Michael Behe On Falsification

I really think that suggesting that ID = irreduceable complexity is a bit of a stretch. To suggest that irreduceable complexity is the irrecuceable complexity of the bacterial flagellum is also a stretch.

It is perfectly obvious that Behe’s view that the flagellum could not have been produced via the neo-Darwinian process is falsifiable. However, if the flagellum was falsified, I have no question that other IC challenges would arise to replace it. It would probably take the destruction of a half-dozen to a dozen of such IC claims to cause Behe and those of similar bent to abandon the hypothesis. However, that is also not an infinite challenge.

Of course the greatest single challenge of irreduceable complexity remains to be the challenge of first life. On this topic, science seems to be very far from having found a solution. Until a reasonable path from molecules through DNA can be found, and a demonstrable path to self-reproducing molecules in concievable prebiotic conditions, this will remain to be an unscaleable mount improbable.

I remember trying to play simple “what if” games with Matzke over on TT. I used the unexpected results found in the human HAR1F gene as my test case. (The human HAR1F differs from the chimps by 18 base pairs, thought the chimp’s HAR1F differs from the chicken’s by 3.) In the context of a real genetic challenge to NDE, Matzke could not even put himself into the hypothetical position of having the “theory” challenged. I, therefore, have come to the conclusion that for many evangelists of NDE, the “theory” is as falsifiable as the virgin birth.

There are Darwinists on various debate forums lately claiming that Behe has left the ID camp and has gone to NDE.

Anyone know anything about this?

That would be bigger than Antony Flew if true.

Here is a serious question, and the quote from Behe gives me an opportunity to ask it:

Behe writes,

“Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water.”

Let me suppose for the sake of argument that someone were to do this, and in fact sometime along the line the bacteria would develop a flagellum.

How would we know that intelligent design was not the cause of that flagellum arising? Why could we not argue that we had witnessed a case of intelligent design in action?

Jack Krebs, if we were able to observe a flagellum develop in a bacteria, we would likely see it do so step by step. If not, if it suddenly did a “poof” and had a fully functioning flagellum, well that would cause a stir. However, even if we did see a flagellum develop, it would challenge IC, but would not necessarily challenge other ID hypotheses such as PEH or front-loading. Alas, this is why ID in general cannot be falsified, only the sub-theories developed from the ID framework can be.

Thank bfast.

You write,

:However, even if we did see a flagellum develop, it would challenge IC, but would not necessarily challenge other ID hypotheses such as PEH or front-loading. Alas, this is why ID in general cannot be falsified, only the sub-theories developed from the ID framework can be.”

Even if we saw things happen step-by step in the broad sense of seeing various stages of the development of the flagellum at different places in a sequence of many generations, what could we see or not see that would help us decide whether exclusively natural processes were the cause, or whether ID had been involved? What type of evidence in this case might help one decide if some form of ID had actually happened in the lab?

As you point out, answering this question would depend on what “sub-theory” of ID one were entertaining - you mention three, but there are others. So let’s try to think more specifically here, to flesh out this exercise: what are various possible sub-theories, and how would each address this question of whether we might have witnessed ID in the lab?

Let me start:

1. If if one generation every child bacteria suddenly had a fully functioning flagellum where once there was none, that would be very strong evidence for the “poof” model of ID.

2. On the other hand, at the far end of the spectrum, I would think that the front-loading hypotheses would have much bearing on this event, as the front-loading was originally activated billions of years ago. (I may be wrong about this conclusion - perhaps a front-loading advocate would like to offer his thoughhst.)

3. In the middle somewhere is the “intervention by an intelligent agent” sub-theory. In this case, one could certainly argue that the intelligent agent decided to interven, maybe slowly over many generations, to bring a flagellum about. What evidence might or might not support this hypothesis?

I’ve got to learn to edit before I post: I meant “2. On the other hand, at the far end of the spectrum, I would NOT think that the front-loading hypotheses would have much bearing on this event,…”

To some extent, I think that science must bias towards the “natural causes” expanation. I would suggest that if statistical analysis of the chance events that had to have happened calculate out, I would be content to conclude that random processes produced a flagellum.

“There are Darwinists on various debate forums lately claiming that Behe has left the ID camp and has gone to NDE.

Anyone know anything about this? ” - Borne

I doubt that very much. If that were true, he would look pretty silly considering his sequel to ‘Darwins Black Box’ is due to be coming out next year.

ps.
They’re probably just having seizures of denial.. the violent opposition to truth phase is taking a toll on their psyches.

To follow on from Jack’s questioning, if someone carried out the experiment, and showed the flagellum evolving, why couldn’t ID supporters just rely by saying “OK, so the flagellum wasn’t designed. But system X was”. As I understand it, Behe’s position is that a lot of systems do evolve through natural selection, it’s only a few that have to be designed.

Anyone care to comment?

Bob

Bob OH, in post #1, paragraph 2 I suggested that exactly that would happen. However, after plan A, plan B and plan C were to be falsified, it would cause many, including me, to question IC beyond first life. First life, on the other hand, remains firmly in the domain of “unexplained by science”.

“They’re probably just having seizures of denial.. the violent opposition to truth phase is taking a toll on their psyches.”

I’ve been debating Darwinists/atheists for many years and it actually does seem to me that their reasoning capacities have gone done over the past years.

I’ve never seen such an inability to reason from A to B to C before. Nor such a clear failure to understand or even discern simple logical implications.

I’m wondering if their relativist stance has some sort of neurological logic breaking tendency and is thus draining away their ability to critically analyse logical arguments clearly.

Strange.

Here’s how I see the score card.

First Cause of Matter. ID wins easy because material causes cannot cause mater itself. Therefore, a non-material cause is necessary to explain the existance of matter.

Fine tuning of physical laws. ID wins because the probability of laws that allow life arising by chance are so low as to be impossible.

The Big Bang, Another easy ID win because it is really the sum of the previous two.

Fine tuning of the earth Easy ID win because again, all of the conditions necessary to life that are found on earth are so improbable by chance that design is more probable.

Origin of Life ID wins on this so easy it is not even funny. Life is IC.

Evolution of Singel Cell Organisms ID again carries the day because an honest look at the evidence shows no indication of phylogeny.

Evolution of Complex Organisms ID wins. Why? Two words: “Cambrian Explosion.”

Fossil Record of Complex Organisms ID wins because of the absence of transitional fossils and stasis.

I could go on but it is late. I see ID as way ahead of NDE. There might be some areas where NDE makes a good argument but I haven’t seen one in so long that it is not coming to me right now.

Jehu,
ahh, but NDE wins easily on the philosophy department! Beat that!

Yes, Mike Behe is simply right.

Ill take just one example:

“Evolution of Singel Cell Organisms ID again carries the day because an honest look at the evidence shows no indication of phylogeny.”

You actually have to show how ID explains this better than evolution. You can’t just say evolution can’t explain this therefore ID.

There are Darwinists on various debate forums lately claiming that Behe has left the ID camp and has gone to NDE.

It sound like they are conflating Behe’s long expressed belief in common descent with a rejection of ID. They aren’t the brightest bunch. Behe has a sequal to DBB coming as has been pointed out.

It is a pity no one answered Jack Krebs #6. I have never seen an ID supporter attempt to answer this and yet it goes right to the heart of the problem. Unless you say something about how ID is implemented then any set of events is compatible with it.

More from Dr Behe:

]“Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.

In fact,[I] my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal.[/I] Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”

(bold added)

Chris Hyland:
You actually have to show how ID explains this better than evolution.

But ID is NOT anti-evolution. IOW your sentence is incorrect. A more correct way to say what you did is:

You actually have to show how ID explains this better than the blind watchmaker.

Also is Jack Krebs suggesting there isn’t any way to objectively test the materialistic anti-ID position? That should mean we have to remove it from science classrooms…

bFast:
To some extent, I think that science must bias towards the “natural causes” expanation.

Both intelligence and design are natural. This debate is about intelligent design vesus the materialistic alternative of sheer-dumb-luck.

Back up in comments 4 and 6 I asked some questions that only bfast has responded to, even though they were pretty directly related to the point Behe was making in the opening quote: if a flagellum were to arise in a population of bacteria which had had there original “knocked out”, how could we determine whether that flagellum arose exclusively by natural causes or whether intelligent design was involved. That is, is ID something that could happen in the present in the lab? and if so, how could we know?

Bfast then said,and I agree with this, that this answer would depend on which ID hypothesis (he used the word “sub-theory”) one were entertaining.

Then, in comment 8, bfast wrote,

“I would suggest that if statistical analysis of the chance events that had to have happened calculate out, I would be content to conclude that random processes produced a flagellum.”

I’ll note first that this doesn’t address the positive question of how would we know that ID was involved, other than implying the general ID position that if the odds of something happening naturally are too small, then ID is inferred.

But, with all that, let me followup on this quote from comment 8:

Question: given Behe’s hypothetical lab situation, what kind of statistical analysis could you do to show that “the chance events that had to have happened calculate out?”

It seems to me that such a statistical analysis would be staggeringly complex and involve data that we could possibly gather. You have billions of bacteria, a sizeable proportion of which are undergoing cell division every minute, and thus billions of opportunities for genetic change. You also have billions of “survival moments” going on all the time (presuming the bacteria are in a environment where there is some selective advantage for motility and in which resources are scarce enough that some reasonable proportion of bacteria don’t survive.) Taking the two of things into account over an extended period of time (let us say a few years) creates a probability tree of immense complexity.

Is this analysis feasible? Could / would a ID proponent in the above scenario be able to do this in order to show that the event in question was improbable enough to infer ID?

========================================================
However, I’d also like to point out that this train of thought deflects us from my original question. Could ID happen in the lab? Is there a ID hypothesis that ID can happen in the present moment, in small ways, and is likely to be happening as we speak someplace in the world, or are all ID hypotheses about distant events in the place?

Jack Krebs:

I wonder if the question you’re asking is really this: how can we distinguish ID from NS?

IOW, per an inversion of Behe’s comments posted by Jehu, if the flagellum is ID, the system producing it is ID. By an iterative process, the process producing the flagellum is ID, etc. Finally, we would have to say that everything is pre-programmed, or “front loaded”, and that what ensues in fact ensues because of the ID present at the highest level/deepest core of the the developmental program. Hence, if the flagellum developed, once knocked out, then how is it possible to distinguish this process from a purely NS driven one since it would look like a “natural” development?

My answer to that would be the following:

If you “knock out” the genes that are required, I don’t believe you could any longer call the system “front-loaded”. Hence, if the flagellum were to develop, the sensible conclusion is that NS brought it about.

There are two levels of complication to this answer that remain. One is: does the fact that the flagellum developed after being knocked out simply mean that there is a ‘restorative function’ built into this “front loaded” genome? But this possibility is low, if not nil, since if this were the case, then one would only have to look at a population of bacteria in which, for some mechanical reason, the flagellum was broken off/torn off and where the bacteria ‘re-grew’ the flagellum. It seems to me if that were the case, we would have heard about by now since the Darwinists would have used that as a case against ID.

The other complication has to do with how we see the Designer working. If we take a sort of Deist position, or a Platonist position a la Denton, then we would say everything is “front-loaded” and there you have it: everything necessary is present and it simply ‘unfolds’. If, OTOH, you take something like the PEH, one can see the Designer as being the one who intervenes in bringing about chromosomal changes. Now this all becomes a case wherein the degree, or– perhaps better stated– the heirarchical locations of “front-loading” are thrown into doubt since this ‘rearrangement’ results in a different type of “front loading”. This, then, further complicates the first complication since it is possible to argue that the development of the flagellum is at a level/location below that of the last “front-loaded” program level. In response to this scenario, I would argue that if this is, indeed, the way that “front loading” operates, then it would seem that other seemingly IC systems might also be “at a level/location below that of the last “front-loaded” program level”; hence the absence of a general phenomena would be contra-positive of ID.

Jack Krebs,

As an after thought you ask in 22, “Could ID happen in the lab? Is there a ID hypothesis that ID can happen in the present moment, in small ways, and is likely to be happening as we speak someplace in the world, or are all ID hypotheses about distant events in the place?”

If you’re asking whether the designer of life as we know it will create on command from us—in the lab—then no, I suspect not. But the beauty of ID is that we are designers par excellence. We can not only design, we can study the process. Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot be observed—it’s only a hypothesis about events in the unobservable past.

Some folks are disturbed when we compare “the appearance of design” in living things with the design found in man made things. They say it’s a category mistake. And so they argue from ignorance: Because we were not there when the designer designed we cannot call it design—it is therefore chance and necessity of the gaps.

But then what do I know … might we be able to observe design in the lab? Perhaps just as the growth and development of life on the planet is not subject to a materialist explanation, so also the growth and development of an embryo might not be subject to a purely materialist explanation.

I guess what Behe is saying is that if chance and necessity can be shown to do the job then ID is falsified–there would be no need to invoke design. I suppose the opposite would be true as well–if we could actually observe the Designer at work then there would be no reason to chalk it all up to pure dumb luck.

Could Common Descent happen in the lab? Is there a Common Descent hypothesis that Common Descent can happen in the present moment, in small ways, and is likely to be happening as we speak someplace in the world, or are all Common Descent hypotheses about distant events in the place?

how can Behe still be using that example?

if a flagellum (or other functionally irreducibly complex structure) developed under his conditions, how would it refute (falsify) design?

It wouldn’t falsify frontloading!
It wouldn’t falsify intervention by supernatural God!

and so on

“There are Darwinists on various debate forums lately claiming that Behe has left the ID camp and has gone to NDE.”

Behe’s new book is coming in summer.

check here:
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evo.....0743296206

“In this tour de force of evidence and logic, Michael Behe draws on the most extensive and detailed genetic studies available - - concerning the genomes both of human beings and of our worst diseases, especially malaria - - to reveal a stunning fact: Darwin’s theory of common descent is decisively proven, but his mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is woefully, irrefutably insufficient to account for the evolution of life on earth. With The Edge of Evolution, the theory of intelligent design finally has its masterwork, a comprehensive scientific statement that draws the line between random and non-random mutation in nature; defines the principles by which Darwinism evolution can be distinguished from designl fits design theory together with the findings of cosmology, chemistry, and physics into an overarching theory of the universe; and lays out a research program, with predictions, to counter the failed predictions of Darwin’s enthusiasts.

The Edge of Evolution is certain to be one of the most controversial books of science published in years. Critics have dismissed design theory as mere disguised creationism, and claimed that it is unscientific and/or just another “God of the gaps” argument, yet they cannot say the same about Behe’s new work. Studies of DNA have revealed the various types and rates of mutation. That information, combined with population sizes, makes it possible to define the mathematical limits of Darwinism - - and they are radically circumscribed. Extrapolating from studies of malaria, E Coli, HIV, and the human genome, to the entire history of life on earth, proves that random mutation plays only a minor role in evolutionary change.”

To Jack Krebs,

I would say ID would be a reasonable inference in Dr Behe’s scenario if and only if every (or almost every) subsequent generation contained a mutation/ mutations that were required to re-construct the bac flag that was originally messed with.

And I will say it again- with the bac flag as with all appengages, systems and subsystems, just their existence is not enough. They all still require some sort of command and control in order to be any use to the organism. Without C&C they are a waste of materials and energy.

And yes, something tells the bac flag to rotate CW, CCW and at what speed. Then it also has ’stop’, so it won’t burn out and won’t just swim by the food. Did I mention it can by rotating CW, and in a 1/4 turn, stop and rotate CCW?

Command & Control

“How about the second part of Behe’s comment, that proposed Darwinian mechanisms are highly resistant to falsification?”

That’s what caught my eye. I think Behe is spot on with this one. How do you falsify blind watchmaker evolution? It predicts everything and nothing all at once. If it happened, it’s evolution. If it didn’t happen, it’s evolution. Evidence is found which contradicts the theory, and stories are simply invented to get around the evidence. Why? Because it couldn’t have happened any other way. The only way Darwinism is going to go away is some type of earth-shattering observation, like a flagellum developing from scratch given certain environmental conditions, as discussed here.

Joseph,

And I will say it again- with the bac flag as with all appengages, systems and subsystems, just their existence is not enough. They all still require some sort of command and control in order to be any use to the organism. Without C&C they are a waste of materials and energy.

Good point, Joseph. One that needs to be hammered home. Matzke argued that since the chemotaxis mechanism is used in other systems within the cell that it could have been coopted to be used by the flagellum. What he fails to elucidate is HOW this occured. Or HOW the assembly mechanism evolved at the same time the binding sites were moving. So far the argument seems to be “homology proves that it evolved”, but if you focus on the details of assembly and control, the complexity of it all absolutely overwhelms the explanatory power of the neoDarwinian synthesis.

Mats, “but NDE wins easily on the philosophy department”

That one made me laff out loud.

Thanks!

Jehu #14 Pretty good summary of the situation. Of course we could easily add a number of major points, but we shouldn’t have to.

Joseph #21, “This debate is about intelligent design vesus the materialistic alternative of sheer-dumb-luck.” Fine enough. If a phenomenon can be reasonably accounted for by sheer-dumb-luck, then the appropriate conclusion to come to.

Jack Krebs #22: “It seems to me that such a statistical analysis would be staggeringly complex and involve data that we could possibly gather.” Possibly not. If we knock out an entire gene, and a new one has taken its place, the gene must have come from somewhere. If we find that a gene duplication happened, we should be able to trace where the source gene that got duplicated came from, etc.

If an incalculable phenomenon happened, our experiment would hardly have proven NDE. However, what if a calculable handful of mutations happened? What if the calculations suggest that chance mutational events, within our pool of bacteria, could reasonably account for it? In this case, we should conclude that NDE is supported in our experiment.

Chunkdz,

My point is that there are people with eyes that cannot see. People with arms and/ or legs they cannot use. IOW just getting the part, eye, arm, leg is not enough to get a functioning eye, arm, or leg.

Matzke’s argument fails with homology and homoplasy. Most often one is favored over the other “just because”. And you are right- even homologous proteins do not mean a bac flag can be self-assembled.

If I remember correctly, didn’t Matzke’s paper have about 20 or so co-option events that must take place?

ooops and I meant to ask, how likely is that?

Michaels7, not only did Matzke’s paper have 20 or so co-option events, but he co-opted a mechanism that appears to have devolved from the flagellum.

bFast (@12) - but you’re not using falsification: you’re using induction. The reason for Popper introducing falsification was that induction doesn’t work, because the next case could always be the example that actually works. This is particularly so when the hypothesis is that the designer only intervenes occasionally: in order to falsify the design inference you have to show that it doesn’t work in any case.

Just a couple of personal observations on this:
(a) falsification has been pretty much rejected by philosophers of science as a model for science (and, actually, naïve falsification was rejected by Popper in 1933!).
(b) I love the idea that the designer would be thoughful enough to give bacteria outboard motors. Sod the science, this is fun!

Bob

In DARWIN’S BLACK BOX, Behe acknowledges that evolutionary biologists can develop scenarios of how evolution could have constructed “irreducibly complex” mechanisms. But this is insufficient, he complains. “Although they might think of possible evolutionary routes other people overlook, they also tend to ignore details and roadblocks that would trip up their scenarios. Science, however, cannot ultimately ignore relevant details, and at the molecular level all the ‘details’ become critical” (65).

After offering an example of an evolutionary scenario, Behe comments: “Intriguing as this scenario may sound, though, critical details are overlooked. The question we must ask of this indirect scenario is one for which many evolutionary biologists have little patience: but how exactly?” (66)

Ok, Behe, some might respond, let’s apply to you the standards of proof that you apply to Darwinism.

Intriguing as your scenario for intelligent design may sound, critical details are overlooked. The question we must ask of your intelligent design scenario is one for which many proponents of intelligent design have little patience: but how exactly?

Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria?

Bob OH

(a) falsification has been pretty much rejected by philosophers of science as a model for science (and, actually, naïve falsification was rejected by Popper in 1933!).

Would you agree that if something is neither falsifiable nor verifiable then it’s a just-so story?

Arnhart: “Intriguing as your scenario for intelligent design may sound, critical details are overlooked. The question we must ask of your intelligent design scenario is one for which many proponents of intelligent design have little patience: but how exactly?

Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria? ”

I agree, this IS an excellent question and it does deserve some kind of answer.

Though not an “exact” answer, the solution to this question is that the designer created the complete DNA code for the flagella to be fully operational, once instantiated. Whether as a “hidden” subroutine that was eventually activated at the proper time (i.e. front-loaded), or as part of a fully functioning bacterium fully formed (as oponents of common descent might prefer) might be a question answerable in the future, just as close examination of computer code can reveal aspects of the code’s orignal design and subsequent evolution.

Arnhart,

Does a forensic pathologist have to identify exactly how and when a poison was introduced into a body in order for his finding that poisoning was the cause of death to be accepted? Of course not. It would help buttress the conclusion, but it’s not required.

Remember that Darwinism is making the sweeping claim that it adequately explains all biological complexity - all - and so there is no need - none - to investigate any role of intelligence. You’ve obviously read Darwin’s Black Box, so you’re familiar with what Behe’s actual claims are. His claims and those of Darwinism are not symmetrical, so the burden of proof needn’t be as reflexively symmentrical as you demand.

The standard for Darwin and Design are the same. Let’s let designers design, and let’s let chance and necessity do its thing. I see designers design every day, so far I have not witnessed chance and necessity produce anything close even to “the appearance of design”.

But you’re asking for more than design detection–which is an area where ID should be a fruitful model. In regard to when I suppose we look to the geologic column and one imagines there are also biological indicators, but for how, haven’t the ID folks (WmAD for one) been talking about reverse engineering? It’s one thing to detect design in the Great Pyramid, it requires other skills to determine just exactly how it was built.

By the way–do you think conservatives should disavow the very idea that the Hebrew God of history has interfered in the course of history?

Crandaddy writes,

” “If we impose the requirement of falsifiablity then it has to be applied equally. How is it possible, in principle, to falsify the RM+NS explanation for the origin of the flagellum?

Comment by DaveScot — December 27, 2006 @ 1:18 pm”

Dave, I took the liberty of moving your comment to this thread. I hope you don’t mind–Crandaddy”

I’m confused - where did this comment from DaveScot come from? I don’t see it above, and I haven’t posted on any other thread lately?

But anyway, I’m not discussing falsifiability - other people are having that conversation.

I am asking the following questions:

Suppose something interesting like the development of a flagellum arises in a population of flagellum-less bacteria in a laboratory setting

Could this have happened by ID?, and if so, how would we know? How would we distinguish the hypothesis that exclusively natural processes were involved in the development of that flagellum from the hypothesis that ID was involved. What evidence would bear on answering this question?

This is not a falsification question - this is a confirmation question. (FWIW, I agree with those who say that the naive falsification scenario is not very useful.

So as far as I can tell, DaveScot’s question doesn’t have much to do with the specific questions I’m addressing here.

“Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria?”

I will tell you if you tell me what is the size of my shoes I am wearing when typing these designed words.

[...] UD has a quote from Behe about falsifiability. This criterion seems to a wandering fragment of scientific methodology doomed to roam behind the wreckages of phil/sci incoherence. Before scotching ID on issues of falsifiability, it should be noted that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is essentially unfalsifiable. Not inherently so, nor in all cases, nor in the final analysis (the eonic effect makes many claims for natural selection in human evolution essentially baseless). If you consider what is being said about natural selection you can see that while it is easy to claim NS is falsifiable, in practice it is very difficult to arrive at the correct data. That’s the reason Darwin’s theory persists ad infinitum. All you is to repeat the claim over and over, and get howler monkeys and Pharyngulas to shout contemptuously at critics, and you have it made. Look at the claim that language is the result of adaptive selectionism. This claim is a very wild generalization, but has never been proven, and disproving it is impossible in the absence of the facts, to say nothing of shouting howler monkeys and Pharyngulas. If we had the facts, we could proceed, but verification/falsification requires an immense field of observations over dozens to hundreds plus generations of organisms over vast fields of geographical existence. So the question of falsifiability is a bit vexed. In fact, looking at the eonic effect, we can see that the thesis is essentially falsified because we can see the real scale and process by which an evolutionary sequence occurs. Look at the Axial Age in light of the issue of language. The sudden flowering of immense literatures almost as if on cue shows the way evolution has its finger in the pie, not just of language emergence, but of advanced linguistic behaviors. That makes Darwinian claims seem a bit speculative. As to ID, very similar criticisms apply directly. Generally, Popper’s criterion has found immense popularity, but his methodology of science is basically incoherent, and his criterion, in any case, has been the object of a considerable critical literature, which never enters the public debate over Darwin. The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. [...]

Bob OH, “bFast (@12) - but you’re not using falsification: you’re using induction.”

This is true. While Behe’s challenge that the bacterial flagellum is unevolvable is a falsifiable challenge, the fact that there are potentially an infinite number of similar scenerios that could be brought up makes for a position that is not formally falsifiable. On the flip side, though NDE is theoretically falsifiable by demonstrating that there is one feature that is not evolvable, it would seem unfalsifiable in that there are always more possible pathways that could be conceived that might allow the dear thing to have evolved via NDE.

Ie, as you said, “falsifiability” at some point breaks down — no matter which side of the fence you are on.

bfast, thanks… been a while since I read it.

It would be nice if evolutionist would test the 20 or so co-opted events too. Isn’t 20 or more co-opted events just as magical a dream as any?

What are the odds? Has anyone reported on that type of stat?

Forgive my ignorance, but I’m thinking I might not sit on the grass because it may co-opt my a&%…, then I’d have yet another lawn to mow.

Gil writes,

“As for Jack Krebs’ challenge: If Behe’s experiment were performed and a flagellum did evolve by random mutation and natural selection, we could observe the process taking place, and see the step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations. We could identify the survival value of each change in the process and sequence DNA to observe which mutations were responsible for the changes. This would pretty much sink ID.”

I’m thinking that people are not getting my point. I’m not offering this scenario in order to discuss what would “sink ID.” I’m asking a different question: what would see that might be evidence that ID had taken place, not evidence that it hadn’t.

Let me try a different angle. Suppose we did see, as Gil writes, “the step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations. We could identify the survival value of each change in the process and sequence DNA to observe which mutations were responsible for the changes.”

How would we know that this was not in fact intelligent design at work, and that what we were observing were the steps in the implementation of the design?

GilDodgen,
“ID is a theory of design detection, not process.”

Exactly, that’s what people are not willing to understand.

In my view, ID has to aspects.

1- Paradigm, that is we don’t deal with nature as if it’s a product of a blind watchmaker (and thus we don’t say this is “junk DNA”)

2- Detecting design, how to know if something is designed.

Jack Krebs asks a legitimate question:

“How would we know that this was not in fact intelligent design at work, and that what we were observing were the steps in the implementation of the design?”

The answer is that we wouldn’t know absolutely–there is the possibility that the designer wanted to deceive us. But if it happened with “step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations” each functional in its own right, then this would be what the Darwin predicted. Design, though evolutionary as observed in human technology, has saltations and irreducible complexities that Darwin didn’t predict.

ID is a detection strategy, not a process, as Gil Dodgen says, but one expects those who accept ID to also be interested in the process–did life “evolve” as the Darwinists say, or is human technology the better model?