1. Evolution can be modeled in terms of an unchanging fitness landscape.

Nowhere did Behe claim this.

He did not claim this, but his mathematical model assumed it. The same is true of 2,3,4,7, and 8.

No proof is offered that other pairs can confer malarial immunity without serious consequences.

Did you read my previous links?

6. The actual odds of that combination change are 10-20. (Odds of any single change is 10-9)

Unsubstantiated.

I don't see my cite for that number right now, but that 2 order of magnitude difference in his calculations is not nearly so important as the other assumptions that underly his math. I've grown bored of this, but if you really care I can find the cite later.

I think your whole analysis will suffer the same problems and should be ignored as well.

Whatever gets you through the night.
I am far from alone in my judgement of Behe's work. The articles I cited support my position. Are those authors also mean-spirited, calculating and wrong? Is it only Behe and the faithful few who are honestly looking at the evidence, or is there a simpler explanation? In science as in engineering KISS is the generally the best advice.

The Dawkins review of his book in the NYT makes quite funny mincemeat of his argument about possible speed of evolution using canines as a ready example.
Laboratory examples of speciation effectively do the same without requiring too much math. We have observed what he claims is mathematically impossible. That effectively puts the lie to it.

Other excellent reviews can be found here and here. The second requires a subscription, but can be read without subscription here.

I very much doubt that anything they say will change your mind. I am beginning to doubt that there is nothing anyone could say to change your mind on this issue.

1. Evolution can be modeled in terms of an unchanging fitness landscape.

Nowhere did Behe claim this.

2. The fitness landscape is a smooth surface and local maximum or minimum in any dimension is a local limit in all dimensions.
3. The fitness function mapping from a genome to a point of the fitness landscape is monotonically increasing.
4. The fitness function is smoothly continuous, with single-point base changes mapping to infinitesimally small changes in position on the fitness landscape.

This set of claims, 2, 3, and 4, is disingenuous bordering on outright lying. In the EOE, page 115, Behe was ILLUSTRATING the concept of simple versus rugged evolutionary fitness concepts for the lay reader, not claiming that the illustrations were more than that. In fact, the illustrations were used, with permission, from Gavrilets of Princeton University Press, 2004, to make the same general point. Thus these claims by you are false, fatuous and biased,

5. Only that single change of two base pairs can confer immunity.

No proof is offered that other pairs can confer malarial immunity without serious consequences.

6. The actual odds of that combination change are 10-20. (Odds of any single change is 10-9)

Unsubstantiated.

7. complexity = probability

Unsubstantiated.

8. all evolutionary solutions to all problems equally constrained (an analogy here would be calculating the likelihood of being dealt a royal flush and claiming that is the odds of winning any particular hand)

Unsubstantiated.

There are more but I'll stop there.

It is well that you did.

No further comments from here.

These are the knotty problems I referred to earlier.

You previously said there were a huge number of these knotty problems. Can I assume that all but these two have been addressed to your satisfaction?

He rejects the attempts to use the TTSS as proving that the flagellum is reducible

He has apparently made a small change of tack on this, but the argument still fails. The peer reviewed article linked above effectively destroys any argument that its evolution is not possible.
This still does not address the dishonest continued usage of the earlier argument years after it had been thoroughly dismantled.

and proceeds to use the malaria/HIV, microbes versus the human defenses

Here are some suggested reading re: malaria that pretty effectively destroys his argument. All 3 links are to peer reviewed articles published prior to his book.

He agrees with much of the Darwin theory, common descent, natural selection and random mutation, but limits effectiveness of random mutation to small steps

So he thinks a creator/designer is constantly stepping in and making the tweaks necessary to make these changes he believes are otherwise impossible and has been doing so throughout the history of life on earth. That's a pretty big stretch.

...a well-defined, statistically valid limit to random mutation/natural selection...
I have not had time to do a critical review of his math

Behe's mathematical model makes several invalid assumptions:
1. Evolution can be modeled in terms of an unchanging fitness landscape.
2. The fitness landscape is a smooth surface and local maximum or minimum in any dimension is a local limit in all dimensions.
3. The fitness function mapping from a genome to a point of the fitness landscape is monotonically increasing.
4. The fitness function is smoothly continuous, with single-point base changes mapping to infinitesimally small changes in position on the fitness landscape.
5. Only that single change of two base pairs can confer immunity
6. The actual odds of that combination change are 10-20. (Odds of any single change is 10-9)
7. complexity = probability
8. all evolutionary solutions to all problems equally constrained (an analogy here would be calculating the likelihood of being dealt a royal flush and claiming that is the odds of winning any particular hand)
There are more but I'll stop there.

In this book he continues to deny the possibility of speciation by means of natural selection even though it has been observed multiple times in a laboratory setting.

That is it, basically, from which he draws the conclusion that you can't get from one or two gene mutations per step over time to the flagellum at all.

He agrees with much of the Darwin theory, common descent, natural selection and random mutation, but limits effectiveness of random mutation to small steps--too small to get where we want them to go in billions of years, even with heavy selection pressure.

"Edge of Evolution" by M. Behe.

I have not had time to do a critical review of his math, and have no background to critique his presentation of the difficulties with malaria and HIV. Nor will I have time now.

I must have missed the fact that the cites were your work, not some other person's

Not what I said. The cites are of others for the reasons stated above.

There is most likely work that refutes the refuters, if one has any hope that Behe is an honest soul.

As stated previously the reductions of the 'irreducible' were shown to him by 1999 at the latest. He continues to use them today. Neither he nor anyone else presented a refutation of this in 2005 in the Dover case. Presumably he would have done so then if he had one, as it would have helped his side in the case. The DI would also have touted this victory if they had managed to do effectively do so. At this point I don't have much hope that Behe is an honest soul. If you find something that purports to refute these reductions I would love to read it.

Perhaps it is true that Behe or others needed money to continue their work, and could not find the funding

DI apparently has a budget of several million a year and have been spending more on PR rather than science. They have given grants that I am aware of for hundreds of thousands of dollars to people that support their view. It has not resulted in a workable hypothesis for their position, nor has it resulted in much else. It doesn't require a lot of money to formulate a hypothesis and devise ways to test it. Even if they did not have the money to carry out those tests, which apparently they do.

Here again is the problem of this area. Every claim calls for more and more effort. There is most likely work that refutes the refuters, if one has any hope that Behe is an honest soul. There are possibly Behe refuters that are satisfied with their version of a refutation, and it passes common understandings, but perhaps does not probe deeply enough into the sub-molecular level. I will have to Google.

Were I to be actively in this area, which I am not and do not intend to be, I would organize my piece of the effort quite conventionally, and would indeed wear the label "speculative", and would refrain from claiming progress until there was something of substance to report. That others in the ID area have, or have not, approached the subject in my way would merely cost me time to analyze, and accept or reject what they are proposing, if it impinged on my area.

Perhaps it is true that Behe or others needed money to continue their work, and could not find the funding, so they resorted to publishing to make a buck or two. Nothing wrong with that, unless they make false claims. Then, too, there is a huge difference between being simply wrong and being a charlatan. Or, being right!

So you read the book and claim that Woodward is selling ID? Or is it that you read some Amazon reviews and adopted them? Oh my. You are fast on the draw, and rather biased. But, then, aren't we all?

Maybe I will have time later to address the rest of this stuff, but it is cutting in on other commitments just now.

Perhaps what we are dealing with is "intent" in this discussion.

I am judging them by their actions, as those are much easier to see. If they intended to do so, why haven't they? They have been pushing ID for a decade now and 'creation science' for years before that. Why no hypothesis after all that time? The obvious reason is that their proposed explanation is an undetectable creator.

A "credentialed" scientist is accorded what he does in a new area the word "science", while others are not, even if he isn't at the H-T phase.

Generally the person(s) looking into a new area does the background research, comes up with a general outline of what they are asking and how they will go about testing it, then writes that up and shops around for grant money to pursue it. From the beginning they are defining their question, making predictions, and proposing ways to test them. The literature review, while about science and often done by scientists, is not science in and of itself. Their speculations are about science, can be the seeds of science, and are part of the first step of the method.

Would you call a renown theoretical physicist a scientist, and his work scientific, even if he hadn't done any test work on the matter at hand that he is working on?

I would call him a scientist and his speculations potential science. Odds are he would be involved in some phase of actual experimental work while doing this speculating. Alternately he could be doing work about science at that point as Michiu Kaku often does. This work is scientific in the 'of or relating to' form of the definition.

I see you held off showing or referencing your reduction of Behe's two constructs.

On the contrary. I included links in my first post addressing this (December 2, 2007 | 06:54 am) and provided additional links in my next comment that addressed this issue on December 4, 2007 | 07:09 pm and a link to a peer reviewed article, at your request, in the last comment I made that addressed this topic. Even if I had held off, that would make them no less reduced and him no less dishonest for continually repeating these claims long after he knew them to be false. He was informed in detail no later than 1999 yet they remain a staple of his presentations.

Apparently not, so it is your word only that it was so very simple for you.

I never claimed to be the first or only one to reduce the 'irreducible' nor did I claim to do so without reference to any other source. I included cites from the beginning. What I referred to as simple was the Google search necessary to find sources that effectively destroyed his argument. Regarding the bacterial flagella, others did the heavy lifting. I did look further than simply reading a single source and I did some follow up. All when this first came to my attention some years ago and a few times since when I could not remember some of the particulars. Regarding the eye, I remembered the evolutionary development of the eye when his claim about it's 'irreducible complexity' came to my attention and I did some follow up to verify that what I remembered was correct. Nothing beyond high school biology required there.
I included cites so as not to add too much more length to already overlong comments, to show that these are commonly known and understood things, at least among biologists, and because convention requires cites for substantiation.
If you are going to snark you should read the subject of that snark more carefully.

It doesn't seem likely to me, without there being some mediating fact

His current excuse is that the DVD was not ready for sale so he downloaded it and someone else (unspecified) did the voice over on the video he downloaded.

He is an excellent, even-handed, science writer, and did due diligence with this work.

He is a writer with the specific agenda of promoting ID as science. An even handed science writer he is not.

I see you have not addressed the proponents of ID calling it a theory when it most certainly is not.
You also have not addressed the validity of their call for it to be taught along side evolution, when even with the most generous assessment it is not yet even a hypothesis much less a well tested theory.
You have also failed to address the reduction of the supposedly 'irreducibly complex.'
These are core points.
I am also still waiting for some of those "huge number of knotty aspects yet to be explained adequately" by natural selection that you asserted earlier.

Perhaps also, we are dealing with credentials. A "credentialed" scientist is accorded what he does in a new area the word "science", while others are not, even if he isn't at the H-T phase. So it is down to other's interpretation of whether in this instance the intent and the credentials are present to proceed and be labeled science! Oh, yes, and speculative!

Would you call a renown theoretical physicist a scientist, and his work scientific, even if he hadn't done any test work on the matter at hand that he is working on? I would. Early Einstein is the example that comes to mind.

I see you held off showing or referencing your reduction of Behe's two constructs. I didn't pose any criteria at all, I was merely asking whether your work was at that level. Apparently not, so it is your word only that it was so very simple for you. Very nice, if so.

Well, if your tale about Dembski (I always want the p in there)is true in all respects, that isn't proper. It doesn't seem likely to me, without there being some mediating fact, such as having received permission, but from the wrong person. Speculation.

Dr. Woodward wrote a history of the ID movement, using essential elements of the work of many top pro and con people in the ID vs E fields, and interviews and emails with them to verify what he wrote. He is an excellent, even-handed, science writer, and did due diligence with this work. Sneers were not called for, although they were fully anticipated.

if it hasn't reached the predictive stage, it isn't science

That's it exactly. Science is repeatable, which requires making predictions about the outcome of tests. Without testable prediction of outcomes, it isn't science.

You stated earlier that you had "reduced" both of Behe's examples. If so, were your results published, were they peer-reviewed, or are you simply working off the back of an envelope?

First, their work has not met the standard you ask for. Second, did you follow the links? One of the cites linked was the freely available precursor to,
Pallen and Matzke 2006, “From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella.” Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4(10), 784-790
The above cite requires a subscription to read in full which is why I linked to the precursor.
It is however not necessary to publish a peer reviewed article to counter every bit of crankery put out by the Discovery Institute. A simple point by point refutation of the type I linked to multiple times above is quite sufficient. I also linked to an article describing a peer reviewed article that showed the predictive power of evolution on the fossil record. Did you follow any of the links?

You appear to be setting up criteria for calling anything science in such a way that any fledgling area being investigated cannot be science until it passes your filter.

They are not MY criteria. They are THE criteria. No matter how fledgling an area of investigation until hypotheses are formulated it is nothing more than speculation. If it is not possible to formulate hypotheses it will never be science. The DI coined the term ID over a decade ago, they have a few scientists on staff, yet in all that time they have yet to even come up with a workable hypothesis much less test it. That should tell you something. Since they do have scientists on staff, there are at least some who know the definitions of the terms, yet they continue to call their speculation an alternate theory.

Never mind that the area uses tools, methods, and rules of scientific work, if it hasn't reached the predictive stage, it isn't science.

It may use some of the tools and some of the language, but it does not use the method or follow the rules.
From any grade school text book the method is something like:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
They have not gotten beyond step 2 and that work has been shoddy, yet they want to be put on equal footing with a much validated THEORY that has stood up to long and serious TESTING. That is far from a reasonable demand.

I wonder how many chemistry, physics, and cosmological areas first had to simply understand their area, formulate ideas, and try to figure out what they could do with the tools they have, what others have set forth and if they agree, and defer the predictive stage until more illumination has occurred.

It is speculation, some of it scientifically informed speculation, but speculation none the less and they would freely admit that. That is the BEGINNING of the method. They move from there onto formulating a hypothesis that is at least theoretically testable even if current technology does not allow for testing. If they cannot do so they admit that it is, at least for the moment idle speculation. They would certainly not demand that their speculation be given equal weight to established theories. This is what proponents of ID have done.
There is some disagreement as to the mechanism responsible for gravity. If I point to that disagreement and propose that the mechanism is invisible, undetectable fairies pulling objects towards each other; does my speculation deserve time in a classroom. I can define my question and read up on the lit and use lots of sciencey words. I can't form a working hypothesis, because the fairies are invisible and undetectable, but that doesn't mean that what I am doing isn't science and deserving of equal weight to the theories of Newton or Einstein does it? Does it make a difference if I form a think tank with other IF (invisible fairy) supporters?

BTW What tools do you (they) think they are missing in order to be able to test their as yet unformulated hypothesis?

Every scientific area started somewhere, often with little to work with, except the work of others, right or wrong.

and that initial speculation is not given equal weight to established theory. Some of it may prove worthwhile, some of it may one day be more than speculation, but until they can formulate hypotheses and test them it remains speculation and generally goes unnoticed. You and the DI apparently want to turn this system on its head and give equal weight to idle speculation and theory.

Woodward is not "authentic". Behe is not authentic, Dempski is not authentic

Woodward, your one and only cite, is a theologian and his 'qualification' is a PhD in communications. He didn't even have undergraduate work in the sciences. Further he has done no science and has demonstrated little knowledge of science. His area of expertise if PR and theology (in that order IMO).

I did not say Behe was not authentic. I said he continuously repeated assertions he knew/knows to be thoroughly disproven. I further said that this is not honest.

I did not discuss Dempski (Dembski). He seems to be best known for pirating a video from Harvard/XVIVO, removing the credits and replacing the narration that explains the development and function of the organelles with his narration saying that there is no explanation other than design. He repeatedly shows that video without permission or attribution but with dishonest narration at presentations where he is paid. That is not honest or legal.

no one except one class of scientist is authentic, and you hold the list of those considered "worthy".

That one class of scientists I find to be of value are those that can effectively formulate and test hypotheses, honestly state the results of that work, and present it for review. I certainly don't hold a list. I can however utilize a search engine and do the minimal research necessary to determine if the person named has met this minimal standard.
A PhD is not required. Undergrads and even drop outs have managed to self educate and do good science. Quite a few people with only a bachelors or masters do good science or work on teams that do good science.
As to my own education, my bachelors was in biology, my masters in limnology and oceanography and most of my research has been on hermatypic corals and their associated symbionts. A co-authorship on the effects of flow rate on corals is in progress. No PhD yet.

You stated earlier that you had "reduced" both of Behe's examples. If so, were your results published, were they peer-reviewed, or are you simply working off the back of an envelope? That is a significant claim that I would love to see verified. I assume you are talking about the flagellum and the cilium. Doing that fully would be a work of great importance.

You appear to be setting up criteria for calling anything science in such a way that any fledgling area being investigated cannot be science until it passes your filter. Never mind that the area uses tools, methods, and rules of scientific work, if it hasn't reached the predictive stage, it isn't science. I wonder how many chemistry, physics, and cosmological areas first had to simply understand their area, formulate ideas, and try to figure out what they could do with the tools they have, what others have set forth and if they agree, and defer the predictive stage until more illumination has occurred.

This filter I reject as being far too restrictive, and seemingly "designed" to exclude ID in today's world. lol! Every scientific area started somewhere, often with little to work with, except the work of others, right or wrong.

For example, Darwinists would consider ID a challenge to their deepest beliefs

It is not that it challenges beliefs, it is that it pretends to be what it is not. Legitimate challenges are welcome. Find a weakness in a theory point it out.* Challenge away, but if they are going to call what they do science there are things they need to do that they have not done.
If you are going to call your proposal a theory you must first formulate and test a hypothesis, they have not done so yet continue to call ID a theory. That is simply dishonest.

The easy way to identify the intolerance of Darwinists is to see the expression: ID = Creationism.

The internal documents of the Discovery Institute pretty effectively demonstrated that what they are supporting is creationism with an alternate vocabulary. After Edwards v Aguilard references to a creator in "Of Pandas and People" were replaced by references to a designer. They coined the term, they are the primary people pushing this agenda, and their internal documents show their intent. They continue to deny this despite the evidence that shows they are not being truthful.

The issue of the Mousetrap example by Behe to argue for irreducible complexity has been attacked many times, but it still survives.

It survives only because people continue to repeat it despite each example given being thoroughly refuted. If one says something is irreducibly complex and then it is shown that the constituent parts served a function in earlier organisms then the "irreducible" has been reduced. An honest person confronted with this evidence would not continue to repeat the claim that these things are 'irreducibly complex.'

The details of the primordial soup...

Abiogenesis ≠ evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life.
There is not currently a solid theory for abiogenesis, rather there are several competing hypotheses. They have all been tested to various degrees, but have not given a complete picture, yet. A designer (creator), however is not the default position. Formulate a testable hypothesis for your (their) position and test it or don't call what you are doing science.

Woodward's PhD is in communications. Why would I buy a book on science by someone with no credentials or apparent knowledge on the subject? When I ask for a cite I mean a cite of an expert on the field in question. Based on his PhD thesis in communications (this book), his area of expertise is spinning ID to convince people with little knowledge of science that ID is science. Hos professorship is in Bible and theology.

The debate between the adherents and critics of Darwinism is not in the mathematical language of the physical sciences but in the framework of two competing narratives, as Woodward reminds us. On this basis, Darwinism and ID are both in the same arena.

Absolutely not. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is elegant and makes predictions that can be and have been repeatedly tested. The hypotheses tested are quantifiable at a minimum by presence absence of predicted result.
I cannot stress strongly enough: You must formulate and test hypotheses if you want to call what you do science. Those hypotheses must be testable, predictive, descriptive, conservative, and simple. This is not optional, it is an absolute requirement. ID, young earth creationism, FSMism, or any other alternative to evolution thus far put forward fail completely on three, arguable all five of these.**

...the only basis for excluding one or the other from science is philosophical choice."

No. One is include because it rigidly adheres to scientific principles and the other is excluded because it disregards those principles.
Believe what you like, argue passionately for it if that is what you want, but don't call it science unless you meet the minimum requirements.

At this point many scientist are upset about the continuing attempts to call non-science science and to push it into a science classroom where it does not belong. The repetition of dishonest and disproven claims by the primary proponents of the ID movement have led some to become vitriolic in their responses. This of course plays into the hands of the ID proponents, as it lets them point to the vitriol and say, "Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"

_______________________________
It sounds like the Governors schools are an excellent educational supplement. I hope they are getting the support it appears they deserve.

* Thus far the two primary challenges are quite weak and were thoroughly dealt with over a decade ago yet they keep popping up unchanged like a bad case of herpes.
** based on statement of supporters rather than their non-existent hypotheses

The easy way to identify the intolerance of Darwinists is to see the expression: ID = Creationism. That is the standard attack. Unfortunately, What the majority of IDers say is that they are attacking Darwin's theory as preliminary to formulating a new paradigm, and not trying to say: Complexity = God, but rather, Complexity = ?

I have always heard it to be Complexity = non-natural or meta-physical. Either way takes ID our of the realm of science. If there is some variation of ID that allows for irreducibly complex forms to be created through natural processes, I've not heard of it.

Darwinists would consider ID a challenge to their deepest beliefs, and would immediately be on the attack, which is very evident on line, in papers, and legally!

Scientists of every variety are very defensive of their trade, and don't like non-validated ideas being given the same weight of authority as the ones they have worked to validate. Relativity was rejected by most scientists, especially quantum physicists, until it's predictions were validated. If/when ID's predictions are validated by experimentation, then it can have some authority, but for now only evolution has found validating evidence.

The issue of the Mousetrap example by Behe to argue for irreducible complexity has been attacked many times, but it still survives.

It still survives as an ideology, but not as a theory. But so does young earth creationism, geocentrism, and many other provably wrong ideas. When it can stand as a theory, then that's another story.

The details of the primordial soup experiments, for example, were shown to be radically incomplete, "canned", inconclusive, and unrealistic. Interesting, but useful?

Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution starts with the assumption that life already exists, it doesn't care how that came about.

The debate between the adherents and critics of Darwinism is not in the mathematical language of the physical sciences but in the framework of two competing narratives

Criticism of ID is usually centered around it's lack of physical or mathematical predictions, and therefore lack of testability. Criticism of evolution is usually centered around past incorrect identification, a lack of some specific evidence, or evidence that cannot be explained by natural selection alone. Evolution, and natural selection, make testable predictions. There is even a great deal of math involved. To date, testing evolution through natural selection has always verified the theory. To date, no ID prediction has been validated.