Kangaroo Court (Professor Michael Behe, appearing at the left's verision of the Scopes trial...)

No sooner had the Darwinists ended their 80th anniversary celebrations of the Scopes trial than they turned their attention to conducting censorship trials of their own. The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory. That the Dover school board has to defend the constitutionality of its science curriculum before a federal judge is one more illustration of the insane First Amendment jurisprudence of the last 50 years.

The elite, sensing a chance to score a victory against critics of Darwinism, are watching the trial breathlessly. Slate has assigned famed correspondent Hanna Rosin to cover the trial; the New York Times dispatched Laurie Goodstein -- note that she is a religion not science reporter for the paper -- to cover it. There is an all-hands-on-deck feel to the reporting, which has been made even more critical by the presence of the Dover school board's star witness, Lehigh university biochemist Michael Behe. A dreaded scientist who perversely refuses to accept the overwhelming and obvious "consensus" in favor of Darwinism.

While neither Rosin nor Goodstein are up to the task of explaining evolutionary theory convincingly, they do realize the sacred duty of stopping this scientist. He's wandered much too far on to the Darwinists' turf.

Garbling the elite's dogmatic schema, Goodstein, in the Wednesday edition of the Times, had Behe challenging the "Darwinian theory of random natural selection." Random natural selection? No, no, Ms. Goodstein, nature selects not randomly but necessarily, choosing random mutations that happen to prove useful, under Darwin's theory. What is nature? And how does it choose with such incredible precision and marvelous efficiency? Well, that's not important and certainly not within the province of science, even if Aristotle, who probably believed in Gods and went to temple, did consider these questions in The Physics and concluded that nature requires an intelligent cause.

Goodstein doesn't have the Darwinian terminology down, but she is keenly aware of the elite's favorite argument for evolutionary theory: the scientific establishment says it is so and no reasonable person would question these omniscient scientists. Here's how she presents that point: "Scientific critics of intelligent design -- and there are many -- have said for years that its proponents never propose any positive arguments or proofs of their theory, but rest entirely on finding flaws in evolution." What delightful casualness.

Never mind that through history scientists -- and there are many -- have considered it "science" to examine a theory and find it inadequate if it couldn't explain the facts they did know, such as that beings in nature contain awe-inspiring intricacy, beings they couldn't replicate with their own intelligence. But then what do they know next to the scientific experts at the ACLU?

Aristotle was one of those creationists in a cheap toga who concluded that the abundant design in nature points to an intelligent cause even if that cause isn't visible. "For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of chance or spontaneity is this true," he wrote in The Physics, a book that the ACLU would argue violates the separation between church and state.

Though Darwinism resembles an astonishing fable of chance -- the Greek mythmaker Empedocles, not Darwin, deserves credit for launching the idea that nature is undesigned and the product of genetic happenstance -- Goodstein feels confident enough to lampoon Intelligent Design as no more scientific than "astrology." She provides no proof in her story, but leads with the claim that Behe "acknowledged that under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design." Doesn't Goodstein know that astrology is one of her secularist audience's favorite hobbies?

The problem with Behe's testimony for Hanna Rosin was not too little scientific explanation but too much. She found it all very taxing.

"The courtroom, it turns out, is a poor place to conduct a science class. Behe runs through specific examples of 'irreducible complexity' -- his idea that certain biochemical structures are too complex to have evolved in parts: blood clotting cascades, the immune system, cells," she writes. "He claims his critics have misread crucial bits of data. To a nonscientist such as myself (and presumably the judge), this is like Chinese: I recognize the language, but I have no idea whether the speaker is faking it. I have no context, no deeper knowledge of the relevant literature. The reporter seated next to me has written only four lines of notes for three hours of testimony. The mere fact that the trial is being conducted in such highly technical language means, for the moment, ID is winning."

Nevertheless, she is sure Behe's wrong, and adduces herself as evidence that intelligent design is impossible, "I need look no further than myself for counter-evidence: weak ankles, diabetes, high probability of future death. If there is a designer, she doesn't seem so intelligent."

Scientists who stood alone used to inspire a little more deference in the left. But Michael Behe is one nonconformist they won't defend. The silencers of unpopular science once feared ACLU lawyers. Now they retain them.

>>>Yeah, just because everything from astonomy to high energy physics backs up the Big Bang Theory, how *dare* scientists actually put stock in it!<<<

Everything? Of course, scientists are never wrong, especially when discussing something as mundane as the creation of the universe.

We all know that certain assumptions were necessary for the BB theory to work. And nothing in the theory explains why the universe exists, nor how it got here (nor will science ever be able to explain that one). Also, current physical theories begin to fail as matter approaches infinite density.

Hubble noticed that nearby galaxies were moving slowly away from us, and the more distant galaxies were moving away at faster rates. My questions are:

(1) does the distance light travels across the universe alter the doppler shifts? (That is, does the fact that every object we see outside our galaxy is millions of light years away alter our perception, or was the physics different at or near the beginning of the Universe?)

(2) does the BB theory adequately explain the lack of density of objects in some of the very deep space shots of the Hubble Telescope?

If I had to put money on it, I'd put the money on Behe.

Behe's testimony:

Rothschild asked if it was true that the intelligent designer might not actually exist any longer.

Behe agreed that was true.

Rothschild paused.

"Is that what you want to teach school students, Mr. Behe?" he asked.

As part of a curriculum making students aware of intelligent design, Behe said, "Yes, I think that's a terrific thing to point out."

Thank you so much for the ping to your reply, xzins!

I had written a big post to you on this very subject yesterday when a thunderstorm came through and electricity went out. Naturally, the post was lost and the conversation on thread had moved so I didn’t attempt to rebuild it. But this morning I shall try again. LOL!

The entire point of the complexity argument is that natural selection operating on random mutation does not provide an adequate vehicle for the complexity we see.

Indeed, that has been the argument for a very long time against the RMNS formulation as follows: random mutations – natural selection > species.

Actually, the “random” part has always been false on the face of it since one cannot say that any phenomenon is random in the system without first knowing what the “system” is. And physicists do not yet have the answer to that question with reference to physical reality.

Nowadays, the formulation for the theory of evolution has morphed into something more like this: variation – natural selection > species.

And that’s an improvement to be sure! We are grateful. Yet it is ambiguous for the very reason you have mentioned several times now – namely, it lacks any concept of organizing principle.

Just following the news coming out of Santa Fe (mathematicians and physicists involved in evolution biology) – it seemed to me that the formulation for the theory of evolution is likely to change once again into something like this: autonomous biological self-organizing complexity – natural selection > species.

IMHO, Behe along with so many others who support the intelligent design hypothesis are looking for something on this order but perhaps expanded: organizing principles (internal + external) – natural selection > species.

At any rate, it appears the “random” part of the original phrasing has died with a whimper (kind of like the notion of a steady state universe) and the question these days boils down to what the organizing principles for variation are, and the mix (if any).

And I do assert that there will be a mix because a self-organizing system would exclude external factors, whether intentional (e.g. choice of a mate, fractal intelligence, agent such as God) or accidental (mutations, etc.).

Thank you for your information, AG. As always, it is so helpful.

organizing principles (internal + external) – natural selection > species.

That does look a lot like where I'm at right now.

I have no problem with "autonomous biological self-organizing" IF it is supported. Without that, we are left again with some unnamed "organizing principle" that accounts for the complexity.

I have always understood that probability calculations demonstrated the unlikelihood of "random natural selection" being an adequate vehicle to account for the complexity.

"Autonomous biological self-organizing" assumes so much and does not answer the "how" question. My guts tell me that again we'll discover that the supposed age of the earth and of life on the earth limits the utility of this idea.

Somehow, we're going to have to get "awareness" into the mix.

> does the distance light travels across the universe alter the doppler shifts?

Nope. Examination of the processes going on in distant galaxies shows that the laws here/now are the laws there/then.

> does the BB theory adequately explain the lack of density of objects in some of the very deep space shots of the Hubble Telescope?

The deep field shots show distant galaxies *everywhere*.

And yes, some models based on the BB theory result in the formation of the multi-megalightyear structures that are seen in the distant universe.

There may be other explanations for the motion of the objects in the universe than the BB theory (Brane theory is interesting, for example), but so far BB stands pretty solidly. So claims that it is a "myth" are claims based on arrogance married to ignorance.

Thank you so very much for your reply and for your encouragements!

I have no problem with "autonomous biological self-organizing" IF it is supported. Without that, we are left again with some unnamed "organizing principle" that accounts for the complexity.

Most of the material I read on the subject centers around "self-organizing complexity" but that doesn't mean the model is complete or that it is the one that will end up being the most widely accepted organizing principle. Perhaps a generic reference will ultimately be used.

For one thing, "algorithmic information theory" suggests that Kolmogorov complexity is the overriding principle – and perhaps biological self-organizing complexity would/should be seen as a form of it. And, on the Wolfram side of the debate, cellular automata is raised as the overriding principle – and mechanism-wise, perhaps it will be preferred because of its cellular structure. It’s really hard to predict how these cards will fall.

To me, the most interesting part of "biological self-organizing complexity" is that the "self" is doing the organizing. Recent discoveries in Master Control Genes look promising in supporting the model.

But organization goes beyond the corporeal (matter in all its motions) and intelligence is an emergent property under the model. It would be incomplete to consider the decisions of “self awareness” and not the consequence of “awareness” in external pressures, e.g. choosing a mate and being chosen as a mate.

The same groups which are investigating biological self-organizing complexity are also investigating autonomy. And that’s where external pressures become even more fascinating to me, because awareness or intelligence itself is hierarchical. As an example, the functional components to the organism to the collective of organisms to the whole – and conversely in the other direction. Such a phenomenon suggests that intelligence is not only an emergent property but also a fractal property.

And fractal (self-similar) intelligence leaves the door wide open to the theologians, philosophers and metaphysicists. IOW, fractal intelligence could be taken to suggest God, Logos. It also would refocus to the deep questions of why it exists at all and why this way instead of another way. Such questions have always been present in cosmology but have been seemingly swept off the biology table due to scientific materialism.

Personally, I look forward to the mathematicians' including autonomy and fractal intelligence in their models because it would help to keep both sides from poaching across the epistemic divide.

Thanks for your post -- very informative.

I'm still stuck, however, on the "system-level" aspects of what you're saying. For example, in order for something like an eye to evolve, you'd have to get changes to both the physical organ, and also the behavior that makes the organ useful, to show up at the same time, within a single individual. (This is my spin on your "natural selection sifting" mechanism.) Probability-wise, you've got a multivariable .AND. situation.

If I read you correctly, this "pairing" has to occur many, many times in order to drive the development. Actually, it seems like more than a simple "pairing." If nothing else, Behe's discussion of eyes shows that the "behavior" of individual types of cells are coupled -- the output of one type of cell is triggered by inputs from a different type of cell. That sort of "pairing" has to happen at the same time a behavior appears to take advantage of it.

At a system level, the eye example would require at least four things to happen before natural selection could begin to sift the trait:

1. The cells would need to perform some new function.
2. A transmission path must exist to transmit the new
functionality to the larger system (e.g., nerve impulses imply that nerves are somehow in place to transmit the message).
3. The "output" (e.g., nerve impulses) trigger a behavior response.
4. The behavior response has to (should?) be beneficial.

each generation produces a new mixture of genes absent in the previous generation, including some with emergent results that were not expressed in previous generations.

Couldn't genes likewise disappear from one generation to the next, as the "emergent results" overwrite something that was there before? At any rate, the emergence of "system-level" effects would seem to be more difficult in an environment of constantly shifting gene expressions, because it makes it less likely that the .AND. conditions would be satisfied.

So again, I'm wondering: does the genomic modeling account for the emergence of system-level effects? Or are the models still at an arm-waving stage where one has to assume that combinations will lead to system-level effects?

>>>Examination of the processes going on in distant galaxies shows that the laws here/now are the laws there/then.<<<

Do all physicists agree with you? Are there any plausible alternate theories?

>>>The deep field shots show distant galaxies *everywhere*<<<

That doesn't answer my question. The deeper we look into space (e.g., the further back in time we look) one would expect the field density of objects to increase into a more uniform manner; but some of the deepest space shots from the Hubble Telescope show the opposite.

>>> . . . claims that it is a "myth" are claims based on arrogance married to ignorance.<<<

The ultimate arrogance is membership in a 'scientific' establishment which does not tolerate objections or dissent. This is particularly puzzling when considering how many times throughout history "old science" has been proven wrong by "new science".

Maybe this is not arrogance, but self-preservation. Think how many unproductive scientific careers will be destroyed when the so-called Big Bang Theory is completely exposed as the myth that it is.

The consequences of E=mc^2 are not as simple they appear. The assumption that mass/energy is conserved between any two instants in time is incorrect IIRC. It is an excellent engineering approximation much like Newtonian physics, but not technically correct.

Nevertheless, the efficacy of nuclear bombs shows that the relation has a definite persistence -- we store bombs for decades, and they still work. The sun has been burning for a few billion years, so the energy/mass in the sun likewise has a definite persistence.

Which takes us back to the "quantum foam" example. The persistence of matter and energy implies, if nothing else, a mechanism by which they are differentiated from what they were before -- be it some sort of potential field, or some store of energy, or whatever. It doesn't seem likely that the "quantum foam" is an expression of "nothing" in the most literal meaning of the word.

As part of a curriculum making students aware of intelligent design, Behe said, "Yes, I think that's a terrific thing to point out."

Careful what you read into that statement -- it's a lot less than you seem to think.

Behe said that the putative designer might not exist any longer. Then again, the putative designer might exist, but just not be interested in messing with life on Earth any longer. Or the putative designer might still be fiddling around, and we just don't recognize it.

None of these explanations has any real impact on Behe's underlying hypothesis; they would simply be a way to make his theory align with observable evidence. (This is the same sort of reasoning by which things like punctuated equilibrium was/is put forth as a way to explain the fossil record.)

This points out a subtlety in Behe's hypothesis that seems to be overlooked by those who oppose it: contrary to those who claim that ID==Creationism, Behe is not claiming that ID has to explain everything, and he is not claiming that it has to happen continuously.

Rather, his claims have a lot more in common with the field of genetic engineering, where phenomena are selectively produced.

Perhaps they'd support it, but given the apparent role of behavior as a driver for change, I'm not sure they could fully explain it. At tortoise pointed out (and the example of, say, Golden Retrievers almost always being good-natured reinforces) there is probably a genetic component to behavior, but it's probably not all due to that. Wouldn't the non-genetic component of behavior be one of your "non-corporeals?"

Thank you so much for your reply and your question!

Actually (presuming it holds up under testing and observation) the model of autonomous biological self-organizing complexity is itself a non-corporeal which drives the "variation". But then again it seems that physical reality is highly mathematical - as Wigner called it the "unreasonable effectiveness of math".

But also among the non-corporeals are "qualia" which contribute to behavior - likes, dislikes, pain, pleasure and other such phenomenon which can only be individually (or autonomously) experienced and cannot be expressed.

Decision making and awareness (properties of intelligence) are also non-corporeal per se as is successful communication (information) in biological systems - both in molecular machinery and among organisms.

Thus when a bird sees another with particularly fluffy red feathers and thinks "oh, baby!" and proceeds with a courtship - the decision of both selector and selectee contribute to the unique genes of their offspring who have likes and dislikes of their own.

Of a truth, the only metaphysical naturalist defense in the face of all these non-corporeals is the assertion that the mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Epiphenomenons are secondary phenomenons which can cause nothing to happen.

Thus, in that view, your thinking that you moved a finger to press a key was an illusion. It was actually the physical brain doing it.

The theory falls flat for many reasons, none the least of which is personal responsibility. If it were true, then the mass murderer is just doing what he must. There would be no such thing as free will at all. The universe would be highly determined, etc.

The concept is also refuted by decisions made among creatures which have no brain, swarm intelligence, etc.

There are those philosophers and scientists (naturalistic) who do believe strongly in determinism, that there is no such thing as free will. They will argue that all is just reaction to stimuli according to prescribed physical and/or biological law.

They really do consider the mind and the will to be epiphenomena of the brain. (And the "brain" an epiphenoma of biological/physical laws???)

On the other hand, there are those out there who believe: "I am real."

What's fascinating to me was God's revelation of his identity to Moses. He said --- "I AM."

If it were true, then the mass murderer is just doing what he must.

That is nothing more than an argument from adverse consequences, a failure of reasoning. In light of the fact that the bulk properties of human behavior are thoroughly deterministic on a mathematical level (even though we cannot always make precise predictions ourselves), it is incumbent on others show that a mass murder is not on a deterministic path.

Choice is an illusion, an assertion supportable by the measurable determinism of human choices in practice. A system capable of supporting genuine free will would have very different behavioral characteristics.

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.