Students reject ID over motives, not science? Oh, the humanity!
by KrauzeUncommon Descent calls attention to a new book on intelligent design, Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement (three guesses as to what position it'll take). It has its own publication page, featuring an e-mail from a "post-doc in the Physics Department of Columbia University" as "a stark reminder of why this book is necessary":
I have been teaching a new course on the frontiers of science, required for all freshmen at Columbia. These students are mostly sharp, capable, and open-minded. Still, many of them think that intelligent design should be studied in the interest of being fair and balanced. What's troubling is that even those who accept evolution often treat it as a matter of belief, of political persuasion, as if it were akin to being for or against free trade. And if they reject intelligence design it's often not because they can see its vacuousness as a scientific theory, but merely because the religious and conservative stripes of ID can sometimes look a little uncool. As for science, reason, evidence — what's that?
Students rejecting intelligent design, not because of any knowledge of science, but because they associate it with that "uncool" religious right? Sounds like they've been listening to Peter Ward.
May 9th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
And for those of us who accept ID dispite it being uncool, could it possibly be because the scientific community has not produced the scientific evidence that establishes the scientific vacuousness of ID? I'm quite willing to give up ID, show me the evidence!
Comment by bFast — May 9, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
May 9th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Who needs arguments and facts when a judicious employment of the genetic fallacy will do the job?
Comment by DonaldM — May 9, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
May 9th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Hello bFast,
Interesting position; ID has no theory, makes no falsifiable predictions, and generates no research. What more do you need to establish its vacuousness?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 9, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
May 9th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
If one concedes its "vacuosness" as science would anyone argue that it is generally vacuous? If so, wouldn't you be a "scientific materialist" and wouldn't that make the discussion meaningless with an IDer? If you were not a scientific materialist then would you say that it has some value in the fields of theology, religion, philosophy but not science?
"these are the questions that the questioner is questioning" gwb
Comment by samohth — May 9, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
May 9th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Aagcobb:
Wow, novel comeback.
Let me see, though I recognize that there's always another Id based hypothesis, Dr. Behe has presented a challenge to the scientific community in the bacterial flagellum. His, "this thing cannot have evolved from RM+NS" position is reasonably falsifiable. It has not been falsified. Further, the IC challenge is direct falsification of the RM+NS theory according to Darwin, the theory's founder. As the prescribed falsification of RM+NS has been put onto the table, the challenge must be met or the neo-Darwinian theory is toast.
Furthermore, big-bang cosmology, and the antropic principal all but establish an intelligent cause. I know, you'll bite into the "all but" bit, but when you do you will conjur up a scientifically unsupported position that takes a lot more faith to believe than the IC position. Acoms Razor drags one to the conclusion that the strong antropic principal is valid because an intelligence arranged for it to be so.
Comment by bFast — May 9, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 3:19 am
bFast says:
Come up with something original rather than the same tired old lies and you might get more interesting responses.
bFast goes on to say:
Yes it has. All bar two of the proteins found in the flagellum have been shown to have homologs elsewhere in the bacterium.
IC has also never been demonstrated. All of Behe's examples of IC have been shown not to be, using his very own definition of IC.
Also, IC is not a 'direct falsification' of RM+NS, in order to falsify RM+NS you would need to provide a better theory for all the evidence across all living things on the planet that better explains the diversity we see than RM+NS. One bacterial flagella - which isn't even IC - doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
bFast says:
I honestly think you'd be better off actually learning some of the basics first.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 10, 2006 @ 3:19 am
May 10th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Hello samohth,
As I understand it, IDism is the concept that the design of some aspects of life and the universe by a nonhuman intelligence can be scientifically verified; since IDism is scientifically vacuous, then it doesn't have much value in other fields, either. OTOH, theistic evolutionists have no problem with the concept of God being the ultimate author of everything; this belief, which isn't IDism, is a perfectly valid theological or philosophical pov.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 10, 2006 @ 9:09 am
May 10th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Comments from left field:
"All bar two of the proteins found in the flagellum have been shown to have homologs elsewhere in the bacterium."
Sure. And that demonstrates precisely what about the origin of the flagellum? Surely you are not suggesting that we can jump from existing homologs to identical proteins to an integrated functioning flagellum? Talk about a blind leap of faith.
And another . . .
"IC has also never been demonstrated. All of Behe's examples of IC have been shown not to be, using his very own definition of IC."
Shown not to be by whom and when? Surely you aren't thinking of Mr. Miller's confused attempts or the general hand waiving about similar systems or cooption? You wouldn't be referring to Allen Orr's or Nick Matzke's ridiculous "hypothetical" musings about the formation of the flagellum? Let's see, how did they describe it . . . "part A" + "part B" + unknown miracle of chemistry and physics = flagellum. Gotta love Darwin of the Gaps explanations!
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 10, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Hello Eric,
Your comments demonstrate that, contrary to bFast's assertion, Behe's claim that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved is not "reasonably falsifiable", since there is no evidence the ID community would accept as falsifying it. Even if scientists did breed bacteria with falgellum from bacteria lacking flagellum, IDists would merely assert that this demonstrates the need for an intellligent agent to direct the process!
Comment by Aagcobb — May 10, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Gotta love Darwin of the Gaps explanations!
You've hit the nail on the head.
RM+NS is used as a "miracle occurs here" placeholder for every significant biological innovation. Of course in the end it's just handwaving and blind faith, because the alternative (some sort of teleological process) is absolutely unacceptable.
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 10, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Hi Matthew,
Where's the miracle? mutations and natural selection are both commonplace occurences.
Why would one need faith to think that processes which are observed to occur today occured in the past as well?
Let us know when you have an alternative a little less vague than "some sort of teleological process".
Comment by Aagcobb — May 10, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Thanks for the reply. 'Vacuos' would most acurately describe my grasp of the discussion. I hope it is alright to ask questions here, btw.
Couldn't a theistic evolutionist be defined as one who believes in
"intelligent design" that is undetectable by science?
As an aside, I read Behe's book and as I understand him, if one were to breed a bacterial flagellum, he would shut up in a manner of speaking. I think he says all it would take is a plausible explanation.
Comment by samohth — May 10, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Hi samohth,
I guess they could, but the whole point of the ID movement is that they think intelligent design can be detected scientifically. If it can't be detected scientifically, then we are back to accepting design as a matter of faith (not that there is anything wrong with that).
I expect Behe said that confident in the knowledge that a bacterial flagellum can't be bred within the timeframe allowed by a research grant.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 10, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
"Hello Eric,
Your comments demonstrate that, contrary to bFast's assertion, Behe's claim that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved is not "reasonably falsifiable", since there is no evidence the ID community would accept as falsifying it. Even if scientists did breed bacteria with falgellum from bacteria lacking flagellum, IDists would merely assert that this demonstrates the need for an intellligent agent to direct the process!"
Nope. That is not what I said. What I did say, and quite reasonably so, is that one is not justified in jumping to the wild and irresponsible conclusion that because many homologous proteins are found in the bacterium that Behe's position has therefore been falsified as Odd Digit claims. That is the logical point. The social point is that Odd Digit's claim is yet another example of the oft-encountered faith-based assertions that come from believers in a materialistic story.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 10, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Aagcobb:
and
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. If the scientific community respected the challenge the Dr. Behe has made with the flagellum — if the scientific community concluded that RM+NS is in serious geopardy unless a single-mutation-event by single-mutation-event path must be found (where each step in the path produces an organism that is at least slightly better than the previous to produce a flagellum) — then suddenly I am sure that the money to "save the theory" would be found.
Comment by bFast — May 10, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
The miracle is believing that random mutations put through a blind selection process is the generator of all biological innovation. There is already a significant body of research to suggest that organisms generate variation non-randomly, for example this study that I cover in my blog.
The faith comes from believing that these blind processes alone are sufficient to explain the evolution of all biological adaptations. This is a leap of faith based on a presupposition that reductionistic materialism describes reality accurately.
My proposal is that the universe is an emanation of Consciousness, and that this consciousness acts teleologically to evolve the universe towards greater depth and complexity. I cite a great deal of evidence on my blog indicating that consciousness is capable of causal action in material systems, and not simply an epiphenomenon or redescription of physical processes. I postulate that in fact all of reality is simply patterns of activity in Consciousness, and that our own individual consciousness is a part of that collective Consciousness.
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 10, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Hi Aagcobb
Aagcobb said:
If by miracle you mean the intelligent assemblage of said proteins for a specific purpose, then I suggest you read the essays on flagellar cooption at idthink.net
And read Dembski's response to the Matzke fairytale here.
By reading the above mentioned you will understand a little better why no one around here is buying RM + NS as the sole means of creating specified complexity. As MikeGene has pointed out, the "self assembly" of the flagellum is so highly regulated, the assembly process itself is IC.
At any rate, if finding an incomplete list of homologous proteins is all it takes for you to falsify IC, then I suspect you are relying on "self-approved wisdom" to justify your rush to judgement.
Thoughtful and honest analysis of their arguments can only lead to the conclusion Miller and Matzke are emperors with no clothes. When their peers stop complementing the emperors on their exquisite garb, perhaps then we can all really explore how a flagellum is designed.
Comment by chunkdz — May 10, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I think Behe believes it can't be bred not matter what the time frame or how big the grant which leads me to my next question and then I'll bow out; How long would it take to breed some novel new structure in a bacteria that would give an IDer pause or has it already been done?
Comment by samohth — May 10, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
MatthewCromer, I purused your link lightly. Sorry, but I have time limitations. If I understand what these guys have done, they have two bacterial cultures which are kept physically separate. They then challenge one of these cultures with an antibacterial agent until such time as the culture develops some level of resistance to the agent. They then test the "has been kept separate" bacterial culture only to find that it "somehow" developed resistance to the agent. Is that about it?
Comment by bFast — May 10, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Quoting Samoth, I repeat, "or has it already been done?" Please tell.
Comment by bFast — May 10, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
May 10th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
As published in Nature, March 2, 2000 by Michael A. Goldman
Quite a statement to be made about a scientific theory that is as established as the Big Bang.
Comment by bFast — May 10, 2006 @ 11:57 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Yep, that's about it. The researcher has impeccable credentials, too.
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 11, 2006 @ 12:10 am
May 11th, 2006 at 7:35 am
Eric says:
Yes I am justified in that conclusion and it is neither wild nor irresponsible. Let's look at what Behe actually says about irreducible complexity in Darwin's Black Box (as modified in his "Response to my critics" article of 2001):
The flagellum has been shown not to be irreducibly complex according to this definition, because a large number of the parts have been shown doing jobs in other parts of the cell, including around 10 parts acting cooperatively as a secretory system. Behe's claim - that you can take parts away from a flagellum and what is left does not work - is wrong. It might not work as a flagellum sure, but where in evolutionary theory does it say that something must retain the same function throughout its evolution? Nowhere. In fact, co-option is an important part of evolutionary theory, and there are many well known examples of both anatomical and molecular vestiges, showing where once used features are no longer being used.
The same applies to Behe's claims of IC for the immune system and the blood clotting cascade. In both cases, components of either can be removed and both will continue to function. Those are his favorite three examples and none of them are IC.
Does that mean we know exactly how the flagellum evolved? Of course not. We may never know for certain the exact series of transitions involved in the evolution of the flagellum. What we do know is that it's not irreducibly complex.
And hell, even it was IC, that's still not evidence for design…
Comment by Odd Digit — May 11, 2006 @ 7:35 am
May 11th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Hi chunkdz,
Why wait? What's stopping you from exploring the mechanism of bacterial flagellum design now? Science doesn't advance by waiting until everyone agrees that the reigning paradigm is invalid; someone has to demonstrate that they have a superior alternative.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 8:41 am
May 11th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Hi Matthew,
Fascinating, are we Borg, or is it "The Force" Have you developed any hypotheses about the universal Consciousness, such as how it functions or what its motivations are? There are some things I want to know about the universal consciousness, such as why did homo sapiens evolve such a resource hogging organ as the human brain, since we already share a collective consciousness with the rest of the universe? Also why is there such an "arms race" between different species of organisms; it seems that the collective consciousness is fighting against itself when it causes prey species to evolve defenses that predator species have to evolve bigger teeth or sharper claws to overcome. Why does part of the collective consciousness cause microbes to evolve to cause so much disease and death in humans, another part of the collective consciousness? Also, have you considered the possibility that you watch way too much science fiction?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 8:56 am
May 11th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Hi samohth!
There is this interesting experiment in which scientists disabled the ability of bacetria to form disulfide bonds necessary for the functioning of their falgellum, rendering them incapable of movement. The scientists then induced random mutations in the bacteria. One of the mutations made it possible for the bacteria to form disulfide bonds in an entirely novel way, restoring its ability to move.
We already know, contrary to Behe's claims, that portions of the bacterial flagellum can function without the complete assemblage in place, meaning the flagellum isn't IC in the first place. This experiment shows that once a portion of the flagellum is in place, a random mutation can render it whole, making it capable of providing the bacteria locomotion. This, of course, will not give IDists pause; I predict someone will post that the experiment showed either that the mutations were not random because the scientists induced them (even though the scientists had no idea how the mutation enabled the bacteria to move until after the fact), or that the bacteria used its own intelligence (or perhaps the "universal consciousness") to figure out how to move. Thats right; some IDists claim that bacetria can think, and decide to mutate themselves!
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 9:24 am
May 11th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Actually it comes from mysticism or going fully within one's own consciousness which is at the heart of most religions and the conclusion of many scientists as well. For example, here is Albert Einstein:
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 11, 2006 @ 10:10 am
May 11th, 2006 at 10:21 am
I think rather that some IDists claim that bacteria and human beings both are able to tap into the universal field of Consciousness that generates creative problem-solving. Or as a more accurate way of stating it, human beings and bacteria are both patterns of form and energy that Consciousness enjoys experiencing and identifying with and creating with. And that is what we all are, beyond the whole illusory thought-pattern of personal selfhood and all that. Of course it is possible to release the illusion, and directly experience your essential oneness with all that is, as Einstein alluded to in the quotation above.
Going back to the science instead of subjective knowing, here is a large collection of research (that you prefer to ignore) that demonstrates that mind / consciousness is not limited to human brains.
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 11, 2006 @ 10:21 am
May 11th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Hi Matthew,
Which leads me back to the question of why the universal consciousness bothered to evolve a resource hogging organ such as the human brain, since it is apparently unnecessary.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 10:42 am
May 11th, 2006 at 10:51 am
It is necessary if you want to experience being an individual, an entity limited in space and time, with a localized sense of self.
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 11, 2006 @ 10:51 am
May 11th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Hi Matthew,
Can you explain why, since apparently the universal consciousness needed no such structure in order to think for billions of years. Why wouldn't any old grouping of matter, such as a rock, be sufficient for the universal consciousness to experience being a limited entity?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 10:58 am
May 11th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Who says that consciousness is about "thinking" Consciousness is awareness. Awareness of structure and forms, awareness of sights and sounds, awareness of thoughts (in humans and a few other higher animals). . . You are not your thoughts. You are the awareness of thoughts, feelings, sensations. The space in which those things arise and play out. Identifying yourself with the contents of your thoughts is a source of great misery and suffering in life. . .
Consciousness got bored playing with rocks. . . Life was much more "interesting". . . However, It really enjoys playing computer games, watching movies, and writing posts on the internet. . .
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 11, 2006 @ 11:42 am
May 11th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Aagcobb:
No, they didn't induce random mutations just anywhere, they started with a thioredoxin scaffold and introduced mutations to only the active site. They were looking to evolve the active site to something similar to the redox potential of DsbA. They got a variant of it that was beneficial.
Aagcobb:
Thats simply not true. The flagellum doesn't function at all without the complete assemblage in place, which means that the flagellum is in fact IC. What Ken Miller is pointing to there is a completely different function (type III secretion, which is IC as well).
Aagcobb:
You're making it seem like half the flagellum was generated with a single random mutation. You make a great lawyer.
Comment by Guts — May 11, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
MatthewCromer, your position certainly is a unique one. I am not personally prepared to buy into the monism that you espouse. However, I am an honest person who believes that all "truth" is somehow valid. The studies you report are intriguing. They do not fit into my grid well at all. Yet, unless they are fraudulant, and I have no reason to believe that they are, I must conclude that my grid is the reason that the data does not fit, not the other way around.
I know that the intriguing and mystifying stuff that you have presented is being quite actively ignored in this context. Let me suggest that it is being actively ignored because most of the people on this discussion board are more interested in protecting their personal grids then they are at modifying their personal grids to fit the new-found data.
Comment by bFast — May 11, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
We've all been there. It's just human nature. Our tendency is to identify with models of reality or "grids" as you put it, and then any evidence or discussion that our "grids" might not be completely valid is felt as an attack on ourselves. This is why ideas like ID are given the reception we see by the establishment.
None of this is anything new at all. . .
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 11, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Hi Guts,
Guts, don't you see the problem when you claim that the flagellum is IC, and a portion of the flagellum can serve a different function independently? A portion of the flagellum should be utterly useless if the flagellum is IC. If a portion of the flagellum can serve any useful function at all, then ICness doesn't require the entire assemblage to come together at once, and it isn't a barrier to evolution. The other way ICness can be generated by evolution is by the loss of redundant parts. All Behe's got left is the argument that you can't PROVE the flagellum evolved, which is nothing more than what creationists have been claiming for decades.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Aagcobb:
Nope. What would be a problem with the definition is if one claims that the flagellum is IC and yet it can perform it's function without a large portion. Behe allowed for the possibility for subsets with different functions, when he talked about circuitous routes, and springs in mousetraps being used in clocks.
Nope. Behe was perfectly aware of the possibility of circuitous routes, he talked about it a page after he defined IC. His argument is that such routes are improbable for very complex systems.
Comment by Guts — May 11, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Heh. "If you weren't so closed-minded, you'd see that I'm right and you're wrong!"
I'll admit that the experiments are interesting, but at the same time I think we have to recognize that they directly contradict the results of other experiments. (Domestic plants and animals have been put under massive selection pressure and have undergone radical changes. But we don't see the wild populations undergoing the same changes. Wolves aren't growing more dog-like, for example.)
So before we start spinning out wild theories about a "universal consciousness", I think we need to evaluate the new experiments in light of the old ones. Can we reproduce the results? If so, under what conditions do we see successful results? With that knowledge, can we come up with a simple, naturalistic explanation for the results?
And I know that nobody wants to hear this, but the Randi Foundation is still offering that million dollar prize for a simple successful experiment of this nature, and that money could fund a lot of research.
Comment by chaosengineer — May 11, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Hi Guts,
Merely improbable; thats a really weak argument. Thats what IDist have to hang their hats on in claiming scientific status; their leading light says, in his opinion, the evolution of a flagellum is improbable. Thats sad.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
You know, I could've predicted Aagcobb's response. Instead of saying "thank you Guts for correcting me in my erroneous views because I'm too lazy to check facts out for myself", he simply responds with another lame attack on mainstream ID, as if anyone cares.
If you were so wrong about these basic issues, imagine the vast array of other things you might be wrong about?
Comment by Guts — May 11, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Hi, bFast,
Sorry, bFast, you clearly aren't telepathic because you failed to read my mind! I'm ignoring psi studies posted on the internet by believers because if psi was real, I wouldn't be able to ignore it. Instead of relying on electronics for communication, we would be using telepathy and remote viewing. We don't because mainstream scientists can't replicate the results of believers, and if its nonreplicable, its not science. Reality is what exists whether you believe it or not.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Hi Guts,
I might be wrong about a lot of things, but as I said before, my opinion about science issues isn't worth squat because I'm not a scientist, I'm just another damn lawyer. But I'm not the one who's saying the overwhelming majority of biological scientists have it all wrong.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
But if you turn loose dogs (or domestic pigs) they turn into coyote-like or boar-like wild populations very quickly.
It's called revision to the wildtype, and it is because the wildtype has been around much longer and has much more "momentum" to its phenotype.
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 11, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
What the heck, did I just step into the twilight zone all of a sudden?
Comment by Guts — May 11, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Most parapsychologists are mainstream scientists who were extremely skeptical until they started doing the experiments and obtained positive results.
Yes it's true that some scientists cannot reproduce these findings, which is the case for almost any kind of standard psychology research or medical research as well, all of which are extremely sensitive to experimenter effects. That is why we do meta-analysis of studies in medicine and parapsychology to determine real effects from spurious results.
These experiments are only demonstrating what people have reported anectdotally for thousands of years — myself among them — sometimes there is a transfer of information that has no materialistic explanation.
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 11, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Hi Matthew,
And yet medical research frequently results in useful new therapies. When can we expect to see psi research result in practical applications?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 11, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Ask Tony's family or Allen's. Come to think of it, I'm sure glad I didn't step on that rattler in bare feet either. . .
The most important practical application is just the recognition that these things occur, and the change in worldview of understanding our fundamental connectedness with everyone else.
Comment by MatthewCromer — May 11, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
May 12th, 2006 at 3:15 am
You know, I could have predicted this response from Guts:
That's an "I'm not going to respond to a point, I'm going to indulge in some distraction tactics instead." Very ID.
Why instead don't you actually respond to this excellent point by Aagcobb:
I agree with the above statement by Aagcobb - Behe's argument is extremely weak.
You can respond to me if you like…
Comment by Odd Digit — May 12, 2006 @ 3:15 am
May 12th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Aagcobb:
Improbable is a quantifiable term. Dembski has developed UPB just to establish the point when improbable becomes improbable absurdum. Evolutionists have been hiding behind the crack in the word improbable for too long. It is the evolutionist's interpretation of improbable, not the IDists that is ridiculous!
Comment by bFast — May 12, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Guts:
That is an extremely broad assertion. Does Behe back it up with calculations based on studies of a broad range of mutations and natural selections, or does he just expect us to take his word for it? Is Behe, a Biochemist rather than an Evolutionary Biologist, even qualified to make this calculation? Or is he merely claiming it because (not being an Evolutionary Biologist and not having done the calculations) he doesn't know for certain that it is false?
bFast:
Incorrect bFast. Dembski made up the UPB to pretend that he could rule such things out. Nobody outside the ID movement takes it, or Dembski, seriously. Highly improbable events happen all the time, e.g. a given person winning the lottery (but somebody always wins) — just ruling one possibility improbable is not the same as ruling them all improbable. Added to this Dembski is notorious for bad assumptions (hardly surprising, given he has no background in biology) and bad maths (one of his calculations was proved to be wrong by several orders of magnitude, even given his assumptions and formulae).
Comment by Hrafn — May 15, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 4:13 am
Guts,
I'm still waiting for a response.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 16, 2006 @ 4:13 am
May 16th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Odd Digit — I rather suspect Guts is laying low. Too many people on this thread are looking far too closely at Behe's claims for his comfort.
I do however think you and Aagcobb are being too trusting taking Behe's word for it that the routes are improbable. In what way is he qualified to estimate the probability of evolutionary routes?
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 6:36 am
May 16th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Hrafn,
I take your point. IMO there is actually a much more fundamental problem with the 'improbability' argument. You usually see it expressed in the form that 'it is too improbable that evolution could have done this', which is completely beside the point, because it should be expressed as a likelihood argument:
A complex structure exists with features A, B, C.
What is the more likely - that this could:
1) have been produced by evolution, or
2) have been produced by an intelligent designer?
Given that there is no candidate for an intelligent designer when it comes to a complex structure such as a flagellum, I find it impossible to assign a likelihood to 2) above. Therefore evolution, no matter how unlikely, is still the more likely explanation.
Having said all that I still don't think it is particularly unlikely that evolution could produce a complex structure such as a flagellum…
Comment by Odd Digit — May 16, 2006 @ 9:42 am
May 16th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Odd Digit, I agree. The obvious subtext of ID's argument is that they want to leave the Designer's throne empty, so that it can be inhabited by God, after all the pesky scientists and constitutional lawyers have gone home. ID is purposefully vacuous, because if it had any genuine content it would simply become another rival to their Creator.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 11:11 am
May 17th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Hrafn: "Nobody outside the ID movement takes it [UPB], or Dembski, seriously."
The scientific community does not take UPB serously simply because rediculously improbable phenomenon are necessary to keep the current paradyme afloat.
People who design lotteries are keenly aware of the probability of an individual winning. If they know what UPB is, they are also keenly aware that one's chances of winning their lottery, even without buying a ticket, are much better than UPB. (I did find a lottery ticket one time.)
Did you know that by using a simple table to convert numbers to letters (like the ascii code) you can find the entire, unabridged King James Version Bible spelled out without error in the digits of pi?
Comment by bFast — May 17, 2006 @ 5:26 pm