Posted on 08/25/2005 3:17:05 PM PDT by curiosity
We've seen the little symbols on the backs of cars: The "Jesus fish" and the "Darwin fish." The Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish. The Darwin fish eating the Jesus fish. It makes for entertainment while commuting, but this front of the culture wars won't be won or lost on the freeway.
The creationists realized that they were not getting enough traction in their bumper- sticker campaign against the theory of evolution. So biblical literalists have come up with a new strategy: leave the word "God" out of the public argument, and come up with one that sounds more scientific. It's called "intelligent design." President Bush has endorsed it as one of the theories of life's origins that should be taught in public schools.
But it isn't a theory at all. "Intelligent design" posits that the structure of life is so complex and delicate that it is unimaginable that it could have come into existence without having been designed by some intelligent force. Therefore such an intelligence must be responsible for it. But this is a conclusion that can be reached only by assuming that it is true in the first place -- a classic tautology, or example of circular reasoning, which has no place in science.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
There are several problems with Behe. The first is that it is impossible to define irreducible complexity in an objective way. I suppose an atomic particle is irreducible in the sense that anything simpler would not be functionally equivalent.
But complex systems are almost always comprised of parts that are functional in themselves. Sometimes the parts were originally used for some unrelated purpose.
Behe's examples have pretty much expired with time and further reserch. They are not irreducible. The direction of findings is not in his favor.
I agree that's the nub, but I concede it might well be possible to define irreducible complexity. Suppose, for example, that any modification to human DNA produced a high explosive? The argument can then be made that our DNA didn't "evolve", since any hypothetical earlier stage would have all blown up. The trouble is identifying such a case, if one exists.
But complex systems are almost always comprised of parts that are functional in themselves. Sometimes the parts were originally used for some unrelated purpose.
Yup, that's the problem. To make his case, Behe would have to prove that the incomplete system is not useful for any purpose or, better yet, is guaranteed to be fatal.
Behe's examples have pretty much expired with time and further reserch. They are not irreducible.
That's because he exhibits something that's very complex, and then claims without proof that it's irreducibly complex. He's equivocating. I'd still say, though, that searching for irreducible complexity can be a perfectly valid scientific endeavor. If done properly, it would have as a by-product a whole lotta progress in biochemistry, as we accumulated proofs that things were in fact reducible.
I tend to agree that the assertions of ID have motivated some research, but here's the problem: the research would be done anyway, because mainstream scientists do this anyway.
If you listen carefully to the ID advocates -- especially what they say to each other -- you will find that they don't like this kind of "reductionism." They would prefer to have science step away from materialism.
Wrong.
There is order in the universe that cannnot be explained mathematically in any way other than by the action of intelligence.
That's the theory in a nutshell.
Correction:
Behe demonstrates that Darwinism cannot explain the formation of irreducibly complex biological system and posits design as a workable alternative theory.
That's called science at work.
You have three responses:
1. Demonstrate a path by which darwinism can generate an IC system.
2. Demonstrate that there are no IC biological systems.
3. Provide an alternate path that is neither darwinistic or design that can explain IC systems.
A few good scientists have taken a shot at number 2. No one has looked at number 3. Number 1 is pretty much universally agreed to be mathematically impossible, so most "scientists" make up a fourth response: Attack the theorist.
They oppose it because it would give Christians credibility. It's nothing more than that.
Death, to God, is like changing clothes. What's your point?
Not exactly. Behe addresses this issue. The problem is, if the component is useful for any other purpose, then there are no selection pressures to produce the irreducible system, and you are dealing with random probabilities, and as any evolutionary biologist will tell you, random probabilities are the death knell of evolution. You have to have the bias of natural selection working on the species in order to direct the probabilities.
That's because he exhibits something that's very complex, and then claims without proof that it's irreducibly complex. He's equivocating.
Not true at all. Some examples Behe gives of IC systems are actually very simple, the mouse trap for example.
Secondly, the demonstrations showing that IC systems really aren't actually have not done so at all. What they have shown is that the people demonstrating don't understand IC. For example, the proof that e coli metabolic pathways aren't IC is based on removing a critical component of the pathway from the bacteria and then showing they can continue to survive...by supplying them with a non-naturally ocurring food that already has been partly metabolized so the modified bacteria can still use it. Remove the artificial food, and the bacteria suffer 100% extinction; a pretty good proof that the metabolic pathway is IC.
Numbers one and two have pretty much been demonstrated, at least in the cases Behe claims are IC.
I'm afraid that's not a good argument. If you have a perfectly good cooling fin, and by a happy accident it's almost adequate for flying, Behe would argue that you leaped from nothing to having full-fledged wings, which just isn't right. The unfinished structure might well have had a totally different use. Since selection is mindless, it only cares that a small change is also useful--it doesn't care what for.
Not true at all. Some examples Behe gives of IC systems are actually very simple, the mouse trap for example.
OK, I'll grant that. The fallacy there is that an incomplete mousetrap is (arguably) good for nothing at all. Thus he makes a good case that the mousetrap was created by someone with that use in mind. But what about my hammer that I discovered was useful as a throwing stick, and that (wonder of wonders) came back to me? The boomerang was almost certainly not designed in the way that the mousetrap was.
In other words, he's taking advantage of ambiguity concerning the term "irreducible". To truly be "irreducible", the incomplete structure can't have another legitimate use. (Note, BTW, the new weasel word "legitimate"; I'm thinking along the lines of 'cooling fins in the antarctic' or some such.)
Secondly, the demonstrations showing that IC systems really aren't actually have not done so at all.
I'm not arguing for or against Behe--I'd have no problem if irreducible complexity were proven for some things. I'm just pointing out that (1) on one hand, the notion of IC is a perfectly legitimate one, and (2) that in proving IC, it's necessary to actually prove the "I" part. It isn't sufficient to prove C and conclude I.
As razorbak said, one cannot be a Christian and not believe Christ. But Spiritual understanding is not available equally to all men - so it is possible for men of good conscience to disagree.
On the one hand, Christ spoke in parables so that only those who were supposed to understand, would (Matthew 13:10-17) - and certain things are not to be known (Daniel 12:4, Revelation 10:4, Matthew 24:36).
On the other hand, Christ chose twelve disciples who were each quite different and themselves had disagreements on the interpretation of Scripture (Acts 15) and He accepted with commendations and rebukes seven different churches (Revelation 2-3).
IMHO, the most helpful approach is to recognize a brother in Christ for his core beliefs in Jesus Christ and the Trinity and be understanding as he absorbs the Living Word of God under the leading of the indwelling Spirit. This is how we are all, individually, to learn (John 15-17, Romans 8, I Cor 2).
But if a person claims to be a Christian but promotes a doctrine which denies Christ (as the author of this article has done) - then we can pray for his spiritual recovery from the delusion (Romans 1) – but we must not encourage him.
My two cents...
Thanks. You're one of the posters on FR who has reaced legendary status, such as Doug from Upland and John Huang2. I always enjoy reading your posts.
I believe you are mixing fact with creationist fiction.
Difficult passages? I am repeatedly told that the Bible is the word of God. What problem do you have with me posting the word of God?
Jesus made it clear when He was teaching using parables.
If these OT stories were NOT literally true I believe Jesus would have made that obvious. I don't believe Jesus would have left us guessing.
Thank you oh so very much for the kudos and encouragements! Hugs!!!
Yes. The word of God contains difficult passages.
What problem do you have with me posting the word of God?
Per say, no problem. However, I do have a problem with you posting difficult passages, out of context, on an evolution thread in an attempt to discredit the Bible.
I'll make a deal. Get the creos to stop posting the lies about evolution and I won't post any Bible passages on evolution threads. OK?
Where did he deny Christ?
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.