Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
hardcover
online supplementThe Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side Is Winning
the Creation-Evolution Debate
by Delvin Lee "Del" Ratzsch
Posted on 10/27/2020 2:02:13 PM PDT by Heartlander
In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins defined biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Though our generation’s arch-atheist recognizes the tendency of human intuition to attribute things wonderful and complex to the work of a designer, he goes on to argue that life is not designed at all. His prior commitment to a worldview that understands the universe to be the product of eons of accidents and natural selection only imitates design is reflected in the book’s title: the blind watchmaker.
For a long time now, the scientific establishment has shared that assumption. In classrooms and peer-reviewed journals, only naturalistic explanations for life are allowed. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences openly admits this presumption, insisting that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.” Of course, that assumption is itself not testable by the methods of science.
But what if the claims of design are testable? What if our intuition that paramecia and porpoises and people are too exquisitely complex to have arisen by mindless, purposeless forces of nature could be expressed in, say, mathematical terms?
The authors of a groundbreaking new paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology argue precisely this. In it, Steinar Thorvaldsen of Norway’s University of Tromsø and Ola Hössjer of Stockholm University ask a simple question: Can we detect “fine-tuning” in biology as we can in physics? In other words, do the chemistry and construction of living things give Darwinian evolution any “wiggle room” for mistakes and do-overs, or are they precise? Will they, like a puzzle piece, only fit in one place, one way?
Employing a lot of math, math too complicated for me to understand or articulate, the authors answer the question. Their use and definition of “fine-tuning” will sound familiar to anyone familiar with the language and work of the intelligent design movement. Something in biology can be described as “fine-tuned,” they say, if it is “unlikely to have occurred by chance” and if it conforms to “an independent or detached specification.”
As an article over at Evolution News points out, this is nothing other than what ID theorist William Dembski has called “specified complexity.” In fact, the authors of the paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology even cite Dembski by name. As if that weren’t risky enough, they also invoke biochemist Michael Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” as a measure of the fine-tuning in life, credit him by name, and mention other Intelligent Design notables Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer.
These Scandinavian scientists offer, for the first time, a statistical framework for determining whether certain features in living things are fine-tuned or were “evolve-able.” Using this method, they demonstrate how functional proteins, cellular networks, and the biochemical machines found in cells exhibit evidence of “design.”
“Fine-tuning,” the authors say, “is a clear feature of biological systems. Indeed, fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems.” And, in a shot over establishment’s bow, they say bluntly: “It is detectable within the realm of scientific methodology.”
Not only were their arguments compelling enough to be published in a major scientific journal, it challenges the long-held assumptions that design cannot be tested using scientific methods. Of course, the real reason design is so controversial within the scientific establishment is because of a deeply embedded and unscientific pre-commitment to the idea that every effect in nature must be explained by causes within nature. As expected, under pressure from critics who were unhappy about the fact this paper was published, the Journal of Theoretical Biology issued a rebuttal, (and a weak one at that), to Thorvaldsen’s and Hössjer’s paper.
Of course, that’s a sign of the vulnerability of materialism, which is most vulnerable when scientists arrive at the edges of nature and find it pointing beyond itself. Those committed to fine tuning out the ever-increasing evidence of the world’s fine tuning will demand that papers like this never make it past peer review. Those willing to follow the evidence where it leads will find themselves in a small but growing company of scientists who find their observations are confirming their intuitions.
I read it.
It does not say what creationists hope it says.
It does NOT posit an intelligent designer (much less ZAP!). It is some word games but NOT an acknowledgement that ID as used by creationists is even slightly valid.
It says MAYBE someday there can be a testable theory:
>> to work towards “establish[ing] fine-tuning as a sustainable and fully testable scientific hypothesis, and ultimately a Design Science.” <<
Fine. If such is the case and we can discover the design steps then, guess what? It becomes a refinement to TToE. Perhaps a needed one.
But the only way classic ID can be “tested” is to meet and interview the designer.
A group of scientists tell God they can make a better man than He did.
God says, “You’re on”.
One of the scientists tells another, “Go get a bucket of dirt.”
God says, “No, no ... Make your own dirt.”
You are pretty funny.
“But the only way classic ID can be “tested” is to meet and interview the designer.”
You make it out like ID is the only thing that has to be tested by knowing the designer. I would posit to say that ALL aspects of science, which you believe are testable, were created by some unknown source,... so how are they testable? Point me to one example in science where a designer has been interviewed... and I’m not talking about just applied science.
Fair enough.
Does not seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand.
I have never seen a scientist say he/she can manufacture energy or matter. Perhaps you can provide a link where such a claim was made?
The questions are rhetorical – it is the dogmatic adherence to naturalism (no design) in biology that prevents the inference (regardless of the truth).
Nice analogy. I agree completely.
“If such is the case and we can discover the design steps then, guess what? It becomes a refinement to TToE.”
No, that’s quite the opposite of the logical conclusion to be drawn here.
As a Scientific Theory, classic ID (not what is being described in the article) posits - in fact requires -an intelligent designer.
TToE, like all other proper Scientific Theories, makes no such statement and thus has no such requirement.
I do hope I do not need to once again explain what a Scientific Theory is (although it has been a while). That will be impossible on a tablet which is what I am using.
“”.. and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.””
why would one call creation “supernatural”?
not testable = not science?
ok.
but not testable can still = true.
Just injecting a little humor into an unsolvable and serious topic.
Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
hardcover
online supplementThe Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side Is Winning
the Creation-Evolution Debate
by Delvin Lee "Del" Ratzsch
Michael Behe Responds to Critics of his New Book “The Edge of Evolution”
Amazon.com | June 27, 2007 | Michael Behe
Posted on 06/30/2007 10:08:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1858855/posts
A Conversation with Dr. Michael Behe
From Sea to Shining Sea | 9/25/07 | Purple Mountains
Posted on 09/25/2007 2:24:25 PM PDT by PurpleMountains
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1902040/posts
Molecular Machines:
Experimental Support for the Design Inference
Michael J. Behe
A Series of Eyes
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
If you are a knowledgeable biologist, but do not have the super-advanced math skills, you can come to the following conclusions:
1. Evolution is true...
2. But we do not understand how it works!!!!
There are a growing number of evolutionary transitions that do NOT fit the Darwinian model. They have only come to light in the last 30-40 years or so, based on advanced genomics and molecular biology. Of course, researchers are working on trying to understand how these things work, including trying to save strict Darwinism. But that’s how science works!!!!
Before 1980, one could be a strict Darwinist. Since then you cannot be, with any scientific integrity! I don’t know how these new mathematical models affect things, since I do not understand the math. But I do understand the biology!!!!
It is exactly the conclusion. It says there are some arcane phenomenon which are not clearly explained by classic TToE. Nowhere does it ascribe a supernatural force at work.
Rather, it plays word games with “design.” Note it never references “designer.”
If it natural, it fits. If it is a more precise definition of natural phenomena of change, explains TToE characteristics, is testable has predictable parameters and meets all the other criteria for a Scientific Theory, great. It might be a natural biology version of Einsteinian physics supplanting Newtonian. Cool.
Helps not the creationist argument a whit.
And it is not even close to the H0 stage but it might be promising.
Ah.
Got it.
Good analogy, though.
Much of science works at an operational level. One of the most observed yet least understood Scientific Theories is Gravity.
Anyone who thinks Darwin was the end of that line thinking does not understand science nor science history.
Darwin said he could not imagine creation being by chance.
He believed in an intelligent First Cause much like the mind of humans. ( see his autobiography)
I suggest Evolution proves Intelligent Design.
...Anyone who thinks Darwin was the end of that line thinking does not understand science nor science history....
Or they are doctrinaire atheists, or alternatively they get all their evolutionary theory from PBS!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
