Talk:Michael Behe

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

Unnecessary bias. “ Michael Joseph Behe[2] (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.”

Should read: Michael Joseph Behe[2] (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and an advocate of the of the principle intelligent design.

Explanation: qualitative statement (ie. judgement) not relevant to an introductory biographical summary of an individual. Comments on the validity of his belief belong in a section on criticism or reception. Or perhaps just a hyperlink to the main article on the offensive topic. 67.61.91.91 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION. No, the invalidity of his belief (which he camouflages as science) is the only reason we have an article about him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2024

Remove the word “pseudoscientific” It is prejudicial. 90.208.72.168 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It is well-sourced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lehigh University's comments on Behe.

Here’s the full statement.

“The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”

All universities support academic freedom so the department does not need to say it supports academic freedom.

The second paragraph is not in support of academic freedom. Instead, the department announces that “departmental faculty” support some unspecified version of evolutionary theory but that, in itself, is contrary to the principle of academic freedom because it attempts to impose a certain view.

Then the statement goes completely off the rails by identifying a particular member of the department and pointing out that his particular view “has no basis in science” and his views are “in no way endorsed by the department.”

No views, no matter how controversial, should be “endorsed” by a department or the university and no tenured faculty member should be singled out for having views that aren’t shared by most of their colleagues.

It is outrageous that the Department of Biological Sciences at a respectable university should post a notice saying “Department position on evolution and “intelligent design.” University department do not have “positions,” especially on controversial issues.

I am a strong opponent of intelligent design but I'm also a strong proponent of academic freedom. We do not need to post a link to what I think is a violation of Behe's right to academic freedom. Genome42 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Hi @Genome42, I noticed that you removed the word pseudoscientific from the lede. I have added it back. As you are aware from this talk page (and the many citations on this page), and I am sure from the talk page of Pseudoscience, this is the consensus on Wikipedia.

Please don't revert it without first establishing a consensus to do so here. Thank you! BobEret (he/him) (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

There are billions of religious people on this planet. (I am an atheist.) The vast majority of them accept some version of intelligent design and some version of creationism. The ID version that they pick may not be the same as the one promoted by the most extreme members of the Discovery Institute but that's no reason to refer to all versions of ID as "pseudoscience."

Behe, for example, accepts common descent and most of evolutionary theory. His arguments are very scientific and require extensive knowledge of evolution to refute.

Yes, it's true that many opponents of ID would like to label it as pseudoscience but there are also respectable scientists and philosophers who question that label, especially when it refers to scientists such as Behe (and some others).

Many Wikipedia editors have taken sides in this controversy and that's why they are comfortable with calling ID a pseudoscience. But, as you can see from the many attempts to remove this label, there are also quite a few editors like me who are opposed to ID but nevertheless want to remain somewhat neutral, especially in the lead to this article where the gratuitous insult is totally unnecessary. It's offensive to many religious readers and there's nothing to gain by that.

It's difficult to defend the view that you represent the "consensus" when there are obviously many of us who disagree with you. Genome42 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view, but I am not saying that I represent the consensus among people at large. In fact, I disagree that I am taking a side on the debate of whether ID is or is not a pseudoscience.

What I am saying is that the consensus among editors of Wikipedia, based on reliable sources, is that intelligent design is a pseudoscience.

This is why the lede on intelligent design says that it is a pseudoscience. As you will see in the FAQs on Talk:Intelligent design in answer 2:

A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment."

I also disagree that this is a "gratuitous insult." The vast majority of reliable sources call intelligent design a pseudoscience, so it is appropriate to use that term.

I accept that characterising the term as "offensive to many religious readers" may be accurate. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Content may be offensive to some people, but this is no reason to remove it from the encyclopaedia. BobEret (he/him) (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss whether ID should always be characterized as a pseudoscience whenever it is mentioned. That discussion should occur on the intelligent design site. In an article about Michael Behe, we only have to link to that site without making a judgement call on it's validity It's a much more complicated issue than you realize.

Intelligent design is also called intelligent design creationism (my preferred term). It's a theological position that counts as a form of apologetics. The "science" part attempts to demonstrate that evolution cannot account for the appearance of design. Some of those arguments are quite sophisticated but those of us who oppose them judge them to be bad science. But, they are no worse than many bogus scientific arguments made by respectable scientists.

Behe's arguments fall into this category and all of my debates with him have been strictly about science (although I recognize his motive). I think it's unfair to characterize Behe as a pseudoscientist by implication. He's a genuine scientist even though he's wrong.

It's true that there are scientists and philosophers who judge the science part of those arguments to be pseudoscience and so they want to label the entire intelligent design position as pseudoscientific. That's not a neutral stance.

Those same scientists and philosophers should judge theistic evolution as a pseudoscience if they were being honest. They don't, because they see theistic evolutionists as allies in a bigger fight - the fight to prevent religion in American schools. So it's not really about the science, it's about a culture war and the Wedge Strategy. The enemy is the Discovery Institute.

You should read the article on theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) and ask yourself why it's not labelled as a pseudoscience but intelligent design is.

Also, note that Wikipedia is international. Many scientists from other countries (I am Canadian) do not recognize the opinions of a judge from Pennsylvania as an authority on what is science and what isn't science. Also note that whether ID counts as science or not is a different point than whether it should always be labelled as a pseudoscience. The general consensus among philosophers today (2026) is that the argument that ID is "not science" was flawed and Judge Jone's conclusion on this point was incorrect. He was given the wrong definition of science (i.e. the one you quoted). Genome42 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Genome42, thank you for responding.

With respect, I do not think that your comment has addressed mine.

> "This is not the place to discuss whether ID should always be characterized as a pseudoscience whenever it is mentioned. That discussion should occur on the intelligent design site"

I agree. This discussion has occurred. The outcome was that intelligent design is generally considered a pseudoscience. See the FAQs on the ID page, which I linked to above.

The very longstanding RFA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience) says the following about things which are generally considered a pseudoscience:

"16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

Behe is the main proponent of this pseudoscientific theory. It is the main thing he is notable for. It is the reason why he has a Wikpedia page at all.

It would not give due weight to the sources or represent proper WP:NPOV not to include this. This is not just my view: as you can see from the edit history of this page, it is the consensus among editors.

BobEret (he/him) (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank-you for responding. I think I understand your objection to the edit that many Wikipedia editors have tried to insert over many years.

Many Wikipedia editors are very much opposed to intelligent design and they declared that it is a pseudoscience although the only evidence presented in support of that claim in the intelligent design article is a 2005 statement from an American teachers association. (There are several references and notes using the word pseudoscience but no serious discussion of the pros and cons of this claim in the article itself.)

This definitely counts as promoting a particular point of view. It's clear that there are millions of people all over the world who disagree.

Because of this, you argue that the description of ID as a "pseudoscience" must be inserted every single time intelligent design is mentioned. If I understand you correctly, your argument is not based on any knowledge of the subject but just on a Wikipedia rule that once a "consensus" has been achieved in one article it should be enforced everywhere.

Is that an accurate summary of your position?

Note: There are legitimate arguments supporting the view that ID is a pseudoscience but they aren't discussed in the main article. There are also legitimate arguments against that point of view and those arguments are not discussed in the main article. It's fair to say that that that the proponents of the pseudoscience view are in the majority but the POV of the intelligent design article is far from neutral.

I believe that the scientific arguments advanced by Michael Behe should be addressed, and refuted, scientifically and that's the position that I have taken for the past thirty years.

I believe it is a serious mistake to try and dismiss the views of all intelligent design proponents by labeling ID as "pseudoscientific" or "not science." That's a form of the begging the question fallacy. Genome42 (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

(I just saw this discussion because newer edits made it pop up n my watchlist.)

This definitely counts as promoting a particular point of view. It's clear that there are millions of people all over the world who disagree. Wikipedia does not care about things like that. Truth is not determined by voting, and neither is Wikipedia article content. See WP:!VOTE.

the only evidence presented in support of that claim in the intelligent design article is a 2005 statement from an American teachers association. That is not a reason to remove a statement that every well-informed person recognizes as consensus within science. It may be a reason to find more sources.

You start several sentences with "I believe", and you are obviously on a WP:RGW crusade based in your own ignorance of pseudoscience and ID. Please read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)