Home » Darwinism, Intelligent Design » The ID view of Darwin; the Darwinian view of ID.

35 Responses to The ID view of Darwin; the Darwinian view of ID.

1. 31

   DaveScotJanuary 9, 2006 at 3:51 am

   keiths

   In case you’re wondering, your comment 28 didn’t show up right away because it had more than four links in it and was tagged as potential spam in the moderation queue.

   On the “designer of the gaps” argument I’ll make two points.

   1) macro-evolution is a “darwin of the gaps” argument. We’re just playing by the ground rules in effect which are obviously that you do not actually have to observe something for it to become the most well tested theory in science.

   2) in a manner most scientific Darwin said his theory could be falsified by showing that any complex organ could not have come about through incremental small changes where each change along the way had a fitness advantage. If you are now making the claim that it is impossible to show this because it would be an “argument from ignorance” rule then Darwin’s theory becomes unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

   The ball is in your court. A guantlet is on the ground. It is claimed that the bacterial flagellum is an organ which cannot evolve through successsive small changes with each change causing increased fitness. Unless you are willing to concede that macroevolution is unfalsifiable pseudoscience by way of point 1 or 2 above then the onus is on defenders of Darwin to show a flagellum can indeed evolve in a Darwinian manner. Good luck, you’re going to need it. But not as much luck as you’re going to need to show that my IC structure of choice (the ribosome) could have evolved via Darwinian pathway.

   By the way, co-option is fine, so long as the coopted structures can be 1) shown to have preceded the final structure and 2) the coopted structure is itself shown to be producible via Darwinian pathway.

   I realize the magnitude of the challenge here so take all the time you need. In fact I realize that it might an impossible job and all the time in the world won’t be enough. Just be advised that ID is a live option for the flagellum while you’re coming up with a plausible scenario.

   Log in to Reply
2. 32

   RogerJanuary 9, 2006 at 4:07 am

   keiths says:

   But again, my point is that unless irreducible complexity rules out both direct AND indirect evolutionary pathways, then Behe’s justification of ID remains a “designer of the gaps” argument.

   And Behe made it clear in his book that IC doesn’t rule out indirect pathways. He just finds the prospect rather logically daunting for complex systems using only random changes.

   You are free to avoid a “designer of the gaps” perspective, and remain with a “naturalism of the gaps” perspective. But clearly the two have something in common: the gap. Since we don’t know what we don’t yet know, claims about what future knowledge will reveal aren’t really evidence for one side or another.

   Log in to Reply
3. 33

   keithsJanuary 9, 2006 at 7:00 am

   Roger writes:
   “And not a “MANDATES” in the lot. Why am I not surprised?”

   Roger, of course the word “mandates” doesn’t appear in the Behe quotes. It was the word I used in describing Behe’s position:

   I wrote:
   “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.”

   Roger again:
   “Instead we see more nuanced claims, such as “I argue”, and “conclude” and “realize”. But no “MANDATES”.”

   Roger, either you didn’t read all the quotes or you’re being downright dishonest.
   Look again:

   “…we must conclude that they, like a mousetrap, were designed.”
   “…if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed.”
   “…the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed.”
   “…my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems…”

   What is “nuanced” about “we must conclude”, “was designed”, “were designed”, and “requires”? Do you really think that “we must conclude” is not a mandate?

   Roger concludes:
   “So, are you ready to abandon such rhetoric? Or do you have more “quotes” where the “MANDATES” may be hiding?”

   Roger, you made an honest mistake. No big deal. Let it go.

   Let’s get back to substantive debate.

   Log in to Reply
4. 34

   RogerJanuary 10, 2006 at 4:22 am

   Roger, of course the word “mandates” doesn’t appear in the Behe quotes. It was the word I used in describing Behe’s position:

   Why would that be an “of course”? Why wouldn’t one relate Behe’s position using his words? For example,

   Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect circuitous route.

   That appears to undercut “MANDATES” pretty significantly. It is a nuanced position, that you wish to convert to an absolutist position, for reasons that are reasonably obvious.

   A substantive debate on Behe’s position would seem to be constrained by what Behe has said, not what words you try to assign to him.

   Log in to Reply
5. 35

   PatrickJanuary 10, 2006 at 9:47 am

   I was going to comment earlier but you beat me to it…really the only “mandate” is when it comes to direct Darwinian pathways.

   Log in to Reply