Irrefutable Design

New York Times ^ | 2/7/2005 | Behe, Michael

[metacognative]

Only a self-limiting so-called 'scientist' of darwinian belief system would argue with this modern view.

[PatrickHenry]

I don't plan to bother the list for this thread, unless you want me to.

[kinsman redeemer]

no bother. It's a good article.

[Paloma_55]

I came across an article at the dentist office the other day on a program called Avida that allows scientists to simulate evolution in a digital format.

http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/

The funny thing about this... there is so much hoopla about how this program allows one to evaluate evolution etc... but SOMEONE created the original program.

Now, if bits in a computer memory and spontaneously evolved into a program that reproduced and evolved.. now THAT would be evidence of evolution.

[Uncle Fud]

Thanks for posting, this is indeed a good article.

IMO the problem is that we can look at any structure of any organism and not be able to definitively state, for all time, that it evolved or that it was designed.

However, the theory of evolution is at least based on extrapolation from known natural processes, whereas design almost be definition cannot be. That alone will rule out design as a subject for scientific evaluation.

Now if the next generation of kittens born at our house is found to have, all at once, opposable thumbs and the knowledge of how to use a can opener, I'll move over to the intelligent design side in a heartbeat.

[jsmith48]

the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea

These people drive me nuts. Is it science, then?

[MineralMan]

"However, the theory of evolution is at least based on extrapolation from known natural processes, whereas design almost be definition cannot be. That alone will rule out design as a subject for scientific evaluation."

A very good point, indeed. We can see the evidence for evolution as a mechanism for the development of species. We cannot see the design process.

ID is not science; it is philosophy.

[Junior]

Behe's been shot down by folks more knowledgeable than we. The creos will still worship at the man's feet, though. Don't ping the list; let the Luddites have their fun.

[jsmith48]

That alone will rule out design as a subject for scientific evaluation

Bring me a proton on a platter, I'd like to take a look at it.

[WildTurkey]

ID is not science; it is philosophy.

ID is a disguised attempt at credibility inorder to fleece more money from the unwise.

[PatrickHenry]

Behe's been shot down by folks more knowledgeable than we. The creos will still worship at the man's feet, though. Don't ping the list; let the Luddites have their fun.

Right. But in case any innocent lurker wants to have a clue about this Behe business:
Irreducible Complexity Demystified. Major debunking of ID.
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.

[Servant of the 9]

Science is the study of the way the world works when there is no miraculous intervention.
If there is miraculous intervention, then it is Theology, not Science.

I am not saying that Inteligent Design is untrue, only that it cannot be Science, and should not be the study of Science Programs, any more than Chinese is properly studied in the English Department.

So9

[jsmith48]

Correct, so why not save both creation and evolution for theology class?

[Uncle Fud]

Nice links, especially:

"If the Designer is directly responsible for flagella then he is implicated as a cause of human diseases. Diarrhea is no joke; it is a leading cause of infant death in some parts of the world. To make matters worse, one can hardly give the Designer credit for flagella without also crediting him with TTSS's in general. This puts the Designer solidly behind Bubonic plague and many other diseases. Happily, science makes such beliefs unnecessary.

[snarks_when_bored]

It's good to have a summary statement of what ID'ers believe from a prominent ID'er. Here's the short version:

"The argument for [intelligent design] consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature."

[snip]

"Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology."

[snip]

"The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence."

[snip]

"The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life."

If this is what ID amounts to, one wonders what its proponents do to occupy their time. Surely there's more to it than this? (Don't answer that.)

Well, at least Lehigh University, Behe's employer, can point out that Tamra Mendelson also works there, so they've got that going for them, anyway.

[Rippin]

Rest assured, along will come the evolatriasts and blast Behe when nothing he says in this article should even be controversial to them. He's trying to start dialogue and they require food fights. What does that tell us?

[Lucky Dog]

We can see the evidence for evolution as a mechanism for the development of species.

It would seem that the only evidence that can “be seen” for the emergence of new species is the fossil record. The mere existence of fossils, or for that matter, the lack thereof, does not explain how these fossils may have come to exist, or not, as the case may be.

Can you cite an experiment that has been reproduced by independent experimenters wherein a new, more complex, species has emerged from temporally earlier, less complex species? Without such experimental evidence, “Darwinism’s mechanism” remains “not testable” and thus “not falsifiable.” If it is not falsifiable, then, by definition, it is not a scientific theory. If “Darwinism” is not a scientific theory, then, it is, at best, a philosophy or hypothesis.

Consequently, if the postulated mechanism of “Darwinism” is not falsifiable in terms of producing new species, it is, like ID, is nothing more than philosophy.

[metacognative]

Even arch-evolutionist Michael Ruse conceded that darwinism is also a philosophy/religion [although without a deity].

[VadeRetro]

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.

And only those people, but that's just a coincidence. (Yeah, right!)

[Lloyd227]

"That alone will rule out design as a subject for scientific evaluation."

This last sentence makes a leap that is not justified. I look at this a bit like archaeology.... i.e. the scientific evaluation regarding any potential "design" is done through the evidence available. Nothing in the concept of design prohibits outright any further scientific evaluation.

The author's analogy to Mount Rushmore is adequate here, i.e. you can look at the chisel marks, the debris field, and the broken tools to determine that this thing was designed and crafted, that it did not simply spring forth as the result of an earthquake and that it was not caused by some strange coincidence of erosion...

Scientific evaluation certainly IS possible in looking for evidence of design in nature. We simply need to be honest about what we're looking at, make sure we're truly looking at the evidence, and try our best not to make assumptions which blind us to what's there to see.