Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The leaders of the intelligent design movement are once again holding court in America, defending themselves against charges that ID is not science. One of the expert witnesses is Michael Behe, author of the ID movement’s seminal volume Darwin’s Black Box. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, testified about the scientific character of ID in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, the court case of eight families suing the school district and the school board in Dover, Pa., for mandating the teaching of intelligent design.
Under cross-examination, Behe made many interesting comparisons between ID and the big-bang theory — both concepts carry lots of ideological freight. When the big-bang theory was first proposed in the 1920s, many people made hostile objections to its apparent “supernatural” character. The moment of the big bang looked a lot like the Judeo-Christian creation story, and scientists from Quaker Sir Arthur Eddington to gung-ho atheist Fred Hoyle resisted accepting it.
In his testimony, Behe stated — correctly — that at the current moment, “we have no explanation for the big bang.” And, ultimately it may prove to be “beyond scientific explanation,” he said. The analogy is obvious: “I put intelligent design in the same category,” he argued.
This comparison is quite interesting. Both ID and the big-bang theory point beyond themselves to something that may very well lie outside of the natural sciences, as they are understood today. Certainly nobody has produced a simple model for the big–bang theory that fits comfortably within the natural sciences, and there are reasons to suppose we never will.
In the same way, ID points to something that lies beyond the natural sciences — an intelligent designer capable of orchestrating the appearance of complex structures that cannot have evolved from simpler ones. “Does this claim not resemble those made by the proponents of the big bang?” Behe asked.
However, this analogy breaks down when you look at the historical period between George Lemaitre’s first proposal of the big-bang theory in 1927 and the scientific community’s widespread acceptance of the theory in 1965, when scientists empirically confirmed one of the big bang’s predictions.
If we continue with Behe’s analogy, we might expect that the decades before 1965 would have seen big-bang proponents scolding their critics for ideological blindness, of having narrow, limited and inadequate concepts of science. Popular books would have appeared announcing the big-bang theory as a new paradigm, and efforts would have been made to get it into high school astronomy textbooks.
However, none of these things happened. In the decades before the big-bang theory achieved its widespread acceptance in the scientific community its proponents were not campaigning for public acceptance of the theory. They were developing the scientific foundations of theory, and many of them were quite tentative about their endorsements of the theory, awaiting confirmation.
Physicist George Gamow worked out a remarkable empirical prediction for the theory: If the big bang is true, he calculated, the universe should be bathed in a certain type of radiation, which might possibly be detectable. Another physicist, Robert Dicke, started working on a detector at Princeton University to measure this radiation. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson ended up discovering the radiation by accident at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, N.J., in 1965, after which just about everyone accepted the big bang as the correct theory.
Unfortunately, the proponents of ID aren’t operating this way. Instead of doing science, they are writing popular books and op-eds. As a result, ID remains theoretically in the same scientific place it was when Phillip Johnson wrote Darwin on Trial — little more than a roster of evolutionary theory’s weakest links.
| When Behe was asked to explicate the science of ID, he simply listed a number of things that were complex and not adequately explained by evolution. These structures, he said, were intelligently designed. Then, under cross-examination, he said that the explanation for these structures was “intelligent activity.” He added that ID “explains” things that appear to be intelligently designed as having resulted from intelligent activity. |
Behe denied that this reasoning was tautological and compared the discernment of intelligently designed structures to observing the Sphinx in Egypt and concluding that it could not have been produced by non-intelligent causes. This is a winsome analogy with a lot of intuitive resonance, but it is hardly comparable to Gamow’s carefully derived prediction that the big bang would have bathed the universe in microwave radiation with a temperature signature of 3 degrees Kelvin.
After more than a decade of listening to ID proponents claim that ID is good science, don’t we deserve better than this?
Wrong. Everybody can see you didn't. You're being intellectually dishonest.
And as for your confusion as to message theory, it appears you are simply ignorant.
Thank you, I have seen it. It was a clear KO against Thomas.
Thomas failed to establish his thesis:
1. Biomolecules aren't "independent" evidence for macroevolution - they cannot stand-alone - they aren't "fingerprints." Rather their very meaning must be interpreted beside other evidences - even Thomas did this.
2. Biomolecules don't "compel" us to macroevolution. Haldane's Dilemma remains unsolved. Evolution doesn't predict hierarchy, biochemical unity, abundant convergence, concerted evolution, or relative-rarity of enzymes for digesting the world's most abundant food compound - cellulose. If evolution predicts anything on these matters, it predicts contrary to what we observe. And that's just some biomolecular evidences.
3. Message Theory scientifically explains these patterns and more. Thomas's arguments against Message Theory all misrepresented it. He now responds that he personally finds the theory "illogical and unconvincing" - for reasons he chose not to reveal! Thus, he failed to explicitly address - much less dislodge - Message Theory.
Wrong. Everybody can see you didn't. You're being intellectually dishonest.
Balderdash. This is a bluff. Show me specifically how my characterization is different from the explanation given and quoted back to you.
And as for your confusion as to message theory, it appears you are simply ignorant.
Than, pray tell, enlighten me; what is the course content of message theory Remane has taken a phud in?
Do you agree, LVD, that science is not materialist?
Cordially,
You mean on own goal by ReMine, don't you? I mean, consider this example. He says
Humans transpose designs anywhere useful (into cars, buildings, etcetera) Transposition is ordinary design practice. But life’s designer avoided that.But then just above in his chart the transposition row lists lateral transfer and endosymbiosis as examples. Both are very well supported by the evidence. Unless he is arguing that lateral transfer doesn't happen and endosymbioisis didn't happen, it appears "life's designer" does employ transposition.
Yes! It is the ones who support natural evolution who make the claim that such molecular systems evolved in the past by numerous, step by step modifications of precursors. As that is essentially a historical claim, at least reconstructions of the actual pathways and assemblies would be warranted, supported by detailed, testable data, and failing that, at least detailed, testable alternatives. If Behe has performed no other service, at least he has provoked some biologists to try to provide a detailed Darwinian accounting of these molecular systems. Darwinists should be be glad for such challenges that provide even more opportunity to demonstrate scientifically the truth of their hypotheses, but I don't see much evidence that many of them are. Quite the contrary.
Where would this end?
When does science and the quest for knowledge end?
And how do you propose to discount the argument that the Designer may be intervening in the petri-dish?
What is that argument?
Cordially,
When does science and the quest for knowledge end?
Well, actually it ends the moment a supernatural entity can be undetectably altering the results of observations.
Anyway, your answer sounds to me like you just want carte blanche to propose forever that any system whose pathways haven't yet been demonstrated might be IC, and therefore naturalistic evolution isn't yet acceptable to you. That amounts to you setting a bar for the acceptance of naturalistic evolution that can never be overcome.
"And how do you propose to discount the argument that the Designer may be intervening in the petri-dish?"
What is that argument?
The argument that we've had before. Once you propose that a Designer of unknown motivation and powers can undetectably intervene, then how can you ever trust the results of any naturalist experiment. If BF appear in the petri dish, how do you know that your proposed Designer didn't tweak them into existence? Or are you going to set limits on the Motives/Power/Detectability of your hypothetical Designer?
An idiotic ad hominem aspersion...even for you, apparently made since you can't deal with his superior mathematical logic and credentials.
His hobby in magic only helps inform us of how he had perceived the sleight-of-hand deceptions of the naturalists...and helps expose it to all.
There is no way you can spin that debate. You lost.
Anyone who reads it will know what I mean.
His credentials? What credentials? Walter ReMine is an EE. How does that give him special expertise in the area of evolutionary biology?
I could submit such proposals till I'm blue in the face, but what would effectively put an end to it is detailed, testable reconstructions demonstrating that such structures can occur in a gradual, step by step Darwinian process, in which case Occam's razor would suffice nicely to finish off a design inference, or at least render it superfluous. One doesn't need to invoke intelligent agency where a naturalistic, undirected mechanism will do.
As far as the methodological approach to the epistemological dilemma of a putative Designer tweaking the Petri dish, I've never heard of anyone not doing an experiment or suggesting it invalid because of lack of direct knowledge or certainty of possible motives/powers of any designer. That type of Humean certainty is not a necessary part of a scientific design inference anyway.
Cordially,
How can it not be? Please explain why the Designer would definitely not intervene in whatever experiment one constructs that is related to proving or disproving ID? It is you who is proposing an interventionary tinkering Designer. How do you know when the Designer is tinkering, and when the Designer is not tinkering?
Incidentally, your politeness is a breath of fresh air. after the rantings I am facing on another thread.
Kind Regards
That's it in a nutshell! Elegantly put.
(PLACEMARKER)
No. You took a statement out of context and omitted the vast majority of the argument. Before you rushed off to note Remine's listing of transpositions in the chart he developed, showing where the evolutionists made their stands, he then explained his view, which you conveniently omitted with your over-hasty and misrepresentative 'But':
Here is the WHOLE passage:
Evolutionists could forever circumvent those fossil difficulties, if complex traits were rampantly transposed between morphologically-distant lineages – here called Transpositions. This exceedingly powerful evolutionary explanation could potentially explain-away the twofold absences of gradualism and clear-cut ancestors/lineages. (Indeed, that notion lay at the core of Syvanen’s evolutionary theory, which assumes lateral DNA transfer between higher-lifeforms.[4]) Transposition patterns, if sufficiently sturdy, would nullify the fossil record’s testimony against common descent – therefore Message Theory predicts life’s design avoids Transposition patterns.
Humans transpose designs anywhere useful (into cars, buildings, etcetera) Transposition is ordinary design practice. But life’s designer avoided that. Life’s designs are re-used, not randomly anywhere useful, but in confined “theme and variation” patterns that resist Transposition interpretations. This feature profoundly distinguishes life from human-designed systems.
The substantial absence of Transposition patterns from macroorganisms (at morphological, embryological, and biomolecular levels): Resists Transposition explanations(E9), Syvanen’s theory, and “gene’s from Space” (Hoyle’s theory) Resists Exobiology(E13) Shows life’s designer is unordinary
Life’s hierarchy patterns (cladistic and phenetic): Supplies biodiversity for above-named purposes – while leaving “ancestors” out!(E1) Unifies all life together, as product of one designer Resists Transposition explanations(E9) Provides background, against which, “convergences”(E6) are ‘seen.’ Allows deep (rather than superficial) embedding of bio-message; making it: resistant to mutation, and inseparable from survival Resists incompleteness(E12). The above properties retain perceptibility even when lifeforms are severely unavailable.
These properties are vital for Message Theory.
The traits evolutionists call “convergences”(here including “parallelisms”), favor Message Theory – which explains their abundance. {Similar arguments apply to biomolecular patterns called “concerted evolution.”(E14)} These complex designs are: sufficiently similar (to demand special explanation), yet sufficiently non-identical (to negate Transposition/Atavism explanations), and systematically-placed (to negate explanation by common descent). Evolutionists are left with their least plausible explanation – independent origin of similar complex designs – such as your eyes and octopus eyes!
“Convergences” are abundant (at morphological, embryological, and biomolecular levels)[16]) because they: Help link diverse life-groups together, as products of one designer Help thwart attempts to ‘impose’ ancestors and lineages onto life’s pattern[17] Demand explanation, while resisting naturalistic explanations
Hence, he is totally consistent...and he hoists the naturalists by their petards.
I wish it was mine. Right Wing Professor, I think produced that precis last time I proposed that particular anti-ID argument (if memory serves).
Does ReMine or does he not say that life avoids transpositions? Well, that is false. Transposition is rampant. He mentions lateral gene transfer but omits stuff like retrotransposons and hybridization and ordinary chromosomal crossover, the latter two being fundamental drivers of evolution. It is simply ridiculous to say that life eschews transposition. One might even say that if an organism doesn't protect its genome, it will be a victim of transposition.
The guy's a kook. To claim that biology will resist naturalistic explanations when the evidence for evolution has convinced generations of biologists is just plain kooky.
I can understand Thomas just fine, despite his credentials being at least as "superior" as Remine's. That in fact is my point. Thomas has the goods for his position, presents them clearly, and explains clearly why they mean what he says they do.
By comparison, Remine sounds like Professor Irwin Corey. All smoke, mirrors, bafflegab, distraction, and evasion. He revels in being hard to understand. It is his refuge.
One thing that jumped out at me, having been exposed to some of Remine's arguments on previous FR threads, was that he saved his Haldane's Dilemma strawman for the third segment when he knew he was having the last word and couldn't be rebutted. Let's bring some of that forward.
Thomas cites "how simple genetic mutations ... can also produce radically new body plans."Thomas wasn't making a theoretic point. It's a fact. We knock out one or two HOX or UBX genes and get fruit flies with stump legs on their abdomens, four wings instead of two, etc. But Remine waves it away with a strawman argument from the 1950s. It takes nerve to try to wave away a hard fact with a bad model.
But that runs into Haldane's Dilemma - a classic evolutionary problem a leading evolutionist acknowledges, "was never solved".[3] Haldane showed that species with low reproduction (higher vertebrates) could substitute beneficial mutations no faster than one per 300 generations, on average.[4, 5]Now, I've already given you two sources on why Remine is an ass for still clutching at this straw. "No faster than one per 300 generations?"
Didn't get any reply from you on this post.
Then there was this post.
Remine is more buffoon than charlatan. You just have to know hocus-pocus when you're hearing it.
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.