Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Molecular biologist Michael Behe described a system made of several interacting parts, whereby the removal of one part would disrupt the functioning of the whole, as being irreducibly complex. Both creation scientists and intelligent design proponents highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies, because they argue against evolutionary hypotheses. The very structure of these systems—with their interdependent parts working all together or not at all—demands a non-Darwinian, non-chance, non-piecemeal origin.
A team of evolutionary molecular biologists thinks it may have refuted this concept of irreducible complexity. In a recent study, the researchers focused on a specific cellular machine involved in protein transport and claimed that it was indeed reducible to its component parts. But did they use real science to demonstrate this, or just scientific-sounding phrases?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Their tendency to try and argue that ID is proven because it cannot be disproven, and the any competing theory is disprove because it has not been proven.
I haven't yet met one who I believed was doing it purely for the science.
But I often feel that people are pushing beyond what science actually has shown, to make their own points against religion.
As you've probably notice I am uneasy when religion strays into scientific territory. But I also agree and don't like scientists thinking they can somehow disprove God. That's one reason I don't like Dawkins.
Strange, me saying that, and I'm a disbeliever myself. It's probably because I'm just a disbeliever, not an anti-theist on a crusade.
Not what I said. I have never appealed to emotion in arguing for evolution. I never talked about some undesirable consequences that would exist if evolution weren't true. You, however, did stray into that territory.
Nothing is proved because it cannot be disproved, strictly speaking. But there is an awful lot of scientific thought that rests solely on that premise and has strong consensus.
That gets back to my point about us all having our own level of proof, based on what we reject as statistically impossible. e.g. what we will reject and accept as having to have been made by men. A better example than the fantastic ones I've tossed out is the case of flint tools. Anthropologists are constantly arguing about particular chipped rocks and as to whether they are natural or shaped by humans. They can't prove it either way.
Can you expound on that? I'm not aware of any "scientific thought" that rests solely on that premise, and absent any supporting objective evidence.
Acceptance took quite a while. Initial experiments said Einstein was wrong, and other competing theories were right. I think it was 20-30 years before it started to be really accepted and experimentally supported. Of course he didn't really do his work in a vacuum either, using the work of other respected scientists probably helped a bit.
Objective data would be that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. That's provable.
My point was that we all have a BS meter that goes off when we consider statistical likelihood and reject something on that basis.
Because a monkey can type the first few words of Macbeth on a typewriter, it is statistically possible that the monkey will type the whole work. But you and I both know that isn't going to happen. Thus statistical possibility alone is not enough to be convincing. There must be some level of believable probability.
Setting relativity aside, Einsteins other theories don't really propose a cause, but rather an outcome. There is a difference between knowing that it will rain when dry ice is shot into a cloud and knowing why it will rain. Einstein explained certain problems by using the assumption that E=MC2, however, he himself was troubled at the inability to rectify this with Newtonian physics. So is it good if a new physicist just accepts it as fact and isn't troubled by the discrepancy? If all you want is rain, no, but I'd like to know why?
Let's start with Dark Matter. There is no proof of its existence, just a hole in the gravitational formulations. It is inputted to make the math work.
Then there is the Big Bang Theory. Red shift suggests an expanding universe, but the math doesn't work because its too big. Therefore, there is an assumption that it expanded much, much faster than the speed of lights (I think thousands of times faster), until it suddenly went to its current expansion rate, and that is all because of a period when the laws didn't exist.
In both cases the original premise was kept, despite clearly contrary evidence, through the creation of a non-provable, but commonly accepted extraordinary explanation.
The laws of physics describe outcomes as a consequence of the properties of the masses and energies involved. I don't see how you can "set relativity aside", and submit that his theories were only about effect, and provide no insight into cause.
Just going off of Einstein's own words. Einstein very much knew that there had to be something important missing in his theories. He felt that he could predict outcomes, but he could not rectify his predictions with other outcomes. Much like saying, "If you pat your head first, the ball will land on black." If the ball does in fact land on black when you pat your head, that is useful information. But it would be even more useful to know why it will land on black.
I understand that the actual entites involved are more abstract, but given a container of know weight, containing a number of unknown objects, and the weight of the container and the objects is known: If some objects are removed and weighed, can you reasonable say whether or not there is "something else" still in the container, on any basis other than "it makes the math come out right"?
Then there is the Big Bang Theory. Red shift suggests an expanding universe, but the math doesn't work because its too big. Therefore, there is an assumption that it expanded much, much faster than the speed of lights (I think thousands of times faster), until it suddenly went to its current expansion rate, and that is all because of a period when the laws didn't exist.
We've already seen the known laws of physics revised when we found that the assumptions we were making and the mathematical models we were using don't work the same outside of the conditions we devoloped those models under.
I've seen the "first cause" arguments that say basically that you have to explain everything to be able to claim to have explained anything. I don't agree with that assesment, or the derivatives of it.
It might, and it might not.
The only scenario I can come up with that fits your analogy would be a casino with a rigged roulette wheel, and someone watching the players and trigging something to make the ball land on black if one of them pats his head. Would knowing how the mechanism that's being used works really be more useful than simply knowing that it rigged and what the trigger is?
[[You are introducing common sense as objective data. It isn’t.]]
Again- the definition is: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
IF it is a fact that irreducibly complex objects are intelligently designed, and fro meverythign thing we know to be fact, it is true that it is, then this isn’t opinion but objective fact. Nature does not possess the intelligence, or the ability to design, build, assemble and construct the levels of complexity in somethign as complex as a cell phone
[[Not what I said. I have never appealed to emotion in arguing for evolution.]]
you most certainly have by playing the victim card- insinuating that peopel ‘ignorant of science’ are ‘attackign science’ by providing evidence against evolution- let me refresh your memory seeigns how it seems too short lived to remember the veiled insults you posted just a few posts ago:
“First and foremost it must not have “grown up” in an environment where non-scientific influences are pushing hard for its adoption. You’re guaranteed poisoned science and biased research.”
This certainly doesn’t describe ID- you may think research into things liek Baraminology are ‘biased’ however, they are far more objective than evolution is- Baraminology STOPS at the evidence which points toward discontinuity- Evolution goes beyond the evidence by suggesting, without evidnece, that species are commonly descended- seems to me the ones who have ‘pushed’ anything are those who go BEYOND the evidence- you’ve insinuated that ID is ‘poisoned’ and it’s a baseless accusation which insinuates that it’s not ‘real science’ and that those who study ID science are nothign more than agendists, and not ‘real scientists’ but rather ‘psuedoscientists who ‘attack real science’
[[This is why I don’t trust ID or man-made global warming.]]
you’ve got a legitimate objection to global warming ‘science’ because the ideology of global warmign science is infact NOT based on science, but on ASSUMPTIONS and an attempt to link man to somethign that is natural in nature- ID doesn’t even begin to resemble this- however, you’re lumping ID in with shoddy psuedoscience of global warming- this is an insult, and it’s also another thinly veield accusation
[[Evolution and atomic theory fall under this category. ID would have if it hadn’t already been, IMHO, poisoned.]]
Please do explain- How has ‘ID been poisoned’? Are you lumping ALL ID scientists and research in with the those who happen to present both the evidnece AND their OPINIONS? I’ts funny that you don’t call out Macroevoltuionary science as beign ‘poisoned’ by the assinine OPINIONS of some of those who study it, but are quick to villify the whole branch of ID science based on the OPINIONS of some in ID- which certainly do NOT represent the opinions of everyone in ID-
I agree, but only because I reject the astronomically (putting it mildly) odds of nature creating it. The real issue though isn't cell phones. There is some point between sharpened rocks and cell phones, where people will conclude intelligent design, but there is no objective way to pick that point. There are logical ways, but it remains a subjective decision.
Well don't say that to your local science department, they tend to think that understanding the science is important for further application.
The only scenario I can come up with that fits your analogy would be a casino with a rigged roulette wheel, and someone watching the players and trigging something to make the ball land on black if one of them pats his head. Would knowing how the mechanism that's being used works really be more useful than simply knowing that it rigged and what the trigger is?
It would be vital. If you are going to make tons of money, you would want to know where the observers were so that they could see you, whether they were sick that day, etc.
Guns existed for a long time before ballistics were fully understood, but understanding ballistics made guns better.
Nor do I. The obvious deduction from that however, is that it must be clear what has and has not been explained. I think scientists, being human, far to often misrepresent what they actually "know" and include conjecture in the "know" column.
Far more abstract, far more. Don't get me wrong, I think the theories on Dark Matter are most logical, but they are still conjecture and thus the door is wide open to other explanations. Other possible explanations would be that light is not really a constant, that there is a great universe beyond what we have seen that is effecting things, that gravity is not a constant, that time is not a constant, that light particles repel each other and thus create a red shift over time, etc. In fact, the last one would also solve some of the problems with the Big Bang. But Dark Matter is now basically accepted as fact.
We've already seen the known laws of physics revised when we found that the assumptions we were making and the mathematical models we were using don't work the same outside of the conditions we devoloped those models under.
Absolutely, but that is a different animal altogether, from stating that they simply didn't exist. The claim that "The speed of light is a constant, except when the entire known universe moved at 1000 times that speed." Might require a little proof before it becomes consensus thought.
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.