Talk:Michael Behe
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
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)
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. HrafnTalkStalk 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. HrafnTalkStalk 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia consensus appears to be bullshit smear jobs are fine
Amazing. Don't agree with a scientific theory? Mis-characterize it, label it pseudo-science and bingo, problem solvedAwotter (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- What scientific theory? Do please give references to peer reviewed published research. .. dave souza, talk 06:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Amazing. Don't agree with ..." an article, so make unsubstantiated, vague and uncivil accusations. When you have something substantiated, specific and civil to say, do come again. HrafnTalkStalk 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. GusChiggins21 (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
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.