Posted on 10/20/2005 6:39:01 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Intelligent design and evolution proponents agree that a test on bacterial flagellum could show if it was or wasn't able to evolve, which could provide evidence to support intelligent design.
But neither side wants to test it.
The test calls for a scientist to place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under selective pressure and let it grow for 10,000 generations — roughly two years — to see if a flagellum or an equally complex system would be produced, according to testimony on Wednesday. A flagellum is a whip-like structure that can propel the bacteria.
Michael Behe, biochemistry professor at Lehigh University, testified in U.S. Middle District Court that he didn't know of anyone who had tested bacterial flagellum that way, including himself.
During cross examination by plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild, Behe said he hadn't completed the test because he has better ways to spend his time. He also said he already knows intelligent design is science.
"It's well-tested from the inductive arguments," Behe said. "When we have found a purposeful arrangement of parts, we have always found this as designed."
Outside court, Dover school board members Alan Bonsell and Sheila Harkins said if anyone should perform the test, it should be the evolutionists.
"Somebody could do that if they wanted to," Harkins said. "If somebody believes intelligent design is not science, certainly they have a means to prove it's not."
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said scientists — who widely accept evolution as the cornerstone of modern biology — aren't going to take two years on an expensive test to disprove something they don't consider science.
They wouldn't bother, she said.
"This is not the first time creationists have tried to get scientists to do their work for them," Scott said.
This time around, even if the flagellum grew, Scott speculated that intelligent design proponents would say the test refuted the design of bacterial flagellum, not intelligent design.
They could still point toward design of the immune system and blood-clotting cascade as evidence, Scott said.
Behe has testified that if evolutionists ran the test and it didn't work, they would provide a reason such as they didn't have the right bacteria, selective pressure or length of time.
Evolution is harder to falsify than intelligent design, Behe said. He describes intelligent design as a fully testable, falsifiable scientific theory.
The design, he testified, is inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts. During his time on the stand, he also testified about the concept of irreducible complexity, which means organisms are too complex to have evolved by natural selection or genetic mutation, so multiple systems had to arise simultaneously.
Scott said scientists couldn't disprove the purposeful arrangement of parts because too much could qualify. Anything outside of purposely arranged partswould be in state of chaos, she said.
The purposeful arrangements of parts is quickly taking over as the essence of intelligent design from the idea of irreducible complexity, Scott said.
Bonsell and Harkins believe intelligent design qualifies as a testable and falsifiable scientific theory, and Bonsell said he was ready for it to be put to the test.
"I'm all for scientific discovery and doing scientific experiments," Bonsell said. "They're the ones that are not."
Here is a different perspective on what happened yesterday.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=929&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more929
A false assumption.
Observation: Through the process of replication, heritable difference, and natural selection, interbreeding populations gradually change as they adapt to changing situations in their environment.
Theory: When circumstances cause a population to split into two separate isolated groups, each individual group will evolve in different ways as they adapt to different environmental situations. This process will continue until the two groups are so different that they are no longer capable of interbreeding should they ever come back into contact with each other thus, the origin of species.
The ToE was never meant to explain all knowledge possible about the development of life but, being a "theory", it's open to all to try and prove it wrong. Attacks on the ToE come from all directions leading to a wide variety of challenges to science but, after 150 years the Theory still stands and no one has proved it wrong.
Hey, I agree with you. The theory explains much but not all. My objection was to scientists who carry the ToE into areas beyond science.
Ah, now you're backtracking. That's not the same thing at all.
I would like you to support your statement that any scientist has labeled the "ToE as complete in itself in explaining all knowledge possible about the development of life."
Kindly support the statement or retract it.
"My objection was to scientists who carry the ToE into areas beyond science.
"
Which ones are those? Can you name some?
It's probably because the attacks against the ToE come from areas beyond science...
Do these "evolution proponents" have a specific bacteria in mind? This seems a little off.
I'm not backtracking. I believe Dawkins is saying ToE, or certainly science, is complete in explaining everything about the development of life.
From the jacket to "The Selfish Gene": "Our genes made us. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than their throwaway survival machines."
His "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life" is a narrative of four billion years "explaining" all of the origin and development of human life.
No I don't think it a stretch to ascribe to Dawkins that "the ToE is complete in explaining all knowledge possible about the development of life." He certainly would not say anything outside science can be used to explain it.
I honestly think he would quickly agree with this statement and that his writings are in implicit agreement with it.
Good point. But it may be a chicken and egg thing. ToE has long been used to attack religion and to support atheism.
This is very frustrating to me, this war. Both science and religion are explorations for truth. They should cooperate, not fight each other.
I didn't recognize it (I'm a bit slow today). Who is this one?
So basically, your beef is that scientists don't include enough mysticism in their work? Isn't that rather outside the realm of science?
No, no, no. Not my beef at all. The reverse of my beef.
My beef is they infer from science "knowledge" about religion. This is as big an error as deducing science from religion.
"Then a miracle happens" placemark.
"My beef is they infer from science "knowledge" about religion. This is as big an error as deducing science from religion."
Where? Where do they comment on the existence of God, other than to say: 1) there's no physical evidence for Him; and 2) he's not needed for the ToE to be sound?
Seems to me as though you're really projecting. Nobody's denying God based on the ToE (well, very few people). But as a scientific theory, mysticism is not required. Because it's *science*.
Certainly you can see in proponents of ToE, often, a great animosity toward religion. And on these threads you see caricatures of religion.
But as a scientific theory, mysticism is not required. Because it's *science*.
We likely have different definitions of mysticism. Let's use the broader definition of metaphysics. The problem I have is with physics saying metaphysics doesn't exist or is not necessary to increase our knowledge of reality.
Scientist like this are woefully ill-taught in episthemology and philosophy of science. That's fine, so long as they just do science. My "beef" is when they pontificate outside science.
there's no physical evidence for Him…
This in itself points to the problem. In scientific terms there is no physical evidence for values or purpose either. There is no physical evidence for love, no simple location or quantity possible. Science, by definition cannot see them. It should say something like: "these are aspects of reality that science cannot speak to, other methods must be used to explore them," rather than "no physical evidence exists for God."
Science should be clear about the limits of its sphere of knowledge. As should religion.
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.