Posted on 02/07/2005 8:16:39 AM PST by metacognative
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Design for Living By MICHAEL J. BEHE
Published: February 7, 2005
ethlehem, Pa. — IN the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not. Advertisement
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. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.
Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.
Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.
For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")
The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.
In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.
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. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.
Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.
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. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.
The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.
Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.
Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Just to point out also, this computer program does NOT prove evolution as a whole.
It just disproves Michael Behe's claims against evolution.
Quote \Quote\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Quoted; p. pr. & vb. n. Quoting.] [OF. quoter, F. coter to letter, number, to quote, LL. quotare to divide into chapters and verses, fr. L. quotus. See Quota.] [Formerly written also cote.]
1. To cite, as a passage from some author; to name, repeat, or adduce, as a passage from an author or speaker, by way of authority or illustration; as, to quote a passage from Homer.
2. To cite a passage from; to name as the authority for a statement or an opinion; as, to quote Shakespeare.
3. (Com.) To name the current price of.
4. To notice; to observe; to examine. [Obs.] --Shak.
5. To set down, as in writing. [Obs.] ``He's quoted for a most perfidious slave.'' --Shak.
Syn: To cite; name; adduce; repeat.
Usage: Quote, Cite. To cite was originally to call into court as a witness, etc., and hence denotes bringing forward any thing or person as evidence. Quote usually signifies to reproduce another's words; it is also used to indicate an appeal to some one as an authority, without adducing his exact words.
___________________
Paraphrase \Par"a*phrase\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Paraphrased; p. pr. & vb. n. Paraphrasing.]
To express, interpret, or translate with latitude; to give the meaning of a passage in other language.
We are put to construe and paraphrase our own words.
--Bp.
Stillingfleet.
< /kidding>
Because evolution does not postulate supernatural involvement. It is a valid scientific hypothesis.
My dog once flew due to it's fart.
There, I provided a theory that cannot be reproduced in a lab, and does not involve the supernatural. Does that mean you'll believe it as well?
Just becuase you deserve it, this is a follow-up post to the best post on this thread.
You concisely stated why abiogenesis is not scientific. Something had to happen to make life work.
Well, what kind of evidence do you have? None? Okay, next theory. Oh, evolution? What kind of evidence? Lots? Well, let's have a look then...
I'm surprised you didn't get an F on that paper. Chomsky didn't invent the perceptron, Rosenblatt did.
I can provide evidence all day. Reproduce it if you're a scientist.
Let's see the evidence, then.
Oooh, did the tape drives start whizzing really fast, and did the console lights start blinking a lot? Did the computer smoke & burst into flames too? :-)
Festival de Troll-a-rama
My dog once flew due to it's fart. There, I provided a theory that cannot be reproduced in a lab, and does not involve the supernatural. Does that mean you'll believe it as well?
No, that is not a theory, not even a hypothesis unless you can demonstrate that the dog did fly.
If you can do that, then his flying due to his farting is a valid hypothesis that can be examined, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a theory without a lot more data.
I'm, willing to see it investigated as a part of science if you can demonstrate that he flew for some unknown reason. I certainly don't believe every hypothesis that is to be investigated, nor does any scientist.
I never said inteligent design was untrue.
I never said I don't believe in it.
I only said Inteligent Design is not Science any more than it is Electrical Engineering or Sculpture. They are both limited disciplines that do not cover everything. Not even mathematics is universal. There are numeric problems that lie outside the pervue of math.
I did say that inteligent design should properly be studied as a part of Theology, not science, not engineering, not art, not mathematics.
It has it's own specialty with sophisticated intelectual tools that work very well, Why would you try to demean Inteligent Design by pushing it into the circumscribed world of science, when, if true, it is so much larger than science?
So9
“Entropy in a closed system must always increase until it reaches a maximum.”: The second law of thermodynamicsBicycles rust, the reverse never happens (Rust turning into bicycles) Darwinists just want to play the movie backwards and state that order is not important. They are wrong. The question should be WHY do they do this, what makes evolutionists disregard obvious laws? (my two year old both understands and causes entropy.)
Classic game of moving the goalposts. Evolution has always followed the law. It's never even gotten a warning. All the 2LoT implies about biology (let alone evolution) is that all living things have to eat. All living things must engage in a metabolism of some kind in order to keep total chaos at bay and to reproduce. So they have to push molecules around. Which means they have to do work. Which means they will always produce a net increase in entropy. Which means they will always have to ingest some energy gradient, whose flow towards equilibrium they can tap into to do said work.
THAT'S IT. What you're really claiming is that the 2LoT is not sufficient to explain evolution. And you know what? You're right! The 2LoT is not sufficient to explain evolution. The "programmed energy conversion mechanism" you creationists harp about is indeed necessary. How it got started is a live question for abiogenesis researchers. Imagine that: Scientists investigating questions at the bleeding edge of our knowledge!
Some people look at them and cheer them on. Others look at them and are scared to death that they just might find something definitive.
The answer is slightly different for each person, but it boils down to they have a reason not to want a supreme being in the universe.
Or: Those who deny evolution are afraid that if enough people stop believing that Genesis was literally true, society will collapse due to everyone suddenly not having a real-world reason to keep following a consistent moral code. Everyone will stop thinking in terms of principles. Everyone will stop thinking about the long-term thriving of themselves, their loved ones, their friends & countrymen, let alone of humanity in general. Also, everybody will stop thinking in terms of long-term consequences. All because of accepting this mainstream biological theory.
It's because the evolution-deniers tacitly agree with postmodernist nihilism: Morality is just a social construction - a set of free-floating, self-serving subjective opinions. Under this assumption the only outcome is that whoever's the most ruthless in pursuing their own self-serving moral system will crush the others.
The postmodernist tries to avoid this supposedly inevitable Hobbesian "war of all-against-all" by always siding with whoever is the underdog in any given dispute, in order to maintain a tense standoff between rough equals. The creationist, OTOH, tries to avoid the Hobbesian war by getting everybody to believe in this mythical, all-powerful supernatural Authority Figure who simply intimidates everyone into following whatever system they say he decided he wanted us to follow.
Both the creationist and the postmodernist are wrong: A moral system is objectively good or bad. Unfortunately it's just not self-evident: We have to learn from history, economics, psychology, etc. But at least morality is indeed objectively verifiable. We can judge a moral code by its fruits out here in the real world. Isn't that a wonderful thing to know?
Oh BTW: This also means that you don't have to fear evolution.
"No, that is not a theory, not even a hypothesis unless you can demonstrate that the dog did fly."
Exactly. Demonstrate evolution (as in a species changing into another species, not adapting) or abio-genesis.
Showing me a culture of bacteria that adapts to penicillin does not change the species of the bacteria, only it's vulnerability to that specific agent.
Same for you buddy. Show me a species changing into another species.
Show me life from non-life withuot design.
As for the evidence for evolution, what is it you'd like to see?
I thought Mardi Gras was over.
You see I may have know that then, and forgot it now. That's entropy for you.
The Second Law merely states that General Sternwood's comment to Philip Marlowe about a newborn spider existing entirely on heat cannot be true.
Is a proof in geometry a perceptron? Is a proof in that level of arithmetic Godel's theorem applied to? Is a turing machine and the tape in it a perceptron?
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.