickly.

    Why can’t you simply acknowledge what you must know to be true? Your distaste for the DI clouds your judgment, as with Swamidass. You two are the ones who need to get over it.

    0
  4. It’s just that you enjoy beating dead or almost dead horses; that’s a thing in Seattle with the DI. & I’ve seen it right up in the clutches of the DI’s ‘secret revolutionaries’ cave of colluders & their collaborators, perhaps just as have you, Mung. I don’t look up to them & instead grew up & started looking beyond their ideology (which has captured your mind, quite obviously) to better and more suitable ideas, honourable strategies and living communities, and so should you.

    “When Darwinism is dead…”

    What a silly suggestion. Darwinism is an ideology! It’s not going to ‘die.’ Coding a few lines has sure gone to your head about what you actually do & do not ‘know,’ Mr. Mung. It’s a fetish. Better to finally admit it & try to get over it. Move along & catch up with the rest of us, including many you could admire if you knew they existed, beyond that rabbit hole of IDism that’s consumed your thoughts.

    While no doubt Joshua will detest the comparison with him, I certainly do side with him against the DI & IDists. In fact, Joshua’s taken more than a few pages out of my older playbooks. We both can clearly see the double-talking at the DI. He is doing from within biology just fine against the DI, Biologic Institute & even BioLogos (minus Collins), while from a sociological perspective, my observations of the DI & IDM & IDism remain on point, which is why Mung is here caught in a bind.

    Yet imagine this: somehow, the character known as Mung still can’t see or recall a *single* instance of double-talk by the DI or a leading IDist in official duty. Criticisms of the DI’s strategies aren’t worth a penny of his words over several years writing on blogs like Uncommon Descent & now Peaceful Science. Not a single admission from DI-supporting Mung about IDist double-talking which is too obvious to ignore. Those are facts too, aren’t they Mung?

    So Mung runs away from defending the DI’s intentional ignoring of ‘design theory,’ ‘design theorists’ & ‘design thinking’ as if 1) that doesn’t sink the DI’s ideological movement already, & 2) Mung himself is the deliverer of an alternative coherent philosophy of science that isn’t just regurgitated from an incompetent IDist. Unfortunately, aside from the sometimes enjoyable humour & sarcasm, we rarely read a serious statement of position, idea or belief from Mung. It’s mainly deflection, exaggeration (Darwinism is SO BIG!, when it’s really almost nothing like that) & denial, with a lot of important work being tactically ignored by Mung’s intellectual Seattle leprechauns, his fellow IDists & the DI.

    His precious. It’s based in an ‘Emerald City.’ He wants it to count as ‘strictly scientific’. IDism, it’s the DI’s.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjp5OmoDYQM

    0
  5. Gregory:
    It’s just that you enjoy beating dead or almost dead horses; that’s a thing in Seattle with the DI. & I’ve seen it right up in the clutches of the DI’s ‘secret revolutionaries’ cave of colluders & their collaborators, perhaps just as have you, Mung. I don’t look up to them & instead grew up & started looking beyond their ideology (which has captured your mind, quite obviously) to better and more suitable ideas, honourable strategies and living communities, and so should you.

    What a silly suggestion. Darwinism is an ideology! It’s not going to ‘die.’ Coding a few lines has sure gone to your head about what you actually do & do not ‘know,’ Mr. Mung. It’s a fetish. Better to finally admit it & try to get over it. Move along & catch up with the rest of us, including many you could admire if you knew they existed, beyond that rabbit hole of IDism that’s consumed your thoughts.

    While no doubt Joshua will detest the comparison with him, I certainly do side with him against the DI & IDists. In fact, Joshua’s taken more than a few pages out of my older playbooks. We both can clearly see the double-talking at the DI. He is doing from within biology just fine against the DI, Biologic Institute & even BioLogos (minus Collins), while from a sociological perspective, my observations of the DI & IDM & IDism remain on point, which is why Mung is here caught in a bind.

    Yet imagine this: somehow, the character known as Mung still can’t see or recall a *single* instance of double-talk by the DI or a leading IDist in official duty. Criticisms of the DI’s strategies aren’t worth a penny of his words over several years writing on blogs like Uncommon Descent & now Peaceful Science. Not a single admission from DI-supporting Mung about IDist double-talking which is too obvious to ignore. Those are facts too, aren’t they Mung?

    So Mung runs away from defending the DI’s intentional ignoring of ‘design theory,’ ‘design theorists’ & ‘design thinking’ as if 1) that doesn’t sink the DI’s ideological movement already, & 2) Mung himself is the deliverer of an alternative coherent philosophy of science that isn’t just regurgitated from an incompetent IDist. Unfortunately, aside from the sometimes enjoyable humour & sarcasm, we rarely read a serious statement of position, idea or belief from Mung. It’s mainly deflection, exaggeration (Darwinism is SO BIG!, when it’s really almost nothing like that) & denial, with a lot of important work being tactically ignored by Mung’s intellectual Seattle leprechauns, his fellow IDists & the DI.

    His precious. It’s based in an ‘Emerald City.’ He wants it to count as ‘strictly scientific’. IDism, it’s the DI’s.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjp5OmoDYQM

    Are you perhaps one Joshua’s sock puppets?
    I find it very stange that someone, who claims to disagree with Swamidss, continues to advocate for him..
    Give us one reason as to why we should belive that you wouldn’t do it unless you were his sock puppet…

    0
  6. “Why can’t you simply acknowledge what you must know to be true?”

    That sounded like: “Search your feelings. You know it to be true.” With Mung speaking just like it came from Darth Vader, who was turned to the dark side with revolutionary zeal.

    “Your distaste for the DI clouds your judgment, as with Swamidass. You two are the ones who need to get over it.”

    My sociology of the DI is accurate for what it displays & reveals about a corrupt ideology in Seattle that is now well past it’s time (to say nothing of Dawkins’ ‘Brights’, another dustbin idea that isn’t funded by evangelical protestants & boosted by former republican government officials in Washington State). The DI corrupts youth telling them to be deceivers, rather than truth tellers, in the name of their PRECIOUS ideology. It promotes religion inside its walls & denies that it is doing so in public. How do you condone these things, Mung?

    And there are a lot more than 2 of us now giving the DI & the IDM its comeuppance. Do you think they’ll ever face up to the multitude of Christians who have soundly & comprehensively critiqued & revealed the vacuity of IDism/IDT & lack of evidence to support it beyond mere probabilism?

    Write to Stephen C. & John G. & ask them why they avoid real design thinking & theories & why they duplicitously speak of ‘design theory’ instead of the ‘intelligent design ideology’ they are still busy pushing? If they were honourable men, they would have confronted this glaring evidence of bias in their approach already. They are victim playing & not producing the science to back up their bluffs. Is that somehow honourable to you, Mung?

    0
  7. J-Mac,

    Joshua banned me from his ‘Peaceful Science’ site for pointing out his hypocrisy regarding ideology & his strategy of not just allowing, but promoting atheism on his site through others & egging them on. A completely ludicrous claim of ‘sock puppet’.

    J-Mac, you get an inordinate amount of things wrong. Might be something wrong with that new agey esoteric syncretist non-traditional ‘religion-of-1’ it seems you’re into. Just saying.

    0
  8. Gregory:
    J-Mac,

    Joshua banned me from his ‘Peaceful Science’ site for pointing out his hypocrisy regarding ideology & his strategy of not just allowing, but promoting atheism on his site through others & egging them on. A completely ludicrous claim of ‘sock puppet’.

    J-Mac, you get an inordinate amount of things wrong. Might be something wrong with that new agey esoteric syncretist non-traditional ‘religion-of-1’ it seems you’re into. Just saying.

    It is even more amazing that after Joshua banned you at PS you still keep promoting his website and his ideology…
    Now, you’ve decided to take on Mung, who I suspect got banned at PS, for exposing Joshua’s hypocrisy…
    This world is full of surprises…and you are a part of it, it seems…

    0
  9. Gregory: J-Mac, you get an inordinate amount of things wrong. Might be something wrong with that new agey esoteric syncretist non-traditional ‘religion-of-1’ it seems you’re into. Just saying.

    Yeah, all you have to do is prove it…
    Until then… lol

    0
  10. J-Mac: It is even more amazing that after Joshua banned you at PS you still keep promoting his website and his ideology…

    Now, you’ve decided to take on Mung, who I suspect got banned at PS, for exposing Joshua’s hypocrisy…

    I’m not promoting Joshua’s peculiar ideology. What led you to misbelieve otherwise?

    As for his website, I continue to believe that more & more people from TSZ, lurkers or posters, should visit Joshua’s site. Neil & Alan were doing fine there; I haven’t checked recently. Joshua appears to be well qualified to discuss the biology, genetics, computer simulations, etc. involved in discussions of nature, even if he lacks the sophistication, much like Doug Axe (Discovery) & Dennis Venema (BioLogos) & Nathanial Jeanson (AiG), to elaborate carefully on many of the most important topics involving humanity. Notice how Joshua highlights ‘human beings’ as a most important topic, while spending very little actual time studying ‘us’ (human beings) as scholars trained to study human beings do?

    I know nothing about whether or not Mung got banned at PS & don’t watch closely for Joshua’s supposed hypocrisy. What is so blatant? Are you keeping a document of examples while lurking there to provide over here sometime? He’ll just take more behind the boards with the Discourse system & PS will eventually become a post-neo-creationst organisation with a few nice atheist jokers allowed if they behave. Your taunts won’t impact his “peace-seeking y’all” mission.

    It’s just peace *in* science that Joshua’s after anyway, right? https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/testing-the-genealogical-adam-hypothesis/

    0
  11. Gregory: How do you condone these things, Mung?

    He not only condones it, he directly supports it via cash donations to the DI.

    0
  12. OMagain: He not only condones it, he directly supports it via cash donations to the DI.

    It’s not like they are the Ku Klux Klan.

    0
  13. Gregory: It promotes religion inside its walls & denies that it is doing so in public.

    I’ve been inside the walls of the DI a number of times and never observed any promotion of religion.

    0
  14. Gregory: I’m not promoting Joshua’s peculiar ideology. What led you to misbelieve otherwise?

    As for his website, I continue to believe that more & more people from TSZ, lurkers or posters, should visit Joshua’s site. Neil & Alan were doing fine there; I haven’t checked recently. Joshua appears to be well qualified to discuss the biology, genetics, computer simulations, etc. involved in discussions of nature, even if he lacks the sophistication, much like Doug Axe (Discovery) & Dennis Venema (BioLogos) & Nathanial Jeanson (AiG), to elaborate carefully on many of the most important topics involving humanity. Notice how Joshua highlights ‘human beings’ as a most important topic, while spending very little actual time studying ‘us’ (human beings) as scholars trained to study human beings do?

    I know nothing about whether or not Mung got banned at PS & don’t watch closely for Joshua’s supposed hypocrisy. What is so blatant? Are you keeping a document of examples while lurking there to provide over here sometime? He’ll just take more behind the boards with the Discourse system & PS will eventually become a post-neo-creationst organisation with a few nice atheist jokers allowed if they behave. Your taunts won’t impact his “peace-seeking y’all” mission.

    It’s just peace *in* science that Joshua’s after anyway, right? https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/testing-the-genealogical-adam-hypothesis/

    As a alleged Christian, what is it that you have against Christianity? Is it because some Christians, like Behe, support ID?
    Even Behe agrees that teaching ID in schools would be an impossible task…
    On the other hand, people like Larry Moran, who is an agnostic, support the teaching of the controversy between evolution and ID. He thinks that students should see the evidence on both sides of the controversy and have the opportunity to choose for themselves, rather than being bullied by the Darwinian police to hear only one side of the story…

    As a alleged Christian, which idea seems more reasonable to you?

    0
  15. Gregory: The DI corrupts youth telling them to be deceivers, rather than truth tellers, in the name of their PRECIOUS ideology.

    How do they do that? YouTube videos? Facebook posts? Secret mailings?

    0
  16. Mung,

    At the DI’s summer program for students. Similarly, their ‘Faith & Science’ update is all about uncapitalised ‘intelligent design’ as an instrument of ‘cultural renewal.’

    It’s a sign of decadence in USA’s ‘culture war.’

    “Just send us your money, Mung, because obviously we’ve successfully hidden the double talking from you!” – Discovery Institute

    0
  17. Mung: It’s not like they are the Ku Klux Klan.

    No, surely not racism in Seattle? True, they likely wouldn’t have reacted to Joshua Swamidass the way BioLogos did, after he accused them first. However, the DI summer program was very white & largely male the year I attended, which certainly holds true still among leadership.

    The Dunning-Kruger Effect runs rampant in the DI. They are fanatics of their own kind, Mung, many of whose careers are now defined by contrarianism, outlandish claims & open promotion of discord. I’m sure this will be hard for you to accept, but it does not appear like you have much experience with credible, serious, rigorous scientists. Have you ever had a conversation with a scientist in person who rejects IDism/IDT & shares your religious worldview? That might help.

    Otherwise, it’s typical denial in Seattle, until comeuppance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GriewMYDhuA

    0
  18. “what is it that you have against Christianity?”

    Umm, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    The many critiques of IDism/IDT by Christians have left a strong mark on my views.

    Those are the critiques Mung ignores & the DI runs away from into silence. Thus, I can certainly empathise with Joshua’s frustration that leading IDists won’t make efforts to defend their ‘theory’ & claims against fellow Christians or even honourably respond. Joshua’s ‘call-outs’ are also a bit funny, given the posturing & avoidance he is committing in promoting himself (plus an atheist, a unitarian universalist a ‘reformed’ anglican, a young earther & a few other diehards) as a ‘fifth voice’.

    0
  19. Gregory: Umm, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    The many critiques of IDism/IDT by Christians have left a strong mark on my views.

    Those are the critiques Mung ignores & the DI runs away from into silence. Thus, I can certainly empathise with Joshua’s frustration that leading IDists won’t make efforts to defend their ‘theory’ & claims against fellow Christians or even honourably respond. Joshua’s ‘call-outs’ are also a bit funny, given the posturing & avoidance he is committing in promoting himself (plus an atheist, a unitarian universalist a ‘reformed’ anglican, a young earther & a few other diehards) as a ‘fifth voice’.

    I think you should consider stopping beating your wife…

    0
  20. J-Mac: I think you should consider stopping beating your wife…

    Strange person, seeking attention.

    You didn’t answer to what I wrote explaining why I don’t find Michael Behe courageous due to the ideological dimension of IDism & his exaggeration of IDT beyond his own fields of study. It will be noted historically as a Seattle-based Gotcha! attempt, that was epitomised in the off-the-cuff ‘Poof!’ answer Behe gave when pressed hard enough. He displayed what’s at the root of the Johnson-Meyer-Behe-Dembski-Nelson-Wells-Axe-Gauger-West et al. movement: double talk without backing themselves up with evidence or demonstration. People are sucking on an ideological lemon there in Seattle, with some sugar on it to confuse them.

    0
  21. “It’s a sign of decadence in USA’s ‘culture war.’”

    Continued with the announcement of a JTF grant to PS. TBC…

    0
  22. Gregory: You didn’t answer to what I wrote explaining why I don’t find Michael Behe courageous due to the ideological dimension of IDism & his exaggeration of IDT beyond his own fields of study.

    You can’t be serious.?!!!
    You would like me to answer to something you are confused about?

    People like you, Swamidass, Ken Miller and the like make of Christianity a laughing stock…or whatever is left of it… I know it is pointless to even imply why but what you try to promote is your own brand of “Christianity” that has nothing to do with Christ…
    I left the Catholic Church because of their hypocrisy and many more people leave religion because they see the same thing; there is no Christ left in Christianity but man-made morality, pseudo-Christianity and mindlees faith. Christianity has lost its appeal…

    0
  23. “I left the Catholic Church”

    How long ago was that?

    As for your views of Behe’s ‘courage’ or lack thereof, you’d be hard-pressed to find a dozen people who know the IDM & the several varieties of IDT better than I do. It’s been part of my research agenda for considerable chunks of the past 15+ years. This includes several publications on the topic, even in peer reviewed journals. So I guess you can suggest I’m confused instead of you if that pleases you.

    “brand of ‘Christianity’ that has nothing to do with Christ…”

    It sounds like you should become Orthodox then, instead of woolly syncretistic & full of baffling heterodox ideas.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.