Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Okay, ID may be taught — But you don’t get to teach it!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The latest edition of Jeffrey Bennett et al’s astronomy textbook The Cosmic Perspective (4th edition) is now out. Sure enough, “intelligent design” is in the index. Indeed, it gets a full page treatment (p. 714). Below is the scan of that page. Does this text provides a fair representation of ID? Hardly. It appears now that ID will indeed be taught in the science curricula of this nation, only ID proponents won’t be doing the teaching. Life is so unfair.

ID in The Cosmic Perspective

Comments
I had moved on to other threads, but PaV notified me that he had responded to my last post on this thread. He requested a response, which I am happy to provide, but I would rather do so on a more recent thread since this one is about to "scroll off" the first page of the blog. See my response at https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/605keiths
December 26, 2005
December
12
Dec
26
26
2005
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
My last post starts with a quote from 'keiths', and then my response. Sorry for the ommission.PaV
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
“The judge’s conclusion that ID is not science rests on a lot more than this one point, PaV. Read the “Whether ID is Science” section of the opinion.” What makes you think I haven’t read that section? Is it just because I don’t agree with your ‘judgment’? When you say that there is a defect in ‘application’, and I say there’s a ‘defect in logic’, I believe that we’re saying about the same thing. In other words, IC is more powerful an argument contra evolution if it specifically addresses the ‘how’ of evolution, and, in particular, NS. But what the judge seems to infer—an inference coming basically, as I see it, from Miller’s testimony—is that Behe’s argument has been countered by, as he says over and over again, ‘peer-reviewed’ evidence, and that, in the face of this refutation of Behe’s assertions, Behe has done nothing to ‘correct’ his theory, nor to, let us say, ‘bolster’ his theory by addressing NS more directly; in other words, the build-up, through blind-chance occurrences, of the biological structures that Behe cites as IC. The judge doesn’t ‘understand’ Behe’s argument because he doesn’t realize how skin-deep ‘peer-reviewed’ articles are. He doesn’t understand that the evolutionary community control most, if not all, laboratories throughout the US; that they control the faculties, and therefore the curricula, of universities throughout the land, and that they control almost all the ‘peer-reviewed’ journals currently published. In other words, they have a monopoly. And, as in typical monopolistic systems, they drive out any upstart competition. In the case of evolution, this is done through ‘Darwinian fundamentalism.’ What I’m saying is that he labors under the false notion that science is ‘objective.’ Nor does he understand that the TTSS is but a secondary, not primary, part of the flagellum motor system. (See Dembski’s quote below) And so, whether or not Dr. Minnich thinks the ‘derivation’ of the TTSS from the flagellum motor, or vice versa, is an current, and open, area of inquiry right now, that detracts in no way from the force of Behe’s argument. This subtlety is lost on the judge. (“However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.”) As it is again lost when the judge cites Miller’s testimony about the whale blood-clotting mechanism as a refutation of Behe’s claim that the mammalian blood-clotting system is IC, not realizing that if the system is ‘reduced’ from nine protein components to seven, the seven-protein system is nevertheless IC. So, the judge writes: “Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.” Miller has been screaming about this for years. And what is this assertion other than simple FAITH in evolution. The judge, along with Miller, might as well say, “Oh, it’s only a matter of time before all of this is figured out.” What great faith! And misplace faith at that! As it now stands, there are only two things we know about this motor: (1) that it both exists and operates; (2) and, that removing a part of this system, stops it from working. That’s what we know. Can evolution explain just how this flagellum rotor motor came about? The answer: No. But, “[e]xpert testimony reveal[s] that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.” As Darwin did, and as all of his disciples have done since, they ask us to ‘believe.’ Some day, some way, some how, everything will be answered. Yet, there are no answers. If ‘evolutionary theory’ can’t provide a mechanism for how these structures came about, then, at the very least, the theory is tentative, or incomplete (and not a fact). Apparently the judge relies on the great ‘faith’ that Dr. Miller has in this theory that it is just a matter of time before all the ‘missing links’ on the way to the bacterial flagellum motor are all filled in. I’m not holding my breath; believe me. keiths: “And the judge isn’t using Behe’s old definition in his arguments about the validity of IC. He’s just pointing out Behe’s sloppiness in failing to fix a problem which was pointed out to him four years previously.” You may be right, but my impression is that the judge is understanding that Behe hasn’t made the change as an admission of Miller’s argument prevailing, when, in all probability, Behe doesn’t feel compelled to re-state the argument because no one has successfully refuted his assertions. Evolution is the ‘prevailing dogma’ of the day—so thinks the good judge—and so it’s evolutionary theory’s duty and obligation to refute the claim by demonstrating probable pathways. keiths: “Judge Jones says this to point out that an IC system CAN be produced by natural selection if the precursors have a different function or functions from that of the IC system.” Judge Jones Opinion: As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means. Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different, selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function (16:146-48(Padian)). For instance, Dr. Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process. (17:6-17 (Padian)). This is almost laughable. “Dr Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process (of exaptation).” In other words, here’s how the thinking goes: “How are mammals different from reptiles? One way is that their inner ear is different. How are they different? Well, what we see as jawbones in reptiles, are now seen to be modified and used in a completely different way in the mammalian middle ear. Well how did it happen? Evolution did it. Do you have a name for it? Yes, it’s called ‘exaptation.’” Exaptation EXISTS only if EVOLUTION IS FIRST ACCEPTED AS A THEORY. So just because they have a fancy word for it, and just because all kinds of other scientists nod their heads when exaptation is invoked, Judge Jones is very impressed. Sorry, but I’m not impressed at all. You don’t KNOW that jawbones have ‘evolved’ into middle-ear bones. You only KNOW that reptiles have jawbones in that part of their anatomy, and that mammals have middle-ear bones. All the rest is pure supposition. (Show me the fossil record where we see small, gradual changes leading little-bit by little-bit from one to the other.) Dembski’s quote: “There’s another problem here. The whole point of bringing up the TTSS was to posit it as an evolutionary precursor to the bacterial flagellum. The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (Nguyen et al. 2000).” keiths: “It doesn’t matter whether the TTSS is a precursor to the flagellum. The point is that the TTSS is an existence proof of a flagellar subset with a different function. This highlights the fact that nothing about Behe’s single-function definition of an IC system precludes its evolution via precursors having different functions.” Excuse me, but didn’t you just contradict yourself? In making your point about IC you said: “Judge Jones says this to point out that an IC system CAN be produced by natural selection if the precursors have a different function or functions from that of the IC system.” And now you’re saying that it DOESN’T MATTER whether the TTSS is a precursor to the flagellum. So which way would you like to argue it, since you can’t have it both ways? “Nothing about Behe’s single-function definition of an IC system precludes its evolution via precursors having different functions.” So what! Let’s say they all had a prior function. How did they come to function together as a whole? The odds of that happening by chance is the product of the odds of each component occurring by chance. If you have ten components, with the probability of each component coming about by chance being one in a million, then the probability of the entire IC system coming about by chance is 1 in 10^60th power. I’m sorry, isn’t that larger than the total number of atoms in the entire universe? And what is the probability of 18 nucleotides forming a particular pattern? About 1 in 12 million. Do you have a bridge in Brooklyn you’d like to sell me, too? I see no reason why his argument needs to be changed. keiths: “It appears that he understood the argument better than you did.” And, as Dawkins says, biological forms give every appearance of being designed. You can’t always trust appearances, you know.PaV
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
keiths: "PaV, I suspect that you already realize what’s wrong with your chain argument, but I’ll make it explicit anyway. You claim that the Big Bang and the Anthropic Principle together imply a supernatural designer. But if that were so obvious, everyone would be an IDer, because that is more or less what the cosmic fine-tuning argument says." It is no more, nor any less, obvious than inferring from CSI that there is a 'supernatural designer'. Just because you feel comfortable assuming it to be the case in one instance--so that in your mind, at least, it can be wielded as a battling axe--but you're not comfortable making that assumption in the other instance, is your own failure to be logically consistent, and no more. The error, I'm afraid, is happening between your ears.PaV
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Edin Najetivic: "I stipulated a few in my post above. Several areas of the brain have at least been mapped to brain functions (look up Broca and Wernicke if you like). How they evolved I do not know for sure, but several good suggestions have been offered. The connection walking upright and related areas in the brain is one of them." This is exactly as I have said: Darwinian theory is at a loss as to what selective advantages might have brought about the change the structure's change in function, so they simply stipulate a word to make it "sound" scientific. The more honest approach would be to simply say: "we are not able at this time to propose a pathway with appropriate selective advantages to explain this change in function." As they say in Italian, "basta." ('That will do.')PaV
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
What might be supernatural to us, might not be to God. Isn't supernatural a human word anyways?Benjii
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
I think personally that science is too narrow. If supernatural events take place, we shouldn't label them off limits. Even if we study them and come to a conclusion that we cannot at all or maybe not fully explain it via natural laws, then we could call it supernatural maybe and leave it at that. You can't, as most would like, have an a priori demand that the supernatural doesn't exist and it's not possible that it exists, end of story. I think science should be able to study all aspects of the universe...if they turn out to be unknowable thru science, let's label them some way. Maybe we will label them supernatural, or maybe we will just say they're natural but just a mystery and work more on it...if we search and search and still no answer comes- maybe we will never know. We can hardly know everything about everything. That doesn't make ID supernatural tho. Then again, as I said, I don't think supernatural is the right term sometimes. What was labelled supernatural before were events that were clearly natural in origin, just not explained at the time- they explained it, so they called it natural from that point on. If some scientists study some sort of ESP or any other example of what most would call supernatural and they find it's real, that there's no trickery, there's nothing to explain it- so be it. It's part of the universe we live in, accept it and move on to the next issue. Too many will posit a million just-so stories to explain all sorts of mysterious phenomenon and proclaim it's a trick or a hoax, but that's mainly because we've become conditioned to think that science can tell us everything about everything, but it surely can't. Anything that claims to tell us EVERYTHING usually can tell us very little of all there is to know. I think God is natural and supernatural. He is everywhere, thus outside of nature and inside of it as well...so he can act thru out from outside or insert himself into it to act solely within nature. So with that, for example, the term becomes fuzzy and confusing and fairly useless.Josh Bozeman
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
Josh, I had a hard time deciphering your post, so I'm quite unsure about this, but I gather that you believe that I, as an evolutionist and an ID opponent, have to "toe the line" and accept the mainstream view that science cannot deal with the supernatural under any circumstances. I don't, for reasons that I make clear elsewhere in this thread and others. The hypothesis of a suitably constrained supernatural being is testable using the methods of science.keiths
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
Science as we know it NEVER dealt with the supernatural and when ’scientia’ or ’sophia’ did in the old days, it was not what we now know as science. ---------- thats part of the problem. you say it wasnt science, and most scientists themselves would say as much today...but science was much broader back then. they saw their search for Gods glory and the research of his creation as their science. that formed the basis of much of their work- that the universe was created in an orderly fashion and worked in that manner, so it could be understood. science seems too narrow today i think. and i disagree keiths- i hear all the time that science cannot deal with the supernatural...that science is ONLY when dealing with natural events. but it then comes back to- what is supernatural. what i meant was that god is not wholly outside of nature but part of it and outside of it- hes everywhere, within everything seen and unseen. with that, he can work outside of nature and perhaps reach in and that would be considered supernatural./ im sure most scientists would say that god doing so would be supernatural and would say that they cant deal with it because its not purely natural. they might deal with whatever it is and then label it natural after they decided it was some unknown natural event. but, isnt an unknown natural event itself "supernatural" in essence? again, the fuzzy meaning of the word.Josh Bozeman
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Just to follow up on a much earlier post (#132), where I said, "This sparked an obvious (in hindsight) question that for some reason had never occured to me before: Since human intelligence is certainly capable of generating CSI, doesn’t this make moot the question of whether other highly complex things found in nature qualify as CSI? In other words, doesn’t human intelligence alone disprove Darwinism?" DaveScot replied that it "disprove[s] the notion that only a supernatural being can tinker with the course of evolution. It can be done by ***naturally occuring engineers." keiths replied: “Only if you believe that undirected natural processes, like random mutation followed by natural selection, cannot produce CSI.” Actually, there's another way. At first, I thought that maybe it was just an intellectual blind spot caused by the fact that we're intelligent beings. But after thinking about this some more, I think that the reason I hadn't seen the problem until now is that I was assuming, for the sake of argument, that while undirected natural processes aren't able to generate CSI, they might be capable of generating conscious intelligence, which then could produce all the CSI that one wants. I don't believe this, but I think that that was the unrecognized and unexamined assumption that I had made. This makes sense if conscious intelligences aren't constrained by the same laws of physics that undirected natural processes are, i.e., that conscious intelligences are, indeed, supernatural in some manner. Thus, it's a paradoxical (and seemingly indefensible) conflation of naturalism and supernaturalism. Yet this assumption or something similar seems to be implicit in most of the arguments made regarding CSI. I've seen almost no discussion by anyone, including proponents of ID, of the astounding fact that human intelligence can generate it. And why else would many Darwinists staunchly argue against the proposed examples of CSI in nature -- that we can't know the probabilities of all possible factors in their evolution, etc., instead of saying, "Yeah, so what, Darwinian evolution can create CSI -- we just can't demonstrate it in a lab"?jay
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
I said: “BTW, my question pertaining to how the undirected evolution of some biological phenomenon could theoretically be falsified remains unanswered.” Edin responded with this: "Evolution has a model (natural selection) and a generator (random mutation). Natural selection IS directed: by nature, just not by intelligence. Random mutation is not directed at all. Please remember that NS is not at all undirected. By extension, your point becomes unanswerable because evolution is directed due to natural selection being so. So please give me a case to judge?" Perhaps my question was misleading; let me rephrase. Evolutionary theory posits that some current biological state of affairs B evolved via random mutations and natural selection from some prior biological state of affairs A. How could this theoretically be falsified?crandaddy
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Edin, I'm an atheist too, but I end up discussing the supernatural hypothetically because ID implies it (via the designer chain argument). Josh Bozeman writes: "If God created nature, we could easily say he is outside of it but also a part of nature itself." God can't be wholly outside nature yet a part of it. On the other hand, if you meant that God overlaps nature, but is mostly outside, then I would ask: What about the part of God that's inside nature? Do you believe that God created a part of himself when he created nature? Josh again: "You couldn’t falsify the supernatural via science if science demands that all aspects be natural. Even if you made a set of predictions, if science cannot deal with the supernatural, how could it possibly work to falsify any aspects of it?" Personally, I don't think that science demands that all (or any) aspects of an entity be natural in order for that entity to be studied scientifically. There merely have to be implied, dependable consequences of that entity's existence which are observable in nature. If the consequences aren't there, the entity doesn't exist. In this way, the God of the young-earth creationists is falsified by the biological, geological and astronomical evidence of an old universe and earth, even if he possesses many attributes which are outside the scope of science. I think you and Edin are both trying to say that an entity must be part of nature in order to influence nature. This is simply not true. I can dribble a basketball, but that doesn't mean I'm part of the basketball. Something that doesn't follow the laws of nature, like a supernatural intervention, can hardly be said to be part of nature, but the effects of the intervention are certainly part of nature, and hence observable. Edin writes: "...putting a natural description onto a supernatural being is encapsulating him in a system the supernatural supercedes." Saying that a being influences the natural world is not tantamount to "putting a natural description onto" it.keiths
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Keiths: "Welcome to the blog. I’m enjoying your posts." Likewise ;) "No, a hypothetical supernatural being remains supernatural even if it intervenes in nature. Take the biblical God, for example: who (besides DaveScot) would assert that this particular God is natural, not supernatural, simply because he manipulates nature when performing miracles?" Being an atheist myself your theist example hardly even stings! :P Anyway, supernatural can be defined as 'defying nature' or more correctly 'defying natural laws' as it were, am I correct? Nature vs Supernature are just two different planes of existence, yes? Aside from the obvious contradiction that something can interact with something else that is wholly different (Descartes wrestled with this in his dualistic worldview), putting a natural description onto a supernatural being is encapsulating him in a system the supernatural supercedes. It is like trying to drown a fish in water. So either the supernatural occurs randomly (which will not please anybody) or it is equated with the natural upon which it's supernaturalness is moot. Josh Bozeman: "Fact is- there may many supernatural aspects to the world, who is to say? Science couldn’t tackle it, because the demands has become so narrow (past science would deal with the supernatural all the time.)" Josh, I was scared I would agree with you fully, but fortunately there is this which I can mildly disagree with (though, to my grudging annoyment, not wholly). Plus, I get to yell at your spelling! Here you say that there may be many aspects to the world that are supernatural. Unfortunately, this is true. Science can't and never has beem able to tackle the supernatural, and this is where you're wrong. Science as we know it NEVER dealt with the supernatural and when 'scientia' or 'sophia' did in the old days, it was not what we now know as science. It was basically a glorification of God's creation, from the lowliest cactus flower to the humblest yucca tree. If 'scientia' still busied itself with the supernatural, we would be thinking a thunderstorm was a punishment from God and weather forecasts would be in the form of "There are sodomists here, expect heavy storm and hail for the Lord's wrath is upon you". Fortunately, they're not. ... a sorry disagreement I know, but I couldn't stand myself agreeing with you Josh :P Kind regardsEdin Najetovic
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Gumpngreen responds to my statements about irreducible complexity: "Behe’s IC has always been about direct Darwinian pathways. He noted the improbable indirect pathways in his first book. Considering no one has yet to meet Behe’s challenge regarding those indirect pathways I’m not sure it’s a problem that requires fixing." Behe is claiming that he has identified a property of systems, irreducible complexity, that MANDATES the existence of an intelligent designer capable of engineering it into the system. The burden of proof is on him to show that evolution cannot produce systems with this property. Otherwise, you're back to a "designer of the gaps" argument: "Evolutionary biologists have not identified an indirect path to an IC system. Therefore the designer made it."keiths
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
If God created nature, we could easily say he is outside of it but also a part of nature itself. So, even an act of God would not necessarily be supernatural. Furthermore- an a priori demand that nothing can be supernatural is silly. You can't discount an option of the universe from the start and ever think you'll get a full picture of it all. Fact is- there may many supernatural aspects to the world, who is to say? Science couldn't tackle it, because the demands has become so narrow (past science would deal with the supernatural all the time.) You couldn't falsify the supernatural via science if science demands that all aspects be natural. Even if you made a set of predictions, if science cannot deal with the supernatural, how could it possibly work to falsify any aspects of it?Josh Bozeman
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Edin, Welcome to the blog. I'm enjoying your posts. I just saw your first post (it was delayed in appearing on the blog), which contains a question for me: "And keiths, would involving the supernatural into the natural by making it falsifiable discredit its supernatural nature(sic)? Is a supernatural being not by definition totally unfalsiable since it transcends natural falsification? Or is my view of this too narrow?" DaveScot raises a related point, asserting that "the supernatural becomes the natural once we know about it." No, a hypothetical supernatural being remains supernatural even if it intervenes in nature. Take the biblical God, for example: who (besides DaveScot) would assert that this particular God is natural, not supernatural, simply because he manipulates nature when performing miracles? Regarding falsification, a hypothetical supernatural being can be falsified by human observations if some of its attributes predict regular, observable consequences in nature. If you show that those consequences do not obtain, then the being does not exist, irrespective of its other attributes.keiths
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
"He’s just pointing out Behe’s sloppiness in failing to fix a problem which was pointed out to him four years previously." Behe's IC has always been about direct Darwinian pathways. He noted the improbable indirect pathways in his first book. Considering no one has yet to meet Behe's challenge regarding those indirect pathways I'm not sure it's a problem that requires fixing. Personally I'm not very interested in this discussion any more as it's more about a misunderstanding of ID than anything else.Gumpngreen
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
PaV: "And when Gould, the inventor of the term, uses it to describe a hypothetical structure in chimps that was “exapted” by humans to use in language, isn’t that, well…. magic? There’s no ‘parts’ there to identify." I stipulated a few in my post above. Several areas of the brain have at least been mapped to brain functions (look up Broca and Wernicke if you like). How they evolved I do not know for sure, but several good suggestions have been offered. The connection walking upright and related areas in the brain is one of them. Dave Scot: "Utter dreck. We have no data whatsoever to consider in any supposed chain of designers." I did not say it was a strong arument per se, but the reason why is readily apparent in your next sentence. ID does not have any data on any designer. It is the theory's weakness. This also leaves out the chain of designer reading, as you state. It does not make the theory stronger as I explain in the following paragraphs. "We have evidence of design in biological structures. That’s the beginning and end of the data we have. The design we identify in biological structures can be accomplished quite easily through known laws of nature." Such as Natural Selection? Really, I'm sceptical of what laws of nature ID employs, but by all means enlighten me.Edin Najetovic
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Sorry for the delay in responding, PaV. I was out celebrating the Dover opinion last night. PaV writes: "Tell me, keiths, does that sound like the judge understood the argument? He fails to see that the “defect” Behe was referring to wasn’t an actual “defect in logic”, but rather, it was Behe saying that the argument could be made more forceful by rewording the argument." The judge is a lot smarter than you think, PaV. He understands the argument precisely. He's not pointing out a defect in logic, as you claim; he's pointing out a defect in applicability. Check out the sentence immediately preceding your excerpt: "Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address 'the task facing natural selection.'" In case there's any doubt, the judge reiterates his understanding of the issue in the sentence immediately following your excerpt: "In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection..." Behe's testimony confirms the judge's interpretation of the "defect". Natural selection does not start with an IC system and attempt to remove parts, but that is exactly the situation that Behe's definition refers to. And the judge isn't using Behe's old definition in his arguments about the validity of IC. He's just pointing out Behe's sloppiness in failing to fix a problem which was pointed out to him four years previously. PaV quotes the opinion: “However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in someother way, for example as a secretory system.” Judge Jones says this to point out that an IC system CAN be produced by natural selection if the precursors have a different function or functions from that of the IC system. PaV comments: "Now Miller and Behe have gone around on this, and based on my cursory read of Miller’s paper, and Behe’s rebuttal, I take Behe’s side." Why am I not surprised? PaV quotes Dembski: “There’s another problem here. The whole point of bringing up the TTSS was to posit it as an evolutionary precursor to the bacterial flagellum. The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (Nguyen et al. 2000)." It doesn't matter whether the TTSS is a precursor to the flagellum. The point is that the TTSS is an existence proof of a flagellar subset with a different function. This highlights the fact that nothing about Behe's single-function definition of an IC system precludes its evolution via precursors having different functions. In other words, Behe's definition of IC needs to be changed if his intent is to show that IC systems cannot be produced by natural selection. "This is an argument that is way beyond the judge’s competence. He acted inappropriately in taking a position on something he didn’t understand as well as he needed to." It appears that he understood the argument better than you did. "...we have a judge who...based on the testimony of one expert witness, Miller, has decided that ID is not science." The judge's conclusion that ID is not science rests on a lot more than this one point, PaV. Read the "Whether ID is Science" section of the opinion.keiths
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Edin "the chain of designer’s argument" Utter dreck. We have no data whatsoever to consider in any supposed chain of designers. We have evidence of design in biological structures. That's the beginning and end of the data we have. The design we identify in biological structures can be accomplished quite easily through known laws of nature. Not only that, but the technology required to engineer such biological structures is not terribly far advanced beyond what genetic engineers can do in laboratories today. No supernatural force is suggested or required in the evidentiary basis for design. The argument "who designed the designer" is a red herring designed to move ID away from its scientific underpinnings in real biological structures and into the realm of metaphysical speculation and religion where it can be attacked on 1st amendment grounds. We are suitably impressed with ourselves that you can't argue the science and have to create a metaphysical strawman in order to denigrate ID. Thanks for that.DaveScot
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Edin Najetovic: "Therefore, the parts don’t change, just their use. And you have to document very well why you think that’s the case, not just any exaptation can be accepted as you seem to imply." And when Gould, the inventor of the term, uses it to describe a hypothetical structure in chimps that was "exapted" by humans to use in language, isn't that, well.... magic? There's no 'parts' there to identify.PaV
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Josh Bozeman: "NDE supporters claim to prove every aspect of all life, the universe, mood, thought, behavior, religion" That's so patently untrue it brings tears to my eyes. All NDE talks about is life and that which pertains to it. It seeks to map certain behavioural patterns to nature, yes, but that is not its goal. Its goal is to explain how systems arose that facilitate mood, behaviour and religion, not to explain their working (though its working needs to be understood if genealogical trees are to be built). It has absolutely NOTHING -and I repeat- NOTHING to do with the universe or the origin of life. Those are physical questions. All it has to explain is the diversity of life. Speaking of which, that which hopes to explain everything ere the end is not Evolution but physics. Good quote: "Science is either physics or stamp collection" by I think Mendeleev. Physics hopes to explain everything, so point your unfalsifiability arrows towards that :) Kind RegardsEdin Najetovic
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Crandaddy: "First of all, the goal is not to detect the designer; it is to detect design. And, second, the trick is to show how Intelligent Design cannot escape a supernatural designer regardless of how strongly it implies one." Well, you don't buy the chain of designer's argument (which is pretty strong, and some would say waterproof). I can understand what the way out is here: "the designer COULD (whereas we could not) have evolved in a way we have no knowledge about". That this is a dubious argument I hope you can see. And if this is not enough there is my earlier statement. By leaving the designer unspecified, you prevent yourself from doing science. Science is about mechanisms, models, theories etc. In other words, scientists like to look at the world and pick up information that they gather into a model which has predictive powers. Evolution does that intensively, though you would call that "micro-evolution", something ID doesn't challenge. This just shows the strength of the evolutionary model (or part of it, as you uphold) ID would have what predictive power, that is not a direct consequence of a part of the model of evolution they too employ? I have heard that 'everything should have its use, because it was designed' and heard that junk DNA should turn out to be useful. But if you do not specify the capabilities of the designer, why posit that? The designer needs not be competent, so a totally useless design is possible. The designer could be a prankster and code the number of pi into it to spite us all. These are all jocular interpretations of course, but without specifying the designer, they must all be taken into account. Therefore, the junk DNA claim is neither support nor discredit for the theory. The point made here is, without a specified designer (who made the design) all you can say about design is 'it was designed' and naught else. And that's only its descriptive adequacy, but its explanatory adequacy amounts to nil. This would not have had to be the case were the designer specified. Were he to be specified as aliens, we would have predictions. Were he to be specified as God, you have a worthless theory that is unscientific. The point is, by leaving the designer seat open, which needs to be filled for the theory to work as science, you are not saying anything. Yes, you are even strongly implying the supernatural. As judge Jones said, it is disingenious at best and deceptive at worst. He calls it, in short, "Creationism -God" where God rolls out of the equation of ID. Whether you agree with this is another thing entirely, but it is clear to my mind. But you are right of course. Without specifying the designer he could just as well be natural- but it is all very vague. And if something is vague, it is not good science. So once again, I call upon you: research the designer! Crandaddy: "BTW, my question pertaining to how the undirected evolution of some biological phenomenon could theoretically be falsified remains unanswered." Evolution has a model (natural selection) and a generator (random mutation). Natural selection IS directed: by nature, just not by intelligence. Random mutation is not directed at all. Please remember that NS is not at all undirected. By extension, your point becomes unanswerable because evolution is directed due to natural selection being so. So please give me a case to judge? Gumpngreen: "Also, Josh was obviously making fun and not being precise but you do realize your response is a good example of just-so storytelling? And I’m pretty sure I’ve read the literature you mention…" It is hard to tell with Josh :S And please explain to me why it is an example of just-so storytelling? I described plausible natural scenarios didn't I? Kind RegardsEdin Najetovic
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Edin, of course I was making a joke. I find the argument of the jaw bones moving to the inner ear absurd. So I made an absurd argument about apes and humans. Of course, as mentioned, what you told was simply a just-so story that has no empirical evidence to back it up. And that's all it will ever be, considering we cannot study animals that have been extinct for quite sometime and have little to work with in regards to fossils. On top of that, we've no muscles of course, and bones themselves can provide clues to muscles, but those soon turn into just-so stories themselves with no hard evidence to back them up. Since this all supposedly happened in the distant past, much of the story MUST be just-so stories, which is why most of the general public doesn't buy it...just so- stories a solid theory do not make. That and when a theory purports to explain EVERYTHING it usually explains nothing. NDE supporters claim to prove every aspect of all life, the universe, mood, thought, behavior, religion, everything with a theory riddled with neverending just-so stories that lack empirical evidence to back most of it up.Josh Bozeman
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Edin, It looks to me like you're trotting out David Hume's argument that we can't detect design unless we know the properties of the designer - an argument I find unconvincing. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.11.Hume_and_Reid.pdf "Without a specified designer you heavily imply that you supercede the natural because a natural designer you could test, as stated above." First of all, the goal is not to detect the designer; it is to detect design. And, second, the trick is to show how Intelligent Design cannot escape a supernatural designer regardless of how strongly it implies one. BTW, my question pertaining to how the undirected evolution of some biological phenomenon could theoretically be falsified remains unanswered.crandaddy
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
"ID could specify the designer, so why doesn’t it?" The Designer can be made of known energy and matter or it could be an unembodied intelligence (meaning, it's not made of known materials). So which is it? Unspecified means exactly what it sounds like: unspecified. Determining that question is outside the scope of ID. You and I may not like not knowing the identity but that doesn't affect the design detection itself. Of course, people may have personal beliefs on the identity of the Designer based upon personal experiences, history, and other things outside of ID. Also, Josh was obviously making fun and not being precise but you do realize your response is a good example of just-so storytelling? And I'm pretty sure I've read the literature you mention...Gumpngreen
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
David: If you posit an intelligence having designed us, you shift the burden of evolution to that intelligence. If it is natural, his properties can be discerned like in everything natural. And no, circular reasonings like 'aptitude to make what he made' are not a part of such a hypothesis. Such a natural designer is not posited however, to my (and keiths) everlasting surprise. Instead, he is exchanged for a designer who remains unspecified (and, if I understand ID correctly, will forever remain unspecified by definition). Without a specified designer you heavily imply that you supercede the natural because a natural designer you could test, as stated above. If you categorically state the designer is unspecifiable, you have basically equated him to be supernatural, because all that is natural can have its mechanism observed. Until an attempt is made at seriously naturally discerning a designer, ID will remain as it is now, unscientific. ID hinges on the designer, because he is responsible for the design. If he remains unidentified, then the content of the theory remains unidentified and thus no more than an intuition. That is exactly why mosts scientists wave off intelligent design, it is as of yet no more than an unspecified intuition. They even go so far as to say: "it is not by a lack of ability that the ID movement is not specifying the designer or his abilities, but a lack of will. By leaving the spot open, you leave room for the supernatural and this is inexcusable in science." The problem is, they are right. ID could specify the designer, so why doesn't it? I have not seen this question answered anywhere. And I do realise I may get banned for saying this, Renard seems to have been kicked out for less... Josh Bozeman: "Sure there is…clearly a chimps love for swinging in trees was borrowed by humans for language. See what happened was the arm muscles slowly evolved their way up to the jaw in modern humans." This shows you have not the foggiest about evolution of language capability. The two things that are most thought to precipitate language are the areas in the brain related to walking upright, changes in the glottis which makes the oral cavity much more usable (and these changes in the glottis were according to many evolved to increase efficiency of the shared breathing/consumption mechanism - a classic example of exaptation), and my pet theory that an awareness of time absent in all other animals caused development of computational ability and hence language. But the last one is just an intuition, the other two have some literature behind them. PaV: "Exaption is a completely meaningless definition which was invented, and is used, by neo-Darwinists only to cover up what evolution cannot explain." It is at least recorded as having happened in human history and it is not at all clear to me why you discard it so easily. Exaptation is really a rather simple process. You posit exaptation as a magical act. It is however no such things. For exaptation to work, one must find a part of a system which was once used differently but could, by a simple rearrangement, be used differently. Therefore, the parts don't change, just their use. And you have to document very well why you think that's the case, not just any exaptation can be accepted as you seem to imply.Edin Najetovic
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
What I don't understand is how the unguided evolution of a biological phenomenon could possibly be falsified - even in theory - if the concept of Intelligent Design is not even permitted consideration. If it didn't evolve, then how did it occur? Lamarkism has been effectively falsified, and can we reasonably suspect that the organism leapt to the top of "Mount Improbable" in a single bound? We know that human intelligence can tamper with organisms to create biological novelty, so why is it such a wild idea to consider the possibility that some other intelligence tampered with life on Earth to create the flora and fauna we see today? If evolution didn't do it, then what did? I don't see how evolution is not an article of faith if ID is not considered. Regarding whether or not ID is a supernatural concept, I'm afraid I remain unconvinced until I see how supernaturalism and ID are inseperable. See comment #27 on this thread. Davidcrandaddy
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Sure there is...clearly a chimps love for swinging in trees was borrowed by humans for language. See what happened was the arm muscles slowly evolved their way up to the jaw in modern humans. We don't know how, we don't know when, and we don't really know what mechanism could have caused this, but it surely happened because look- the skeletal structure hints at this. Just like reptiles jaw bones supposedly evolved in small steps up to the mammalian ear bones! Of course both stories are ludicrous. But what do you expect?Josh Bozeman
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
keiths: Here's something else from the judge: In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." Exaption is a completely meaningless definition which was invented, and is used, by neo-Darwinists only to cover up what evolution cannot explain. For example, (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~rkopp/collegepapers/chimps.html) "Gould proposes that language is an example of what he calls a spandrel, or an exaption: a trait which, having evolved for one reason, is later used for another." Which, translated means: there's no way of finding "evolutionary steps" that leads from chimpanzees to humans when it comes to language. So, we just PROPOSE that precursor to human language was present somehow in chimps, and then "borrowed" by humans as language. There's absolutely no evidence for this; and there will likely never be any evidence for it. It's no more than hand-waving. And, yet, the judge swallows it hook, line and sinker.PaV
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply