Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
Nick Matzke has also commented on this, but the op-ed is so bad I can't resist piling on. From the very first sentence, Michael Behe's op-ed in today's NY Times is an exercise in unwarranted hubris.
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.
And it's all downhill from there.
Intelligent Design creationism is not a "rival theory." It is an ad hoc pile of mush, and once again we catch a creationist using the term "theory" as if it means "wild-ass guess." I think a theory is an idea that integrates and explains a large body of observation, and is well supported by the evidence, not a random idea about untestable mechanisms which have not been seen. I suspect Behe knows this, too, and what he is doing is a conscious bait-and-switch. See here, where he asserts that there is evidence for ID:
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.
This is where he first pulls the rug over the reader's eyes. He claims the Intelligent Design guess is based on physical evidence, and that he has four lines of argument; you'd expect him to then succinctly list the evidence, as was done in the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ on the talkorigins site. He doesn't. Not once in the entire op-ed does he give a single piece of this "physical evidence." Instead, we get four bald assertions, every one false.
The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature.
He then tells us that Mt Rushmore is designed, and the Rocky Mountains aren't. How is this an argument for anything? Nobody is denying that human beings design things, and that Mt Rushmore was carved with intelligent planning. Saying that Rushmore was designed does not help us resolve whether the frond of a fern is 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.
No, this is controversial, in the sense that Behe is claiming it while most biologists are denying it. Again, he does not present any evidence to back up his contention, but instead invokes two words: "Paley" and "machine."
The Reverend Paley, of course, is long dead and his argument equally deceased, thoroughly scuttled. I will give Behe credit that he only wants to turn the clock of science back to about 1850, rather than 1350, as his fellow creationists at the Discovery Institute seem to desire, but resurrecting Paley won't help him.
The rest of his argument consists of citing a number of instances of biologists using the word "machine" to refer to the workings of a cell. This is ludicrous; he's playing a game with words, assuming that everyone will automatically link the word "machine" to "design." But of course, Crick and Alberts and the other scientists who compared the mechanism of the cell to an intricate machine were making no presumption of design.
There is another sneaky bit of dishonesty here; Behe is trying to use the good names of Crick and Alberts to endorse his crackpot theory, when the creationists know full well that Crick did not believe in ID, and that Alberts has been vocal in his opposition.
So far, Behe's argument has been that "it's obvious!", accompanied by a little sleight of hand. It doesn't get any better.
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.
Oh, so many creationists tropes in such a short paragraph.
Remember, this is supposed to be an outline of the evidence for Intelligent Design creationism. Declaring that evolutionary biology is "no good" is not evidence for his pet guess.
Similarly, declaring that some small minority of scientists, most of whom seem to be employed by creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute or the Creation Research Society or Answers in Genesis, does not make their ideas correct. Some small minority of historians also believe the Holocaust never happened; does that validate their denial? There are also people who call themselves physicists and engineers who promote perpetual motion machines. Credible historians, physicists, and engineers repudiate all of these people, just as credible biologists repudiate the fringe elements that babble about intelligent design.
The last bit of his claim is simply Behe's standard misrepresentation. For years, he's been going around telling people that he has analyzed the content of the Journal of Molecular Evolution and that they have never published anything on "detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures", and that the textbooks similarly lack any credible evidence for such processes. Both claims are false. A list of research studies that show exactly what he claims doesn't exist is easily found.
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.
How does Behe get away with this?
How does this crap get published in the NY Times?
Look at what he is doing: he is simply declaring that there is no convincing explanation in biology that doesn't require intelligent design, therefore Intelligent Design creationism is true. But thousands of biologists think the large body of evidence in the scientific literature is convincing! Behe doesn't get to just wave his hands and have all the evidence for evolutionary biology magically disappear; he is trusting that his audience, lacking any knowledge of biology, will simply believe him.
After this resoundingly vacant series of non-explanations, Behe tops it all off with a cliche.
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.
Behe began this op-ed by telling us that he was going to give us the contemporary argument for Intelligent Design creationism, consisting of four linked claims. Here's a shorter Behe for you:
The evidence for Intelligent Design.
That's it.
That's pathetic.
And it's in the New York Times? Journalism has fallen on very hard times.
This article was first published on Pharyngula and appears here by permission.
No.
Is there some First Darwin Bankcorp where all you all lay up the pearls to be polished and earn interest?
No.
And is there some sort of swine selection process, as to which porkers you throw these collections of pearls before?
No.
Is the process by which "well-earned derision" accrues and develops is that random evolution or ID on your part?
Neither.
Which is why your original analogy is poor. Any realistic model of technological change in the market place would have to incorporate design as well as selection which is what ID'rs hypothesize, hypothetically speaking of course.:-}
Better that both sides render unto Caesar what is Caesars.
One step at a time. The first step is to acknowledge the importance of natural selection. Molecular biology will eventually reveal the causes of variation.
A fair hearing? There is not a single idea advance bu Behe that wasn't published in William paley's "Natural Theology" in 1802. In fact, most of Darwin's writing was in direct response to Paley.
As for a fair hearing, the scientific establishement resisted Darwin for 80 years (accepting evolution, but rejecting natural selection). Every possible hedge around natural selection was tried, by hundreds of the brightest people in biology.
Among these opponents was the old flame thrower, T.H. Huxley himself. Today there are several theories of how variation occurs (all of which may be right) but all variation is subject to selection.
You know, RWP, it is good that such a phrase comes to your mind. There is hope for you that you spend time w/ Christians as you do here, and use quotes from the Bible.
Fwiw, I do encounter such people at church every Sunday, as I have for the last 3 or so years. But, unlike you, I now see that not all of them lie, cheat, and steal the other six days of the week.
For most of my life, I considered the counterfeit Christians to be representative of all of them; I, like you, had good reason to ignore the message of Christ because of them.
But, did you know that monopoly money will not buy anything? Of course you did. And except for its use in the game Monopoly, you don't bother using it either, right? Did you know know that no one bothers counterfeiting monopoly money? Makes sense. RWP, to you, all Christians are 'monopoly' Christians .... are they not?
A US. 100 Dollar bill? Now, there's a piece of paper that tons of folks are desperately trying to counterfeit, all the efforts by the US Treasury printing new hard-to-counterfiet bills notwithstanding.
I suppose if you were unlucky enough to go to a store, and have your 100 dollar bill rejected b/c, gasp!, it was fake, that would stop you from using ALL USA money ...; but you would still use US Money, for it wouldn't make sense to reject all USA money based on the fakes that are everywhere.
It is a darn good sign folks take the trouble they do counterfeiting our money. It would be a bad sign if they stopped. But to you, interestingly, it makes sense to reject all things Christian. There are no real mccoys out there that are the originals from which counterfeits are made. To you, a counterfeit Christian makes as much sense as a counterfeit 500 dollar monopoly bill.
Even more so, it makes sense to you to attack and impugn all Christians, especially ones who are concerned about how origins of man are taught to little kids.
Let's see; we have a theory of origins based on a couple who had three sons, one of which killed his brother, and they populated the earth despite the absence of any other women except their mother, with a bloodline incorporating various other incestuous relationships and internecine homicides; and you're complaining evolution is amoral?
First, it is not a theory, and Christians don't claim to treat Christ like a scientist treats science. But your reaction to my post #190 is very interesting; I sense you don't like it when the standards you apply on us Christians are reversed and placed upon you.
Here is what I wrote that you, and the rest of 'you', ignored and are still ignoring:
How, scientifically (links would be great; but you, and your band of brothers, have failed to post a single one thus far), does it help the cause of the GOP to disregard the legitimate concerns Christians have against the amoral foundations taught to kids about their origins?.
You cherry pick stuff out of the bible, in order to make the bible look immoral (not amoral) (and chances are pretty good you already know the responses to all of your unspoken implications in what you wrote).
And then you indicate I'm silly for 'complaining' about how teaching the ToE promotes amorality in little kids. Well, unless you have a made a mistake, RWP, it is nice to see you concede that amorality is intrinsic to teaching the ToE to little kids and that you promote that.
It is good to see you admit that origins, for you, is the bigger issue, and not evolution.
The fact you pay attention to the 'couple with three sons' is a very good sign RWP. Don't stop doing that.
Now that all said, and in full knowledge it won't make a bit of difference to you, let me add this: I taught Sunday School this past Sunday. It is a high school class, and surprise, the lesson was about that couple!
The core of the lesson was the Adam was a coward for not protecting Eve.
Although she did all the talking, Adam was there the whole time, silent. He didn't step between her and the talking Serpent, the most crafty of animals; he didn't point out that the very first question in the Bible has a lie embedded in it.
He went yellow; but he had an excuse; he wanted to know the taste of the knowledge fruit as much as Eve, but he let her do the dirty work. I suppose he found her more trustworthy than God.
And then when God looked both of them up and sought accountability, Adam pointed the finger at GOD and said, the woman 'YOU' gave me .... and thus the "I was a victim" defense was born.
Adam was a coward for being silent and not protecting Eve. She was deceived, but Adam was outright rebellious and then a wimp when he got caught.
The high schoolers were astonished. Blaming Adam for Eve's actions with the snake they had not considered before. The Fall was preventable, had Adam spoken up. But he was a chickens**t. One young man kept saying 'but SHE has responsibility for the fall too!!". Even in Sunday School, blaming women for man's irresponsibilities is a temptation hard to overcome, given how loudly the world is shouting.
It was very interesting yesterday, surrounded by pictures of the sacrifice, teaching about Adam's Folly .... but you don't teach Sunday School (oops, you do, but its disguised as nonreligious, amoral, and unadulterated science), so you can't relate.
At the start of the lesson, a clever high school girl asked, "Did Eve have a belly button"? (We had been discussing how Adam was refined mud, thus Eve, the last creation of God, was a 'double refinement'.)
That is the question I bet you can relate to RWP. I bet you'll never guess how I answered it. I bet you don't even care.
All scientists recognize order, design, function, organization, information, intelligence, and specified complexity (all used synonymously here). One simply cannot do science without admitting function in biology or order in one's thoughts or intelligence in one's fellow scientists. The origin of order is the essential question dividing intelligent design and traditional evolution. Evolution holds order arose spontaneously from disorder as a local anomaly in a chaotic cosmos; design holds that observable order arose from other, latent order present throughout history. The initial configuration of the universe is either orderly or disorderly.
Before considering scientific predictions of these two postulates, the philosophy undergirding each theory must be differentiated. Science absolutely requires a founding epistemology and philosophy; we cannot prematurely dismiss one theory out of hand as nonscientific because philosophical or religious (much as design advocates would like to do so). Evolution implies spontaneous order has no ultimate cause; design implies observable order has latent order as a form of first cause. These separable philosophies do not make observable predictions. But observation does suggest that most people, even scientists, believe life has ultimate reason and meaning: to recognize second causes without admitting a first cause is to seek intermediate reasons in an finally unreasonable universe. So a philosophical advantage may be accorded to design.
(We also mention anthropic principles, which combine evolution's philosophy, implying denial of any first cause for order other than our being here to observe it, with design's theory, requiring latent order in the initial configuration. Contrarily, theistic evolution mixes design philosophy, implying a first cause, with evolution theory, requiring order to arise from disorder. These variations inconsistently wed philosophy and scientific theory so are safely subsumed under the primary postulate models of evolution and design.) Having separated the underlying philosophies prepares us to consider which model better fits observable evidence: the traditional evolution theory of disorderly origin, or the intelligent design theory of orderly origin.
By postulating a disorderly big bang, evolution predicts discernible mathematical categories of order and disorder. In fact, life is so orderly that evolution's core tenet would baldly predict that life should not exist. Given the contrary, evolution predicts only a single possible origin of life, and requires great ages for that origin, and necessitates an intrinsic simplicity to that life. It predicts a simple path exists from primal elements to a fully reproducing cell. Again, stated plainly, evolution's disorder postulate predicts multiple species are too improbable to occur; but given speciation and its single-origin inference, evolution concludes common descent and predicts an extant path connecting all species. Its unvarnished postulate predicts that preservation of life once originated would be improbability upon improbability; but given preservation, it predicts spontaneous influxes of orderly evolving which never either extinguish nor overpopulate.
Design actually predicts less. By postulating latent order, it predicts no meaningful mathematical distinction between order and chaos. By regarding order as a property of all matter at all levels, it predicts demonstrably orderly structures such as lifeforms, and great layers of complexity therein. Since life arising from nonlife is an expected function of the inherently orderly universe, it could occur either once or often, over either long or short periods. Design predicts clear demarcations between life and nonlife, and between species and species. Finally, it predicts the preservation of populations as an ongoing function of the orderly universe. (Readers who are concerned at this point that evolution's postulate or corollaries are unfairly misstated, or that design's postulate illegitimately smuggles in philosophical notions, will also be addressed shortly.)
But does disorder baldly predict the impossibility of preservation of life, speciation of life, or life itself? While harsh, this seems the testimony of evolutionists. All attempts to calculate the odds of significant order arising in a local anomaly of a disordered cosmos have found wildly improbable results, many orders of magnitude removed from real possibility. The simplest reproducing cell requires correctly sequencing hundreds of chemical bases, all of which randomly came to exist in close proximity and, within a randomly occurring protective environment, randomly come together at the right link points, all in order. The introduction of further complexity requires rejection of thousands of mutations for every one possible beneficial adaptation, many thousands of which are required to bridge the smallest gaps between true species; and each of thousands of species at minimum must be bridged, at much greater odds than the mathematically impossible original cell. And even generously given a reproducing population, the ongoing existence of that population over a billion years requires a precisely balanced input of chaos, just enough catastrophe to prevent overpopulation, but not too much to extinguish the species. Ever. Without presenting often speculative mathematical details, it suffices to report that many evolutionists, convinced enough by the numbers, are adding bandages like counterbalancing philosophical presuppositions (such as all possible worlds existing), or rejecting disorder or evolution entirely. At its very inception, traditional evolution is hamstrung by exceptions to prevent its most basic predictions from exposure as contrary to common experience. Advantage: design.
One might claim traditional evolution does not predict such obvious contrarieties because it only makes order possible from disorder, not probable; but this abrogates the scientist's duty of explaining order's origin. Further, mathematically limiting order is not simple as evolution holds. If one asked the logical successor to the digits 31415, the answer 1, based on arithmetical sequence, is just as orderly as the answer 9, based on expansion of pi. Clearly order is present in both continuations, even if not observable to everyone. Chaos theory is the new branch of mathematics which is demonstrating that apparently random processes often produce orderable results, and there is no useful distinction between orderly and disorderly numbers as there is between rational and irrational. It is well known that no pseudorandom generator can produce a wholly orderless output, so order must also be theoretically recapturable from even the outputs of the more complex generators of lifeforms. In fact, chaos theory defines parallels between apparently random physical generators (such as air turbulence) and simply described mathematical generators. This science, which mathematically demonstrates order in all apparent chaos, makes clear that disorderly origin as a postulate contradicts its observation of latent order. Advantage: design.
Bypassing the mathematical demonstrations of latency, one might continue believing in disorder and promoting evolution as the only possible vehicle from disorder to order, which requires tremendous epochs, single life origin, and basic simplicity to life. Unfortunately each inference fails observational tests. The earth's age is hotly disputed by extremists of both camps, with "old clocks" showing great age and "young clocks" showing recent origin, both under uniform conditions. However, uniform assumptions usually can only be modified in the direction of shorter time. For example, old clocks might show lesser age if a known ongoing process happened faster than assumed, but young clocks only show greater age if a known ongoing process were completely stopped for most of the universe's life, without any observational reason. The greatest example of these, the speed of light, is constant to all observers at any given time, but a growing body of published science from diverse sources is suggesting it may have been trillions of times faster at the universe's origin, providing just the reconciliation amenable to design. Lightspeed decay, which may have already been observed, is a much more probable theory than dark matter, never observed, but believed to gravitationally hold astrophysical matter in clusters over the billions of years needed. Occam's razor resolves the heated competing claims by preferring the simpler explanation (rate modification) to the needlessly circuitous (inexplicable rate stoppage). Design does not require youth, but evolution must destroy or be destroyed by any and every reliable young clock. Advantage: design.
Similarly, evolution cannot conceive of multiple origins of life, but design can. The punctuated equilibrium adaptation of evolution was advanced precisely to address the vast observed evidence of speciation: it argues for largely static (nonevolving) populations of essentially identical individuals, with few intermediate forms at their origin and usually no further evolution at their extinction. Unfortunately, by admitting this evidence, it admits equally the validity of totally nonevolving populations with no intermediate forms at their origin, a possibility of design theory which we might call exclamation-point equilibrium. If life is common enough to originate once, it cannot be excluded from originating multiple times. We cannot philosophically idolize a single-origin assumption, as evolution must, to maintain its concept of order from disorder; but we can with design consider evidence which suggests a possibility of multiple life origins. Advantage: design.
The complexity of life has been design's most direct attack on traditionalism, even though complexity and order remain only partially well-defined. Irreducible complexity, having multiple parts which only function when all are present, is difficult but not impossible for evolution to answer. If scientists postulate hypothetical alternate functions for almost every part, they can imagine them coexisting and random chance closing the circuit to produce the irreducibly complex system. But does this approach best fit the evidence? The sheer volume of complex biostructures requires either an extant evolving path for every one or an inference to design. Postulating the evolving path in every case, often without transitional form evidence, is patching up a theory with another, while design actually predicts irreducible complexity. Darwin's original simplistic view of species elasticity was foiled by Mendel's contemporaneous genetic discoveries, and science has only discovered more complexity ever since: oversimplification of life rejects observation. Advantage: design.
Evolutionists admit having no viable answers after a hundred years of research for a pathway from primal elements to a reproducing cell. As mentioned, the possibility of all elements coming together at once is beyond reason. But even coming together into building blocks which might await further combination requires a load upon natural processes which has been unmet by experimentation. Various theories of protein or RNA origination, wet or dry, hot or cold, have been found in laboratories only to occur in highly controlled environments. Each base must be individually assembled, they must be placed in close proximity in correct amounts, and they must be protected from the easy disassembly of interaction with common environment compounds like water, yet activated by any number of rare compounds to complete one replication, let alone any other cell functions. Virtually every observed cell can reproduce, build and repair structures, create and move proteins and other molecules, and regulate levels of various compounds. Yet science journals shudder to address the many individual steps to originate a single cell, much preferring "hard" (nonspeculative) science like sequencing and mathematical analysis. It is much easier to publish demonstrably true but unhelpful experiments than to actually demonstrate any step of a stepwise origin for any cellular function. Design predicts the observable lack of substeps; evolution sweats to cobble a thousand biochemical patches. Advantage: design.
Interspecies paths fare even worse, not to mention the vast complexities added when jumping to creatures with hundreds of multicellular organs. Evolution requires that all lifeforms (but one) have immediate, nearly-similar ancestors, which necessitates a web of lifeforms without any clear demarcations. Design permits common ancestry, but also permits multiple-species origin, which predicts easily classified differences of form. Once again, the evidence for speciation is so complete it completely rejects gradual change as the mechanism for many evolutionists. As a very general statement, animals in a species are nearly similar, having broad but limited variation; but none of them are as nearly similar to any other species. Observation of billions of fossils demonstrates new forms are always classifiable as independent species, but only rarely as intermediate forms between known species. Evolutionists often posit a small number of intermediate forms between similar species (such as man and ape) as if the question is thereby solved, while the thousands of steps required for any interspecies transformation are still missing today. Evolution predicts and requires a disorderly mess of indistinguishable lifeforms, design permits a classifiable set of lifeform clusters called species. Guess what the evidence advantages.
Finally, evolution predicts that if, against its own theory, life should handily originate, differentiate, and survive, while evincing hardly any gradual change within the fossil record, that life must receive spontaneous increases in orderliness over a billion years to reach current complexity levels which leave life itself neither extinct nor overpopulous. The implausibility of maintaining a growth trend for so long, precisely close enough to zero to avoid both extremes of catastrophe, has already been discussed; but after evolution suggests a potential valid growth curve for any species population, the additional evidentiary problem lies in finding enough carcasses to fit the curve. For example, a species with a presumed age of a half-billion years and a lifespan of one year might include perhaps a hundred million times as many dead specimens as live ones. The number could be quite deflated depending on curve selection, but not enough to match observation: even the flattest curve requires the existence of billions to trillions of such creatures, tremendously more of any species than the fossil record permits. Natural breakdown of dead specimens cannot be so neat as to destroy nearly all specimens but leave one out of a million or billion as tantalizing fossils; even if adduced to solve the missing-link problem, it creates greater improbabilities than it resolves. Catastrophe is called upon again, not only to pummel each species toward greater order while avoiding overpopulation, but also to destroy the remains of creatures which profoundly outnumber observable fossils, while preventing total extinction of life. Such a perfectly harmonious chaos has a better name: order.
These brief delineations and their widely published empirical demonstration lead most scientists to reject the unadorned postulate that order arises from disorder, yet many still maintain macroevolution and reject design as unscientific. Some claim that orderliness is not observable nor a proper subject of science, yet they observe order every minute and describe it with every word. But those who recognize the propriety of studying order and the impossibility of disorderly initial conditions logically conclude the big bang was orderly, and if so then extremely so. If, however, one admits this prime postulate of design, whether as an anthropic principle, a no-boundary condition, or a simple admission of latent order, one cannot regard any corollary as nonscientific. If life arose because the universe is orderly, perhaps it arose quickly. Perhaps it arose many times. Perhaps its preservation was due to the same orderliness. Evolutionists must either pursue a blind axiom to impossibility, or they must admit the ramifications of the opposite axiom. The intelligent design revolution is refusing them any abiding inconsistency.
Darwin cleverly abrogated the burden of proof by implying that only if a structure were proven impossible to evolve would evolution be falsified. It has become obvious that new idle speculation can always suggest methods to make structures possible to evolve (even while real science is demolishing the prior round of speculations), which makes evolution nonfalsifiable. The burden of proof has lately been shifting back to evolutionists who see impossibilities so increasingly insuperable that they can no longer regard nonfalsifiable speculation as science. Perhaps some of the vast majority of modern research time fruitlessly devoted to common descent may be yielded to the much more promising likelihood of explanations arising from common design (common origin in inherent order latent throughout the universe) which has guided almost all scientists before Darwin.
It remains to ask whether design theory, for all its mathematical description of order and complexity, for all its evidentiary underpinnings, remains persona non grata by association with someone named God who may have published the first treatise on design theory. These questions are historical and philosophical and separable. We can no more reject design because of any consonance with Genesis or Augustine than we reject evolution because we perceive similarity to Aristotle or the Bhagavad Gita. Those who prejudice truth claims by dismissing their sources commit the basest betrayal of science. The design model predicts order, life, irreducible complexity, speciation, preservation, and comprehensibility, such everyday observations as to need no footnotes. Design does not answer earth-age or common-descent questions, but it permits more interpretations and potential for inquiry than evolution. Evolution, so heavily constrained, is compelled to censor evidence which upends uniformitarian assumptions. The evolution model rejects the evidence of probability theory, chaos theory, biochemistry, genetics, physics, Linnean classification, and paleontology. It denies for order an entropic principle akin to thermodynamic laws; on its face predicts no speciation, preservation, complexity, or even existence to life, insisting on the extreme improbability of what is extremely common; further strains credulity to reject all contrary evidence of young clocks, multiple origins, or population tuning; and continues believing in a complete pathway to originate life and species while evidence instead finds ever more and greater gaps. The evolution establishment constantly patches its patches just as a former establishment fantasized epicycles upon epicycles while Copernican heliocentricity quietly conquered. Evolutionists stand convicted of worshipping a deus ex machina.
There are many possible answers, but if I were asked about tree rings in the Garden, I would speculate they were created with an apparent age, since tree rings are an essential part of the tree's structure.
You forget. You are dealing with an ID/creationist argument. All definitions are subject to change when that change is needed to preserve the argument.
Philosophy statements??? As if Darwinist theory does not imply a "philosophy statement?" For it does, WildTurkey. It's called the causal closure hypothesis: That only physical, material causes exist in the universe.
An astrophysicist friend, Dr. A. Grandpierre, in a yet unpublished manuscript, has written most cogently on this matter:
"Although most physicists strive to distinguish between proven facts and unproven hypotheses, and try to avoid metaphysics altogether, we point out that the causal closure hypothesis is par excellence a metaphysical hypothesis that, apparently, has been smuggled into scientific testing until now. Notwithstanding its lack of demonstrated empirical basis, the hypothesis continues to enjoy widespread acceptance as a well-established scientific fact.
The more fundamental the issue is, the more important the distinction between proven facts and unproven hypotheses becomes. Actually, as Gayon (1999) pointed out, the currently prevailing “received knowledge” (logical empiricism) tells us that there is only one scientific philosophy that should apply in all fields of science. Yet as Gayon further noted, although the accepted philosophy of science applies well in physics, it does not apply equally well in the case of biology.
"It is a matter of fact that the problem of physical closure has rarely been regarded as a scientific question. We also have the problem of how to imagine a closed chain of causes. The word 'closure' seems to refer to something geometrical. A geometrical object is closed if the line returns to itself, as in the case of a circle. Thinking about the closure thesis in a geometrical interpretation, the closure of physical causes would imply retrocausation, which contradicts the widespread idea that causality assumes linear, sequential steps, and excludes causally closed loops. Perhaps this expectation can be more precisely stated as: 'Only physical causes are possible.' But then, how would it be possible to test or falsify this hypothesis?
"Chalmers (1996...) well captures the prevailing view, noting that 'The best evidence of contemporary science tells us that the physical world is more or less causally closed.' We point out that if what we mean by 'physical world' is the world of physical phenomena, and if we are to regard as physical phenomena only those phenomena elicited by physical causes, then the closure thesis may seem entirely plausible, indeed.... If all … physical events were caused by initial conditions given as input to the Big Bang model, then all we can conclude on the basis of present science is that the output of that model would tend to the conclusion that living organisms would … not arise. Yet at the same time, our environment shows an enormous flux of detailed information. Such details seem to exceed the capabilities of the extant cosmological models by far. Therefore, it is actually plausible to assume that the boundary conditions of the physical universe are continuously modified and enhanced by an enormous information flux. In this way, we are led to boundary conditions that were not generated by physical causes — an insight that is in apparent conflict with the closure thesis."
I would just ask you to reflect on these statements, WildTurkey. Maybe then you could recognize yourself as more of a "philosopher" than perhaps you would care to admit.
You are, in equal parts, scientifically and theologically illiterate.
gobucks: You know, RWP, it is good that such a phrase comes to your mind. There is hope for you that you spend time w/ Christians as you do here, and use quotes from the Bible.
When I was younger - like ever so many new Christians, I was (gasp) shocked that there were hypocrites in the church. I was so shocked, I quit attending so as not to associate with "them".
Until one day, when rereading the Sermon on the Mount, the Light of Truth hit me and changed my attitude forever. You see, Christ told me to love and not to judge. I had that completely reversed. I repented in tears having offended both the Word and my brothers and sisters in Him.
And then He led me into a further understanding: that there is no better place for a hypocrite to be than in church where Truth is spoken.
29+ arguments for macroevolution??
if they were right, one would be sufficient, einstein!!
Excellent essay, Tulsa! Source please???
Maybe; but equal? That is very quantitative of you.
But, seriously, atlaw, given you have never posted to me before, and given this is obviously not meant to be a kind compliment, one wonders, why bother to state the obvious ... if you have no doubt?
Come on guy, er, I mean man. Extract that portion that raised your hackles and be straight. Be honest. Try at least, rather than be as guilty as so many of us of an 'ad hominim' attack.
Yep, and thank you for your gentle reply to my post.
Einstein was referring to a Nazi phamphlet entitled "One Hundred Scientists Against Einstein."
If there had been one hundred arguments against Einstein the world would be a different place.
If ID had 100 arguments instead of a list of ICR associates, this discussion would be quite different. To the best of my knowledge, ID has only one argument -- "I don't know how it could have happened; therefore Goddidit."
ID is saying that there's at a minimum some kind of organizing principle (logos) out there somewhere.
Creationism is Judeo-Christian all the way down to the Genesis Flood.
So far as "causal closure" is concerned -- there isn't anything in ID that of necessity stands in opposition to cc depending on how one views "organizing principle." There clearly is in creationism a contradiction to causal closure. This causal closure hypothesis tends to highlight the stark contrast between ID and creationism.
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.the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. ...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.")
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.
(third)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. 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.
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.
eg you say, If common descent, then redundancy results in very similar DNA sequences between recently-related species.
but how do you know which species are recently genealogically related?? you rely on other scientists..
which scientist has the original evidence of family tree without assuming based on other scientists?? interesting how the fallacy list leaves out 'circular reasoning'
the other problem is, IF ID, then redundancy results in very similar DNA sequences between similarly-designed species..same result.
in this way all or most evidence for common descent is also evidence for common design..they all go together
"Another question is to be asked: what about the other pillar of the physical world besides the initial and boundary conditions, namely, the physical laws themselves? If the physical laws do not have physical causes, then it would seem they are caused by non-physical causes, which violates the closure thesis. Therefore, we suspect both constituents of the physical world [i.e., initial/boundary conditions and the physical laws themselves] are actually open towards non-physical causes. In this case, we should ask the telling question: Is the causal structure of the actual world exclusively physical or not? Surely, if the actual world were found to have not only physical causes, it would be necessary to consider what kinds of non-physical causes it might have."
I thought that was pretty good, too! :^)
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.