[Stradlater]

I.D. should not be part of any school's curriculum (except, perhaps, as an example of junk science); stop the madness!

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050530fa_fact

The problem with "irreducible complexity":

In “Darwin’s Black Box,” Behe maintained that irreducible complexity presents Darwinism with “unbridgeable chasms.” How, after all, could a gradual process of incremental improvement build something like a flagellum, which needs all its parts in order to work? Scientists, he argued, must face up to the fact that “many biochemical systems cannot be built by natural selection working on mutations.” In the end, Behe concluded that irreducibly complex cells arise the same way as irreducibly complex mousetraps—someone designs them. As he put it in a recent Times Op-Ed piece: “If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it’s a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious.” In “Darwin’s Black Box,” Behe speculated that the designer might have assembled the first cell, essentially solving the problem of irreducible complexity, after which evolution might well have proceeded by more or less conventional means. Under Behe’s brand of creationism, you might still be an ape that evolved on the African savanna; it’s just that your cells harbor micro-machines engineered by an unnamed intelligence some four billion years ago.

But Behe’s principal argument soon ran into trouble. As biologists pointed out, there are several different ways that Darwinian evolution can build irreducibly complex systems. In one, elaborate structures may evolve for one reason and then get co-opted for some entirely different, irreducibly complex function. Who says those thirty flagellar proteins weren’t present in bacteria long before bacteria sported flagella? They may have been performing other jobs in the cell and only later got drafted into flagellum-building. Indeed, there’s now strong evidence that several flagellar proteins once played roles in a type of molecular pump found in the membranes of bacterial cells.

Behe doesn’t consider this sort of “indirect” path to irreducible complexity—in which parts perform one function and then switch to another—terribly plausible. And he essentially rules out the alternative possibility of a direct Darwinian path: a path, that is, in which Darwinism builds an irreducibly complex structure while selecting all along for the same biological function. But biologists have shown that direct paths to irreducible complexity are possible, too. Suppose a part gets added to a system merely because the part improves the system’s performance; the part is not, at this stage, essential for function. But, because subsequent evolution builds on this addition, a part that was at first just advantageous might become essential. As this process is repeated through evolutionary time, more and more parts that were once merely beneficial become necessary. This idea was first set forth by H. J. Muller, the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, in 1939, but it’s a familiar process in the development of human technologies. We add new parts like global-positioning systems to cars not because they’re necessary but because they’re nice. But no one would be surprised if, in fifty years, computers that rely on G.P.S. actually drove our cars. At that point, G.P.S. would no longer be an attractive option; it would be an essential piece of automotive technology. It’s important to see that this process is thoroughly Darwinian: each change might well be small and each represents an improvement.

Design theorists have made some concessions to these criticisms. Behe has confessed to “sloppy prose” and said he hadn’t meant to imply that irreducibly complex systems “by definition” cannot evolve gradually. “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he says—though he continues to believe that Darwinian paths to irreducible complexity are exceedingly unlikely. Behe and his followers now emphasize that, while irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve, biologists can’t reconstruct in convincing detail just how any such system did evolve.

What counts as a sufficiently detailed historical narrative, though, is altogether subjective. Biologists actually know a great deal about the evolution of biochemical systems, irreducibly complex or not. It’s significant, for instance, that the proteins that typically make up the parts of these systems are often similar to one another. (Blood clotting—another of Behe’s examples of irreducible complexity—involves at least twenty proteins, several of which are similar, and all of which are needed to make clots, to localize or remove clots, or to prevent the runaway clotting of all blood.) And biologists understand why these proteins are so similar. Each gene in an organism’s genome encodes a particular protein. Occasionally, the stretch of DNA that makes up a particular gene will get accidentally copied, yielding a genome that includes two versions of the gene. Over many generations, one version of the gene will often keep its original function while the other one slowly changes by mutation and natural selection, picking up a new, though usually related, function. This process of “gene duplication” has given rise to entire families of proteins that have similar functions; they often act in the same biochemical pathway or sit in the same cellular structure. There’s no doubt that gene duplication plays an extremely important role in the evolution of biological complexity.

It’s true that when you confront biologists with a particular complex structure like the flagellum they sometimes have a hard time saying which part appeared before which other parts. But then it can be hard, with any complex historical process, to reconstruct the exact order in which events occurred, especially when, as in evolution, the addition of new parts encourages the modification of old ones. When you’re looking at a bustling urban street, for example, you probably can’t tell which shop went into business first. This is partly because many businesses now depend on each other and partly because new shops trigger changes in old ones (the new sushi place draws twenty-somethings who demand wireless Internet at the café next door). But it would be a little rash to conclude that all the shops must have begun business on the same day or that some Unseen Urban Planner had carefully determined just which business went where.

The problem with "specified complexity":

According to Dembski, a complex object must be the result of intelligence if it was the product neither of chance nor of necessity. The novel “Moby Dick,” for example, didn’t arise by chance (Melville didn’t scribble random letters), and it wasn’t the necessary consequence of a physical law (unlike, say, the fall of an apple). It was, instead, the result of Melville’s intelligence. Dembski argues that there is a reliable way to recognize such products of intelligence in the natural world. We can conclude that an object was intelligently designed, he says, if it shows “specified complexity”—complexity that matches an “independently given pattern.” The sequence of letters “jkxvcjudoplvm” is certainly complex: if you randomly type thirteen letters, you are very unlikely to arrive at this particular sequence. But it isn’t specified: it doesn’t match any independently given sequence of letters. If, on the other hand, I ask you for the first sentence of “Moby Dick” and you type the letters “callmeishmael,” you have produced something that is both complex and specified.

[...]

The most serious problem in Dembski’s account involves specified complexity. Organisms aren’t trying to match any “independently given pattern”: evolution has no goal, and the history of life isn’t trying to get anywhere. If building a sophisticated structure like an eye increases the number of children produced, evolution may well build an eye. But if destroying a sophisticated structure like the eye increases the number of children produced, evolution will just as happily destroy the eye. Species of fish and crustaceans that have moved into the total darkness of caves, where eyes are both unnecessary and costly, often have degenerate eyes, or eyes that begin to form only to be covered by skin—crazy contraptions that no intelligent agent would design. Despite all the loose talk about design and machines, organisms aren’t striving to realize some engineer’s blueprint; they’re striving (if they can be said to strive at all) only to have more offspring than the next fellow.

Another problem with Dembski’s arguments concerns the N.F.L. theorems. Recent work shows that these theorems don’t hold in the case of co-evolution, when two or more species evolve in response to one another. And most evolution is surely co-evolution. Organisms do not spend most of their time adapting to rocks; they are perpetually challenged by, and adapting to, a rapidly changing suite of viruses, parasites, predators, and prey. A theorem that doesn’t apply to these situations is a theorem whose relevance to biology is unclear. As it happens, David Wolpert, one of the authors of the N.F.L. theorems, recently denounced Dembski’s use of those theorems as “fatally informal and imprecise.” Dembski’s apparent response has been a tactical retreat. In 2002, Dembski triumphantly proclaimed, “The No Free Lunch theorems dash any hope of generating specified complexity via evolutionary algorithms.” Now he says, “I certainly never argued that the N.F.L. theorems provide a direct refutation of Darwinism.”

I.D.: junk science, pseudoscience, etc.

[bstone]

Let's just remember that there is a LOT about science (biology, biochemistry) that we don't know. Even where I go to school not everyone is sure about evolution vs ID.

Oh, and I am a biology concentrator.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by bstone

Let's just remember that there is a LOT about science (biology, biochemistry) that we don't know. Even where I go to school not everyone is sure about evolution vs ID.

Oh, and I am a biology concentrator.

Your reply is really quite irrelevant in the argument, though. We're still learning about evolution, true, but there's nothing to learn about I.D. because I.D. is not real science.

[Shaddim]

Hawking and Co (and even further back to the early Quantum Mech. theorists) are the ones who opened Pandora's box by mixing Science and metaphysics to get the answers they wanted. The scientific community is simply reaping what they sowed. If they are going to step into the realm of multi-diminsional non-absolutes, then they shouldn't be surprised if Theologians enter from the other direction.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Hawking and Co (and even further back to the early Quantum Mech. theorists) are the ones who opened Pandora's box by mixing Science and metaphysics to get the answers they wanted. The scientific community is simply reaping what they sowed. If they are going to step into the realm of multi-diminsional non-absolutes, then they shouldn't be surprised if Theologians enter from the other direction.

Biological science is, on the whole, more concrete than quantum physics. If theologians want to wax poetic over unified theories and other philosophical topics, they should feel free (as long as they'd like to delve into the math, as some I.D. people have attempted). At least string theory has some scientific backing to it.

I.D., however, has no scientific backing and is not attacking a vaguer science; it's attacking evolution...and poorly. And yet the ignorant masses want to believe that I.D. provides the proof it claims to provide.

[Shaddim]

ID doesn't delve into Biology (at least none of it that I've seen). It looks at the mechanics of creation, not the products of it.

As for math, it's as my friend Dr. John Allen (theoretical physicist with NASA and ORNL) says, "you can make numbers say anything you want".

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

ID doesn't delve into Biology (at least none of it that I've seen).

Which is the main problem; it doesn't delve into science at all, yet it stands at the sidelines, making claims about what science can and cannot explain. It makes claims that have been refuted (as seen by the article posted above)

It looks at the mechanics of creation, not the products of it.

And then it makes statements about evolutionary science.

[ntt]

My understanding is that evolution and ID are just theories. Neither has yet been proven beyond doubt.

As such, the argument serves a useful purpose in driving further research that will lead us to new answers.

And I will admit to not being completely sold on evolutionary theories. I have not researched the topic as much as some of you, but I don't feel the evidence exists to support the wide-scoping applications of the theory (single-cell through to today).

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ntt

My understanding is that evolution and ID are just theories. Neither has yet been proven beyond doubt.

As such, the argument serves a useful purpose in driving further research that will lead us to new answers.

And I will admit to not being completely sold on evolutionary theories. I have not researched the topic as much as some of you, but I don't feel the evidence exists to support the wide-scoping applications of the theory (single-cell through to today).

The problem is that the masses, you included this time, don't know what "theory" means in a scientific context.

Scientific theory, courtesy OED (theory1, 4.):

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed

You're thinking of the more colloquial definition, which is closer to "hunch" than "theory" (theory1, 6.):

6. In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion. Cf. 4.

[emphasis mine]

As soon as people stop this unfortunate "evolution is just a theory" ignorance, the world can grow.

[GSixZero]

Here's my hitch on the whole deal.

If God can exist from nothingness, why can't the universe?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

Here's my hitch on the whole deal.

If God can exist from nothingness, why can't the universe?

Exactly. Both did.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Which is the main problem; it doesn't delve into science at all, yet it stands at the sidelines, making claims about what science can and cannot explain. It makes claims that have been refuted (as seen by the article posted above)


And then it makes statements about evolutionary science.

Yes, it does. You (and the ID haters) just don't like the answers.

Statements? None that I've seen.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Yes, it does. You (and the ID haters) just don't like the answers.

Statements? None that I've seen.

Most people don't like answers that are shown to be wrong/flawed.

As far as statements go...

—Did you even read the article? Have you ever read Dembski or Behe?—

Behe directly addresses Darwinism as impossible as a complete explanation for complex life as we know it because of irreducible complexity. He even stated: "many biochemical systems cannot be built by natural selection working on mutations." Behe only dips his toes into science to find examples that he believes are irreducibly complex with a rationale that has been refuted.

Behe at least attempts to put science into I.D. (poorly), but Dembski doesn't use biology in his arguments. He uses math (incorrectly, as in the N.F.L. theorems).

Oh...and what about the fact that Behe's and Dembski's views on I.D. differ from each other? Behe, the one that understands some bio, claims that evolution can at least accounts for some—or much—of what we see today in life (minus some irreducible complexities within the system, which he believes were designed), while Dembski believes that Darwinism is incapable of building anything complex.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Exactly. Both did.

Who could know?

[ebuddy]

In all this I see, one dominant argument against the work of Behe, Dembski, and numerous others who have presented a plausible theory for the causality of all we know exists and that is; "But they are Creationists, They are religious zealots masquerading as scientists!!!" and more of Dr. Orr's scientifically-motivated enthusiams here;

"Out of the primordial Judaeo-Christian soup stomped the Young Earth Creationists."

"Their great evolutionary advantage was simplicity, and so they are still with us today, like the slime molds. But their brains were too small to compete with Darwinists for the spoils of intellectual credibility."

This seems to be the primary indictment of nothing more than one group against another while charging the opposition with same. This is proposterous. How then, judging lack of credibility on nothing more than an aderversarial motivation are we to take Orr seriously? We've got one doctor arguing with another as is almost always the case. At the end of the day people, you'd really want it no other way unless you are Stradlater, who, with equal veracity seems to have clung to evidence supporting his world view of naturalism to bolster atheistic leanings. Give it a rest Stradlater, you've exposed yourself for the zealot you are rendering you to the likes of the 6-day, young, flat- earth Creationist whackos. Look, before you jump on me, I'm just using your template for credibility here. Interestingly, Orr does acknowledge Behe's credentials and kudos for style of presentation. A favor not returned by Behe; "It is especially odd when Orr gives no indication of understanding much about the molecular basis of life, where all the inheritable action necessarily takes place." In an effort of fairness, it has been supposed that Behe had nothing to say in defense of himself which is also (among many other statements made) patently false. Article as follows;
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brrespbr.htm

Professor Orr has a mistaken notion of irreducible complexity. I thought I made that clear in my reply, but from his response I suppose I did not, so let me try again. I define irreducible complexity in Darwin’s Black Box as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Orr, however, uses the term loosely to mean something like "if you remove a part, the organism will die." In his review he talks about lungs, saying "we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential." The problem is, if you quickly dissect lungs from an animal, many parts of it will continue to work. The liver will work for a while, muscles will twitch, cells will metabolize until they run out of oxygen. Thus lungs are not absolutely required for the function of those other parts, not in the way that a spring is absolutely required for a standard mousetrap or nexin linkers are required for ciliary function. That’s the problem with using poorly chosen examples, especially at the whole-organ level. I am careful in my book (pp. 46-47) to say that you must look at molecular systems to see if Darwinism can explain their development. When you look at irreducibly complex molecular examples, it is clear that Darwinism has not and, I believe, cannot explain them. Orr’s main line of argument, therefore, simply misses the point.

I should also point out that, contrary to Professor Orr’s assertion, we do not know that swim bladders evolved into lungs by natural selection. There is absolutely no evidence for it. It may be likely that lungs are descended from swim bladders, but no experiment has indicated that natural selection can do the trick. In fact, no one even knows at the nuts-and-bolts molecular level what it would take. Orr simply assumes it is possible because he is not bothering with the myriad molecular difficulties that would face such a transformation.

Orr says that the parts of a mousetrap might have started out as something else, and then were changed into their current parts. I address this type of argument on page 66 of Darwin’s Black Box. Essentially this approach doesn’t help. The parts still have to be adjusted to each other at some stage, and they still don’t work until all the parts have been so adjusted. That requires intelligent activity.

Orr says we know mousetraps are designed because we have seen them being designed by humans, but we have not seen irreducibly complex biochemical systems being designed, so we can’t conclude they were. I discuss this on pp. 196-197. We apprehend design from the system itself, even if we don’t know who the designer is. For example, the SETI project (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scans space for radio waves that might have been sent by aliens. However, we have never observed aliens sending radio messages; we have never observed aliens at all. Nonetheless, SETI workers are confident, and I agree, that they can detect intelligently-produced phenomena, even if they don’t know who produced them. Orr’s criterion is also subject to a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose we flew to an alien planet and observed a deserted city. Orr’s position would hold that we can’t conclude the city was designed, because we have never seen aliens producing cities, and he would oblige us to search for an unintelligent cause for the manifestly designed city.

Orr finds it "extremely curious" that I think some systems could evolve by natural selection, but that others couldn’t. I discuss this on pp. 205-208. Simply put, some systems are more complex than others, irreducibly so. If one biochemical system looks pretty much like the other to Orr, then he isn’t going to see any problems. However, if you attend to the details of each system, as I tried to do, difficulties for Darwinism loom at many places.

Phillip Johnson can fight his own battles, but I’d just like to say I think it odd that Orr jumps on Johnson for an understandable confusion of terms. Orr seems to think that the essence of explanation is in knowing the labels that evolutionists have put on concepts, rather than on whether the concepts actually explain how life got here. It is especially odd when Orr gives no indication of understanding much about the molecular basis of life, where all the inheritable action necessarily takes place.

Professor Coyne seems really to have been traumatized by being quoted in my book (page 29). He should relax. My purpose in quoting him and others was to show that many thoughtful biologists found Darwinism to be an incomplete theory of life. I did not say that Coyne or the others agreed with intelligent design. Indeed, for several of the people I quoted (Stuart Kauffman and Lynn Margulis) I specifically discuss their alternative theories to Darwinism. I start off the section by saying "A raft of evolutionary biologists examining whole organisms wonder just how Darwinism can account for their observations." After a few other people, I quote Coyne as saying, "We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." In Coyne’s paper, the sentence did not stop there; it continued with "and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation." I do not see, however, where that changes the sense of the sentence at all. In my manuscript I had his quote ending with an ellipsis, but the copy editor took out all ellipses in this section and put in periods, so I assume that it is in keeping with standard editorial practices. It is extremely difficult for me to understand why Coyne thinks his idea is anything other than a doubt about the efficacy of Darwinism, or what context could possibly change its plain meaning. Coyne goes on to quote the entire paragraph in which the sentence appeared, but that changes nothing of the basic thrust as far as I can see.

Coyne says my book bears the four marks of "crank science", which I will address in turn:

1) Coyne says I did not present my views "directly to the scientific community." Free Press sent my book out to a number of scientists for their review. One angrily told Free Press not to publish because he viewed intelligent design theory as "giving up." Three said they thought the book meritorious and worthy of publication, although they did not agree with my conclusion of intelligent design. One scientist thought the book worthy of publication, and thought that intelligent design was possibly true. Additionally, my book was put up for competitive bidding, and several university presses were interested. They were outbid by Free Press.

2) Coyne complains that if one biochemical pathway is explained by natural selection, intelligent design advocates can just move on to another, and so ID is not falsifiable. This complaint would have some merit if Darwinists had explained any complex biochemical system. I can’t speak for others, but for myself if I were convinced that natural selection could explain a system of a certain degree of complexity, then I would assume it could explain other systems of a similar or lesser degree of complexity. However, to date it has not been able to explain the origins of functional systems of much complexity at all.

3) Coyne says Behe "likens himself to Newton, Einstein, and Pasteur." I do not. I clearly acknowledge that the credit belongs to the scientific community as a whole, whose cumulative work makes design apparent. Here are some relevant sentences from pages 232-233:

"The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell—to investigate life at the molecular level—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur and Darwin.... The magnitude of the victory, gained at such great cost through sustained effort over the course of decades, would be expected to send champagne corks flying in labs around the world. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take a day off.... Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery?"

It does not take a rocket scientist to see design; the hard work was in the day-in, day-out elucidation of the molecular workings of the cell. For someone who is as touchy as he is to possible misinterpretation, Coyne seems not to mind putting a strained interpretation on other people’s writing.

4) Coyne complains the book is "heavily larded" with quotations from evolutionists. This leads into his being upset with being quoted himself, as discussed above. That aside, however. I don’t know what to make of this statement. What is a book concerning evolution supposed to contain if not quotes from evolutionists? Quotes from accountants?

and much more in response.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In all this I see, one dominant argument against the work of Behe, Dembski, and numerous others who have presented a plausible theory for the causality of all we know exists and that is; "But they are Creationists, They are religious zealots masquerading as scientists!!!" and more of Dr. Orr's scientifically-motivated enthusiams here;

Then you didn't read the article. And you haven't done much reading on the counterarguments, either. Perhaps you should peruse http://www.talkorigins.org/

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This seems to be the primary indictment of nothing more than one group against another while charging the opposition with same. This is proposterous. How then, judging lack of credibility on nothing more than an aderversarial motivation are we to take Orr seriously? We've got one doctor arguing with another as is almost always the case. At the end of the day people, you'd really want it no other way unless you are Stradlater, who, with equal veracity seems to have clung to evidence supporting his world view of naturalism to bolster atheistic leanings.

Interestingly enough, I am hardly an atheist. But then again, you're the one bringing religion into this thread. Just because I disagree with pseudoscience doesn't mean I'm anti-Christian or anti-God.

ebuddy, in the future, please read the thread and at least the part of the article quoted before you make such ridiculous claims about the argument.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Give it a rest Stradlater, you've exposed yourself for the zealot you are rendering you to the likes of the 6-day, young, flat- earth Creationist whackos. Look, before you jump on me, I'm just using your template for credibility here.

You're not using my template, you're using an 8-year old book review as a template. Read Orr's new article, then find fault with it yourself (rather than rely on Behe's own, old argument).

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Interestingly, Orr does acknowledge Behe's credentials and kudos for style of presentation. A favor not returned by Behe; "It is especially odd when Orr gives no indication of understanding much about the molecular basis of life, where all the inheritable action necessarily takes place." In an effort of fairness, it has been supposed that Behe had nothing to say in defense of himself which is also (among many other statements made) patently false. Article as follows;
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brrespbr.htm

Well, your copy-paste skills have improved, but certainly not your critical reading skills. Orr's article, which I linked to and quoted above, was published within the last few days, and little of Behe's rebuttal here applies. If you can point out a part of Orr's new article that still fails to grasp something Behe mentions in the rebuttal (many of which Behe claims that Orr fails to understand, though his claims may be unfounded), please do, but I cannot find discrepancies here.

As far as the Coyne-rebuttal goes (which you post without explanation...I most certainly hadn't yet chosen to use Coyne's discussion here), his #2 argument is the only important one, where he actually makes claims about evolution, which were challenged:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA350.html

You're using old literature, c. 1997; Orr's new article even lists several instances of retreating that occurred after this date.

Please ebuddy, please at least try to address the "now" which was introduced in this thread, not the "then" which was hardly even compelling at that point.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Then you didn't read the article. And you haven't done much reading on the counterarguments, either. Perhaps you should peruse http://www.talkorigins.org/

Interestingly enough, I am hardly an atheist. But then again, you're the one bringing religion into this thread. Just because I disagree with pseudoscience doesn't mean I'm anti-Christian or anti-God.

ebuddy, in the future, please read the thread and at least the part of the article quoted before you make such ridiculous claims about the argument.

You're not using my template, you're using an 8-year old book review as a template. Read Orr's new article, then find fault with it yourself (rather than rely on Behe's own, old argument).


Well, your copy-paste skills have improved, but certainly not your critical reading skills. Orr's article, which I linked to and quoted above, was published within the last few days, and little of Behe's rebuttal here applies. If you can point out a part of Orr's new article that still fails to grasp something Behe mentions in the rebuttal (many of which Behe claims that Orr fails to understand, though his claims may be unfounded), please do, but I cannot find discrepancies here.

As far as the Coyne-rebuttal goes (which you post without explanation...I most certainly hadn't yet chosen to use Coyne's discussion here), his #2 argument is the only important one, where he actually makes claims about evolution, which were challenged:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA350.html

You're using old literature, c. 1997; Orr's new article even lists several instances of retreating that occurred after this date.

Please ebuddy, please at least try to address the "now" which was introduced in this thread, not the "then" which was hardly even compelling at that point.

Yeah, I'll go to Talkorigins if you go to TrueOrigins. Deal? I'll address the rest later as it seems the article you posted I thought was a NewYorker repost of Boston article. I'll be back to you.

[olePigeon]

The difference between Intelligent Design and Darwinism is that it is impossible to test the theory of Intelligent Design. With Darwinism there is historical evidence AND you can test the theory by observing fast paced organisms (such as bacteria) litterally evolving right in front of you.

The only way to test Intelligent Design is to have Jesus Christ join Carnegie Mellon and tell everyone that he invented humans.

Until that happens, Intelligent Design is pure crap (and so is Creation in the litteral Biblical sense.)

[gatekeeper]

[RonnieoftheRose]

If all this Christian and Islamic BS keep giving my rational brain a headache I'm going to do something irrational like suspend freedom of speech the Chinese way and bash them with a stick! Me, leader of the free world ----> <---- Them, irrational theocracy loving people who take advantage of 'freedom'

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The only way to test Intelligent Design is to have Jesus Christ join Carnegie Mellon and tell everyone that he invented humans.

With them it's all long words pulled from dictionaries and Google searches and no evidence beyond "Because I said so."

[ironknee]

lol that cartoon says it all

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yeah, I'll go to Talkorigins if you go to TrueOrigins. Deal?

Sure. Which articles do you recommend? Is "Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust" a good read?

EDIT: Quite a few of the rebuttals on this site refer to T.O articles that have since been updated. You're dealing with a lot of old hat. Additionally, how does one get past fallacious writing like this:

Most of the people running [Talk.Origins] are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin’s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations.

Let's take a look at a few more, briefly:

• http://www.trueorigins.org/creatheory.asp
  The tables are nice...a lot of putting-words-in-the-mouths-of-evolutionists (saying they make claims that they don't make) and a lot of apparently falsified hypotheses (though many of these aren't falsified, and aren't part of evolutionary theory in the first place—see: "The evolutionary postulate that time, space, and matter/energy are either self-created or eternal in nature is empirically falsified, in that [...] no unequivocal empirical evidence exists that time, space, and/or matter/energy can spontaneously exist via natural processes where none existed previously"; and see the fact that if something has no evidence for or against this, then it is not falsified...additionally, point me to where this hypothesis actually exists in evolutionary biology; the trend continues through the course of the article).
• http://www.trueorigins.org/arkdefen.asp
  Interestingly enough, the original T.O article unabashedly links to the rebuttal. It also links to this: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Theb...dnonsense.html. Though, apparently, Safarti has updated his "True" Origins article in 2004, he does not link to this rebuttal. I wonder just what was updated.

Anyways, please point me in the direction of some articles that you believe are worth the time reading. So far, the few articles I have read are quite ridiculous in the claims made.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I.D., however, has no scientific backing and is not attacking a vaguer science; it's attacking evolution...and poorly. And yet the ignorant masses want to believe that I.D. provides the proof it claims to provide.

Actually it's the other way around.

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Most people don't like answers that are shown to be wrong/flawed.

That is just it, no one has shown that ID was wrong or flawed.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

As soon as people stop this unfortunate "evolution is just a theory" ignorance, the world can grow.

Grow? Grow to what?

This is on the verge of being pretentious and silly. Actually you sound a lot like creationists.



BTW, you cannot rule out the supernatural using natural laws.

By definition, you fail before you begin.

But if it makes you feel better, you can say us creationists are really biogenesis supporters.

Which is scientifically backed by the "Secular Science"

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Until that happens, Intelligent Design is pure crap (and so is Creation in the litteral Biblical sense.)

In other words, guilty till proven innocent!

Fact is, no one has ever disproved ID. But there are a hanful of insecure evolutionists that want you to believe it has. And that it's nonesense!

They will go out of their way to tell ID'rs they are wrong in extreme zealous ways. And work in extremes. "There is NO WAY" type of silliness.

When their own beliefs are based in faith, admit it or not.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

Here's my hitch on the whole deal.

If God can exist from nothingness, why can't the universe?

That's the whole problem, you can't prove God's existence, otherwise there would be no need for faith, as everyone would know it for sure.

Sure commonsense can help you along to find faith, yes thinking about the universe, about the uncountable and daily wonders can help in finding faith in God.

You can look at the system we are living, with how the sun warms our planet and at the same time serves as enlightening our way during daytime, you can look at how nighttime allows us to get rest, and how we sleep and dream, and at the morning or whenever wake up again, refreshed, you can ponder about how the moon serves as a sort of light during the night, you can look at how the enormous salty seas in combination with sun-created- and earth-created-warmth lets some of the water dissolve into the air and how it rises into the sky and collects in clouds that elsewhere again dissolve into rain, which then falls onto previously dry and dead earth and reanimates it to create life in form of flowers and trees, that work with the water collected deep underground and the energy collected through the light from the sun in order to create sugar, that again serves as food for numerous insects that at the same time help in reproduction of the flowers, until winter, due to the elliptical form of how the earth travels around the earth and depending on how the arc of the incoming sunrays are hitting earth, takes over and all tree-flower-life dies off only to get reanimated in spring, and all this and much more on planet earth, which travels in space at a neck-breaking speed of about 30 km/s, which is about 109,000 km/h, around the sun, which itself with us together is travelling together with a neck-breaking speed of about 700,000 km/h around the center of the milky-way, and yet we are totally comfortably glued to the earth, an earth on which the air around us allows us to breath, to speak with each other, with tongues, mouth, teeth and vocal-cords that vibrate the air into waves that our and other people's ears sense and with the help of the brain decode it to something called speech, language or simply information, while at the same time separating the overlapping waves of information, so that we can learn to know and understand other people and engage with the ones we seem to like, those that reflect our ideas, beliefs and plans and that we are attracted to, so that we eventually interact with them sexually, which leads often to the creation of new life from a bit of the men's inner-body-fluid that carries the information about the physical traits and looks of the male and combines with the information about the physical traits and looks of the female in her body and get formed to a new life that combines the best of both, which grows and forms in the body of the woman, nurtured through the eating and drinking of the woman until it is ready to see the light of the world...

Nothing comes from nothing.

If you believe, yes faith is required, that the universe has a creator, that constantly creates, recreates and guides life, on and on every second..., then the question arises who has created the creator:

If you believe that the creator has not only created everything, and is constantly creating, but also that that creator has done it for a purpose and even communicates with its creation, through inspiration, direct talking, invoking of prophets, and revelations... then you can have the answer from that creator itself, that says that He is uncreated and everexisting.

If you don't trust the messages in the Thora, Gospel and Quran, then you can imagine that there is another creator that created the other creator... But if two or more or even infinitely many gods exist, then surely the omnipotence of one god would get into contradiction with the omnipotence of another god, if they are of different opinions. For example one of these gods could decide to let someone die, another is against it, and revives it or tries to not let it happen in the first place...

Since such a contradiction is insolvable, it's impossible that numerous gods can exist, so the only question remains, if you think that there is one God or there is none God, and that one can only be decided by faith.

For those that don't believe in God, obviously this life is then everything and when death comes around, and the body, there is no soul anyway to think about in the opinion of those, dissolves and becomes food for other life, there is nothing thereafter...

For those that not only believe in God but also in the messages from him, there is in their opinion a life after death, at least after judgment-day arrives and God recreates all life and to let humans and jinns face judgment about their faith and deeds during their short previous life, and either to receive eternal reward in paradise or to receive eternal punishment in hell.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

That's the whole problem, you can't prove God's existence, otherwise there would be no need for faith, as everyone would know it for sure.

You also can't prove he doesn't exist. Therefore faith is required for both non-believers and believers a like.

[ebuddy]

But Behe’s principal argument soon ran into trouble. As biologists pointed out, there are several different ways that Darwinian evolution can build irreducibly complex systems. In one, elaborate structures may evolve for one reason and then get co-opted for some entirely different, irreducibly complex function.

This sounds a bit like Ken Miller's assertion that Irreducible complexity has been "unspun". His argument relies on the existence of Type Three Secretory Systems as a possible precursor to the flagellum. Let me try to sum this up before I get into more detail, ID or often times referred to as intelligent agencies exhibit irreducible complexity. Miller believes this is a kind of cop-out though really hasn't provided adequate evidence to the contrary or even in support of his own. Orr conveniently mentions "biologists pointed out". What of the biologists that are not proponents of ID who disagree with this position? ID is not to be construed as "anti-evolution" just as evolution should not be construed as "anti-Christian" regardless of the proponents' actions, speeches, conferences, or personal convictions as they approach their work. They are afterall, scientists and human beings. So, the fact that there is considerable disagreement among biologists about this ideal of "elaborate structures evolving for one reason and then get co-opted for some entirely different, irreducibly complex function." should not be made to look discouraging or adversarial. This is what science is all about. Personally, I get tired of the ad hominem attacks from those claiming I don't know what I'm talking about when much of this at the onset, is an evolving science in which debate and scrutiny drive discovery. On to the "co-opt" or indirect path business; The basic problem here is that in order for the mechanism to work, it requires a selectable function. Functional "chunks" are pulled from various other systems through co-option and then can be selectable, but what is selectable is the specific function of each individual chunk, not the future created system. The proposed model ( Darwinian) selects on pre-existing function, not future function. Once a function exists, it can be selected for, but as always is the case what seems "terribly plausible" is only in the eyes of the proponents of the model seemingly in question. I would not say "terribly plausible" rather, highly speculative that a functional piece selectable in it's individual function co-evolves unto a system that is comprised of those pieces exhibiting it's own novel function.

Who says those thirty flagellar proteins weren’t present in bacteria long before bacteria sported flagella?

Because current evidence suggests (aside from the below which I'll address) that the thirty some-odd flagellar proteins are are unique to the flagellar motor. They have to date, been found in no other "system". Where did the subsequent parts co-evolve from?

They may have been performing other jobs in the cell and only later got drafted into flagellum-building. Indeed, there’s now strong evidence that several flagellar proteins once played roles in a type of molecular pump found in the membranes of bacterial cells.

These "pumps" have been found to function on their own in other situations, but if all the protein parts were in any way available to make a flagellar motor the parts would need to be assembled in a specific sequence. Not to stop there; in order to create a flagellar motor, a series of intricate genetic instructions are necessary as well as numerous other protein machines in order to govern the timed expression of these building instructions. Worse yet, further studies have suggested that the pump evolved from the flagellar, not the other way around.

Behe doesn’t consider this sort of “indirect” path to irreducible complexity—in which parts perform one function and then switch to another—terribly plausible.

Of course he "considers" it. Whether he gives the idea merit (per proponent's standards) is debateable, but what is not is that Behe is somehow out of touch with these concepts. I do love a good word-play though. The reason the concept lacks merit is because it is highly speculative (which is okay to be clear, all this is based on what we do know and what we must speculate from that knowledge regarding what we can't yet know.) We argue whether or not the "what we know" can adequately explain "what we speculate". There is disagreement and it is not only from Behe, but several other respectable biologists, some who debate Behe himself with their own alternate theories having nothing to do with ID.

And he essentially rules out the alternative possibility of a direct Darwinian path: a path, that is, in which Darwinism builds an irreducibly complex structure while selecting all along for the same biological function. But biologists have shown that direct paths to irreducible complexity are possible, too. Suppose a part gets added to a system merely because the part improves the system’s performance; the part is not, at this stage, essential for function. But, because subsequent evolution builds on this addition,

stop! Subsequent evolution does not build on future "addition" nor function. It builds on existing function. To get from function to novel is highly speculative and "biologists" arguably have not provided sufficient evidence of this.

a part that was at first just advantageous might become essential. As this process is repeated through evolutionary time, more and more parts that were once merely beneficial become necessary. This idea was first set forth by H. J. Muller, the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, in 1939, but it’s a familiar process in the development of human technologies. We add new parts like global-positioning systems to cars not because they’re necessary but because they’re nice. But no one would be surprised if, in fifty years, computers that rely on G.P.S. actually drove our cars. At that point, G.P.S. would no longer be an attractive option; it would be an essential piece of automotive technology. It’s important to see that this process is thoroughly Darwinian: each change might well be small and each represents an improvement.

Miller charges proponents of ID and/or Behe himself of lacking imagination. While imagination is fun, it can often lead to speculation like the above. We are still learning. To suggest or discourage otherwise is to be dogmatic which is all I'd like to reiterate in any of this.

[Moderator]

This is silly. The goal of the ID pushers is simply to have a debate...so that ID appears to be on par with Evolution. There is no theory. Its a smokescreen.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This sounds a bit like Ken Miller's assertion that Irreducible complexity has been "unspun". His argument relies on the existence of Type Three Secretory Systems as a possible precursor to the flagellum. Let me try to sum this up before I get into more detail, ID or often times referred to as intelligent agencies exhibit irreducible complexity. .

Repeat: With them it's all long words pulled from dictionaries and Google searches and no evidence beyond "Because I said so."

[ebuddy]

The most serious problem in Dembski’s account involves specified complexity. Organisms aren’t trying to match any “independently given pattern”: evolution has no goal, and the history of life isn’t trying to get anywhere. If building a sophisticated structure like an eye increases the number of children produced, evolution may well build an eye. But if destroying a sophisticated structure like the eye increases the number of children produced, evolution will just as happily destroy the eye. Species of fish and crustaceans that have moved into the total darkness of caves, where eyes are both unnecessary and costly, often have degenerate eyes, or eyes that begin to form only to be covered by skin—crazy contraptions that no intelligent agent would design. Despite all the loose talk about design and machines, organisms aren’t striving to realize some engineer’s blueprint; they’re striving (if they can be said to strive at all) only to have more offspring than the next fellow.

All of this relating to species' adaptation to an environment. As far as I know, no one is arguing whether or not species' of fish and crustaceans and really anything else cannot "adapt" to a changing environment. They do so on information already in existence. This is interesting to note because we're not talking about the difference between a crustacean with eyes and one with eyes covered by skin. In this context, I believe it is the existence of the eye itself, but I'm not even sure anymore.

Another problem with Dembski’s arguments concerns the N.F.L. theorems. Recent work shows that these theorems don’t hold in the case of co-evolution, when two or more species evolve in response to one another. And most evolution is surely co-evolution. Organisms do not spend most of their time adapting to rocks; they are perpetually challenged by, and adapting to, a rapidly changing suite of viruses, parasites, predators, and prey. A theorem that doesn’t apply to these situations is a theorem whose relevance to biology is unclear. As it happens, David Wolpert, one of the authors of the N.F.L. theorems, recently denounced Dembski’s use of those theorems as “fatally informal and imprecise.” Dembski’s apparent response has been a tactical retreat. In 2002, Dembski triumphantly proclaimed, “The No Free Lunch theorems dash any hope of generating specified complexity via evolutionary algorithms.” Now he says, “I certainly never argued that the N.F.L. theorems provide a direct refutation of Darwinism.”

Actually, the last statement is true, it's not to be construed as refuting Darwinism. Though there is a lot of excitement from he and really all others surrounding this idea. I do also believe the defensive nature of the proponents of Darwinism is in the least, curious. That said; I am not going to necessarily defend Dembski's work as I find it only entertaining and mildly educational from what I've read of it and only recently. In other words, it's interesting, but not much more than that to me. "choose you battles more wisely" I'd probably say to him as that is what I try to do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Repeat: With them it's all long words pulled from dictionaries and Google searches and no evidence beyond "Because I said so."

I guess sometimes big words sum up thoughts more effectively than little words Ronnie. Can you think of better words to sum up your view? Wait, you really haven't expressed one? Oh, I guess the word "dogmatic" might best suit your take.

I might suggest googling "lackadaisical"

BTW; I didn't start the "debate". Stradlater did. There are plenty of other things to talk about. Stradlater knows full-well who frequents this forum. He is at liberty to post as he pleases as am I no? I guess I'm hoping he wouldn't do this unless he derived some pleasure from it. I happen to share the pleasure. If you have a problem with any of this I suppose you could go talk about the Koran and whether or not it's really being flushed down toilets and where.

Stradlater started with the links to articles. Whether or not the NewYorker or talkorigins is bookmarked or Googled by Stradlater is of no concern to me. What is it you're defending here?

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You also can't prove he doesn't exist. Therefore faith is required for both non-believers and believers a like.

I believe in vibrating pink bananas. They exist! Praise!

Now comes the fun...

Those who don't believe they exist should prove they don't exist(impossible). And schools should be teaching about the vibrating pink bananas aswell. etc.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I guess sometimes big words sum up thoughts more effectively than little words Ronnie. Can you think of better words to sum up your view? Wait, you really haven't expressed one?

I don't need to. I'm not here to pretend to be a real scientist like ID backers pretend to be without an iota of evidence to back their claims. I'm poking a stick up your tootsy because you guys look ridiculous.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

I believe in vibrating pink bananas. They exist! Praise!
.

The pink banana flower vibrating in the wind.



ID backers will say God created the pink banana flower so that when I read your post and showed a picture of one it would prove ID is right because

A= God created the pink banana
B = God was controlling me when I searched for an image of one.

A+B-C/D to the square root of MCe14 X 1.14% = TRUTH!

This therefore proves ID is true, God created the world and started evolution, Jesus walked on water, Moses was a very very nice man who never killed 7000 Israelites for not believing him, Muhammed really did ride Pegasus and never killed a Jew, the Koran is the word of God, and The Lord of the Rings was Heaven sent!

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Moderator

This is silly. The goal of the ID pushers is simply to have a debate...so that ID appears to be on par with Evolution. There is no theory. Its a smokescreen.

On Par? They playing Golf?

I agree, ID and Evolution aren't on the same level.



Just probably not in the same way you do.

More than likely, there are is a lot of BOTH to the truth.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This sounds a bit like Ken Miller's assertion that Irreducible complexity has been "unspun". His argument relies on the existence of Type Three Secretory Systems as a possible precursor to the flagellum. Let me try to sum this up before I get into more detail, ID or often times referred to as intelligent agencies exhibit irreducible complexity. Miller believes this is a kind of cop-out though really hasn't provided adequate evidence to the contrary or even in support of his own. Orr conveniently mentions "biologists pointed out". What of the biologists that are not proponents of ID who disagree with this position? ID is not to be construed as "anti-evolution" just as evolution should not be construed as "anti-Christian" regardless of the proponents' actions, speeches, conferences, or personal convictions as they approach their work. They are afterall, scientists and human beings. So, the fact that there is considerable disagreement among biologists about this ideal of "elaborate structures evolving for one reason and then get co-opted for some entirely different, irreducibly complex function." should not be made to look discouraging or adversarial. This is what science is all about. Personally, I get tired of the ad hominem attacks from those claiming I don't know what I'm talking about when much of this at the onset, is an evolving science in which debate and scrutiny drive discovery. On to the "co-opt" or indirect path business; The basic problem here is that in order for the mechanism to work, it requires a selectable function. Functional "chunks" are pulled from various other systems through co-option and then can be selectable, but what is selectable is the specific function of each individual chunk, not the future created system. The proposed model ( Darwinian) selects on pre-existing function, not future function. Once a function exists, it can be selected for, but as always is the case what seems "terribly plausible" is only in the eyes of the proponents of the model seemingly in question. I would not say "terribly plausible" rather, highly speculative that a functional piece selectable in it's individual function co-evolves unto a system that is comprised of those pieces exhibiting it's own novel function.

"Let me try to sum this up before I get into more detail, ID or often times referred to as intelligent agencies exhibit irreducible complexity." I'm sorry, but could you repeat what you're trying to mean here. As for the rest of this, let's focus on actual scientific data, not little constructions you make.

Because current evidence suggests (aside from the below which I'll address) that the thirty some-odd flagellar proteins are are unique to the flagellar motor. They have to date, been found in no other "system". Where did the subsequent parts co-evolve from?

Maybe you should clarify. Which flagella are you talking about? Bacterial flagella vary quiet a bit, in both number of proteins and basal body. E. Coli has four rings, Bacillus subtilis two rings, Caulobacter crescentus five—who's to say that an older bacteria didn't have merely one? It's more than possible, and poses a problem with irreducible complexity right there. Different bacteria, additionally, require a different number of flagellar genes. Also: eubacteria and archebacteria are composed of completely different, non-homologous proteins, and they are both different than the eukaryote flagellum.

(Archebacteria flagella, by the way, are quite reducible, as they are based on type IV pilins; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract)

In the end, have I.D. people actually made a claim and provided proof about how many proteins an irreducibly complex flagellum contains? Right now it seems that it's a number in the 20s or 30s...but I haven't stumbled across anything concrete. So would it be true, then, that I.D.ers don't know how many proteins are necessary for flagella to function, but they know the system is irreducibly complex?

There are a lot of things about them that are quite reducible; some reading:
http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/...e_flagella.htm
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html#IC
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmy...t.html#swimsys

Perhaps you're talking about the irreducible complexity of the functioning parts? The microtubules, undulipodia...etc?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

These "pumps" have been found to function on their own in other situations, but if all the protein parts were in any way available to make a flagellar motor the parts would need to be assembled in a specific sequence. Not to stop there; in order to create a flagellar motor, a series of intricate genetic instructions are necessary as well as numerous other protein machines in order to govern the timed expression of these building instructions.

And if complex systems evolve slowly through a process, the genetic instructions would be layered. This still doesn't change the fact that not all steps are required for a functioning flagella. I.D. really needs to offer some hard data on the subject.

Worse yet, further studies have suggested that the pump evolved from the flagellar, not the other way around.

Sources? I tried pubmed, but maybe my query is off.

Of course he "considers" it. Whether he gives the idea merit (per proponent's standards) is debateable, but what is not is that Behe is somehow out of touch with these concepts. I do love a good word-play though. The reason the concept lacks merit is because it is highly speculative (which is okay to be clear, all this is based on what we do know and what we must speculate from that knowledge regarding what we can't yet know.) We argue whether or not the "what we know" can adequately explain "what we speculate". There is disagreement and it is not only from Behe, but several other respectable biologists, some who debate Behe himself with their own alternate theories having nothing to do with ID.

"Of course"? Source?

I still have yet to see how it's more highly speculative than I.D. proposals.

stop! Subsequent evolution does not build on future "addition" nor function. It builds on existing function. To get from function to novel is highly speculative and "biologists" arguably have not provided sufficient evidence of this.

And where's your sufficient evidence for the fact you claim: that "[s]ubsequent evolution does not build on future "addition" nor function."

Miller charges proponents of ID and/or Behe himself of lacking imagination. While imagination is fun, it can often lead to speculation like the above. We are still learning. To suggest or discourage otherwise is to be dogmatic which is all I'd like to reiterate in any of this.

And what, pray tell, takes I.D. outside of the realm of speculation? I.D. seems to wait for science to catch up with its claims, before it adopts new claims that are, at the time, untestable. Hopefully, time will catch up with I.D. and it will cease to be.

At least the scientific speculation offers up some suggestions to be tested in the future.
I.D. speculation seems to deny possibilities; the I.D. proponent calls a system irreducibly complex and makes a fancy proposal...most of these proposals have since been challenged (see flagella issues above).

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

All of this relating to species' adaptation to an environment. As far as I know, no one is arguing whether or not species' of fish and crustaceans and really anything else cannot "adapt" to a changing environment. They do so on information already in existence. This is interesting to note because we're not talking about the difference between a crustacean with eyes and one with eyes covered by skin. In this context, I believe it is the existence of the eye itself, but I'm not even sure anymore.

Sometimes it's hard to understand your prose. Are you saying that of course crustaceans can evolve in darkness to not have functioning eyelids? So would you also say that the vestigial whale legs adapted from the fish-hunting wolves of yore?

Actually, the last statement is true, it's not to be construed as refuting Darwinism. Though there is a lot of excitement from he and really all others surrounding this idea. I do also believe the defensive nature of the proponents of Darwinism is in the least, curious. That said; I am not going to necessarily defend Dembski's work as I find it only entertaining and mildly educational from what I've read of it and only recently. In other words, it's interesting, but not much more than that to me. "choose you battles more wisely" I'd probably say to him as that is what I try to do.

So then you don't consider Dembski's work important to I.D.?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You also can't prove he doesn't exist. Therefore faith is required for both non-believers and believers a like.

And for agnostics like me, faith is not a problem.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Grow? Grow to what?

This is on the verge of being pretentious and silly. Actually you sound a lot like creationists.

What are you talking about? I would at least hope you'd know the definition of scientific theory.

BTW, you cannot rule out the supernatural using natural laws.

Behe: "By 'intelligent design' I mean to imply design beyond the laws of nature."

But if it makes you feel better, you can say us creationists are really biogenesis supporters.

Which is scientifically backed by the "Secular Science"

And an original abiogenesis still hasn't been disproved. But yes, I'll agree with you, life can come from life! (Amazing, no?)

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Actually it's the other way around.

How so?

That is just it, no one has shown that ID was wrong or flawed.

Do some reading. Check out some of the information posted thus far. Or for a good archive of information, go here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/

I don't expect a real argument from you, Zimph, I expect you to argue till real information destroys your semantic bulwark and you leave this thread, silently, with your vestigial tail between your legs.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

"Let me try to sum this up before I get into more detail, ID or often times referred to as intelligent agencies exhibit irreducible complexity." I'm sorry, but could you repeat what you're trying to mean here. As for the rest of this, let's focus on actual scientific data, not little constructions you make.

There are others on this forum that may not have heard some of these concepts. If the issue was only between you and I, we could IM this stuff or PM this stuff. I do some things for the benefit of others. To pretend not to understand these concepts is to not understand the English language. I think we have enough issues to discuss w/o rehashing basic words. Please try to avoid stilted confusion.

Maybe you should clarify. Which flagella are you talking about? Bacterial flagella vary quiet a bit, in both number of proteins and basal body. E. Coli has four rings, Bacillus subtilis two rings, Caulobacter crescentus five—who's to say that an older bacteria didn't have merely one? It's more than possible, and poses a problem with irreducible complexity right there. Different bacteria, additionally, require a different number of flagellar genes. Also: eubacteria and archebacteria are composed of completely different, non-homologous proteins, and they are both different than the eukaryote flagellum.

a lot of folks have confused Behe's focus on this deal. He was primarily discussing the eukaryote flagellum. I'll get back to you when I get home from work.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There are others on this forum that may not have heard some of these concepts. If the issue was only between you and I, we could IM this stuff or PM this stuff. I do some things for the benefit of others. To pretend not to understand these concepts is to not understand the English language. I think we have enough issues to discuss w/o rehashing basic words. Please try to avoid stilted confusion.

Look, this sentence does not make sense to me syntactically: "Let me try to sum this up before I get into more detail, ID or often times referred to as intelligent agencies exhibit irreducible complexity." Either you missed some punctuation, or you mistyped.

a lot of folks have confused Behe's focus on this deal. He was primarily discussing the eukaryote flagellum. I'll get back to you when I get home from work.

Look forward to it.

[SimpleLife]

Why is it that all this argumentation about I.D. is done around life's complexity when the subatomic level is already complex enough to be used in its argumentation in this thread?

Life is already quite explainable with basic Chemistry and Physics. Adding God to that equation is overdoing it, i.e. God is not necessary to explain the Creation of Life.

However, when we try to understand Quantum Mechanics, things get dicier and it is an area where God is more useful because the limits of Human Knowledge are clearer there (at this time anyway).

So why waisting God's time on a self-organizing process that stems from the darker and more elusive mysteries of the Planck level scale Universe?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

I believe in vibrating pink bananas. They exist! Praise!

Now comes the fun...

Those who don't believe they exist should prove they don't exist(impossible). And schools should be teaching about the vibrating pink bananas aswell. etc.

What a bizarro comparison.

Not even remotely comparable.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

And for agnostics like me, faith is not a problem.

True, you don't believe either way because there is no proof either way.

At least you are being honest. Atheists however do have faith.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

What are you talking about? I would at least hope you'd know the definition of scientific theory.

I do, but I am talking about your "Once everyone forgets about ID it will be a better place" mentality. You sound like an evangelist.

Behe: "By 'intelligent design' I mean to imply design beyond the laws of nature."

Indeed, which is supernatural. By definition the supernatural isn't grounded by natural laws.

And an original abiogenesis still hasn't been disproved.

But has never happened under our watch...

But yes, I'll agree with you, life can come from life! (Amazing, no?)

Well biogenesis claims it can ONLY happen this way.

However, for biogenesis to be true, there has to be something that started it all that has always existed.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

How so?

Take your attack on ID here. It's evolutionists that have been attacking ID for years.
The IDers just want equal time. The evolutionists wont have it!

Do some reading. Check out some of the information posted thus far. Or for a good archive of information, go here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/

I have done a lot of reading Strad. I am no youngling. I do know this. Secular knowledge cannot and will not ever disprove ID. By definition, it is not possible.

I don't expect a real argument from you, Zimph, I expect you to argue till real information destroys your semantic bulwark and you leave this thread, silently, with your vestigial tail between your legs.

There is no doubt in my mind that you believe this.

[christ]

I have no interest in Intelligent Design, not in its supporters.

I also, however, don't believe that evolution can entirely explain the origins of an eye, or of a slime mold.

I would like to encourage scientists to examine all possibilities, and to prove/ disprove theories, and they should have the freedom to perform this examination.

Shrill witch hunts by either side does science no favours. I regularly get depressed with creationists who rant about evolution being just a theory because, in microcosm it is evidently accurate - longer beaks/ necks etc. giving benefit, and survival of the fittest, but equally I tire of people that use the fact that birds can evolve longer beaks to justify the evolution of eyes from - what - light sensitive skin?

Scientists always tend to try and hold the moral high ground against those religious zealots that 'just believe', but in this instance scientists are the ones doing the 'just believe' ing.

If, as Strad says at the beginning, "ID should not be part of any school's curriculum", then neither should Newton, Einstein, or any other unproven 'theory'.

Grow up, and allow debate and scientific investigation.