Tabula_rasa

Any of this look familiar?

"And what constitutes adding new genetic material? There are genetic mechanisms known which can copy genes as well as copy entire chromosomes. Both of these provide a way to add additional information to an offspring. If the offspring gain a reproductive advantage, then this information will spread through subsequent populations."

Tabula_rasa

Don't sell yourself short. You seem to have about the same grasp of the information as most creationists I have come in contact with. I will say this... you seem to be the nicest, and most honest one I've met so far. Even though your understanding of science is somewhat peculiar.

Oh, and mitochondrial Eve? Yet another misconception, debunked here:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/bible.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/bible.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/goodman.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/goodman.html</a>

So, IOW, the Hypothesis of Intellgent Design*** (HID) states exactly the same thing as the Theory of Evolution - but only for microevolution. The difference between ToE and HID can then be stated as follows:

The ToE states that Descent with Modification along with Natural Selection over millions of years will produce changes that result in significant morphological differences,

whereas,

The HID states that these significant morphological differences can only be accounted for by inserting an unknown intelligent agent into the mix, who *poofs* these changes into existence.

That has been my understanding of HID for quite some time, and you have helped to confirm it.

Thanks & cheers!


*** Just so we are clear, Creation Science lost the battle in the courts a few years ago. Not long thereafter the same group of proponents turned to Intelligent Design Theory and the Wedge Strategy.

Atticus_Finch

First, thank you for the comment about me being the "nicest creationalist" you have dealt with, or something to that effect. It has always been my hope to carry on these interesting discussions in a tone of tolerance, honest inquiry and good will. I beieve that is the Christ-like approach to which I strive without always succeeding.

Second, although I am a lawyer I do not believe questions of ultimate truth or science are decided in the courts. I believe that creation science is really a very knew discipline. Although many people accepted the biblical account for centuries, it is only in the last 50 years or so that creation science has tried to meet its opponents on their own terms. There certainly have been growing pains just as there have been in the work with respect to the theory of evolution. Remember, evolutionist used to state as fact that the human embryo has gills at one point as it recapitulates (I believe that is the term) evolution in the womb.

Certainly, there are creationist wackos and extremists who come up with pretty crazy stuff. However, I believe that the are serious scientist who are also working on this issue from a creationalist perspective. It will take some time for workable theories to sort themselves out.

Finally, let me say that I do not dogmatically believe the adherence to a 6 24 hour day creation is necessary for one to be a sincere and orthodox Christian. There are theories of biblical interpretation which allow for eons and evolution as part of God's plan. I personally find them problematic from a biblical interpretation perspective but I do not doubt the sincerity or convictions of those who hold to such positions.

Regards,

Finch

Tabula_rasa

No problem. I don't share your belief in a supreme being but that doesn't mean we can't be civil.

Yes, and through time and studying, we learned that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth like they used to think. Science isn't perfect, but it is self-correcting. As we'll see below, Creation Science and Intelligent Design do not have this capability.

I am not aware of any serious scientists working either on Creation Science or Intelligent Design. Serious scientists do not swear an oath to Biblical inerrancy at the exclusion of compelling evidence that contradicts it. If such an organization exists, could you point me to them?

Thanks.

Atticus_Finch

Your profile states the you believe all things have natural causes. Therefore, you bring a bias to your analysis of all evidence. Likewise, I believe that a supernatural being is at work in time and space and bring that bias to the table.

I find that once a scientist declares that he or she believes that there may be a supernatural cause to an event that atheists in particular and the general "scientific community" automatically declare that the person is not a "serious scientist". I do NOT believe there is an "evil conspiracy" against creation scientist but I do believe that they are not accepted in the scientific community because of a naturalistic bias and no matter how sound their research their materials would not be published in the "leading scientific journals".

In direct response to your question, you may not agree with Michael Behe, but he is a serious scientist as far as I can discern. Would you accept him as a serious scientist? If not, is your opinion motivated by anything other than a disagreement with his fundamental premise?

Regards,

Finch

Oolon Colluphid

A_F, there is no such thing as the supernatural. The reason is, science is about finding out how the world works. If there were any credible evidence for the laws of nature being over-ruled on occasion, science would have to revise the laws, to take account of it. If the world contained gods (or goblins, pixies and Santa), they would be part of how the world works; no matter how infrequent their appearances, they would be natural, part of how the world is.

The fact is, though, that there is, in actuality, no credible evidence of the things we currently call ‘supernatural’. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do so, and pick up your Nobel prize on your way. IOW, demonstrate there is a god, then we can sensibly talk about its intentions, actions, and possible creations. Till then, you are begging the biggest question of 'em all.

Oolon

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Darwin's Finch

Atticus Finch: "In direct response to your question, you may not agree with Michael Behe, but he is a serious scientist as far as I can discern. Would you accept him as a serious scientist? If not, is your opinion motivated by anything other than a disagreement with his fundamental premise?"

Atticus, I realize that your question was directed at Tabula_rasa, but I'd like to take a stab at it. AFAIK, Behe has multiple peer-reviewed articles in the relevant professional journals; as such, he is, IMO, unquestionably a serious scientist.

The problem with Behe arises with his publication of Darwin's Black Box and his subsequent behavior. That there are structures that biochemists study whose precise evolutionary development have not to date been fully explained is hardly news within the scientific community. One could say -- and I do say -- that Behe has done the scientific community a service in pointing out what some of these structures are. That said, Behe has committed the following "sins" IMHO:

1) Having called attention to these structures, he makes the unwarranted claim that they are irreducibly complex and cannot be explained as having arisen in a step-wise, incremental manner. It seems to me that the scientifically responsible thing for Behe to have done would have been to attempt to explain how these structures might have come about incrementally (i.e., attempted to falsify his own notion of irreducible complexity). I am not aware that he has done so.

2) In publishing for a popular audience, whom he must have known would not have the necessary background in biochemistry to adequately evaluate his claims, he has presented this untested hypothesis of IC as authoritative, cutting-edge biochemical research, which it clearly isn't. Numerous biochemists have since stepped to the plate and offered evolutionary hypotheses to explain these allegedly irreducibly complex mechanisms; whatever the ultimate value of the hypotheses may be, they at least serve as examples of the sort of work that Behe should have shown if his hypothesis is to stand the test of time. This is always a danger when scientists eschew peer-review and become popularizers.

(BTW, so I am not misunderstood, my charge that Behe was being less than scientific in publishing for a lay audience applies to others as well, e.g., Dawkins, Gould, et al. The difference between a Dawkins and a Behe, however, is that Dawkins pretty clearly understands that when he writes a book for popular consumption he is doing so as an educator and is not passing off his work as state-of-the-art research; Behe OTOH seems to promise a revolution in the way in which we view microscopic structures; he presents a hypothesis -- one that never had to pass through the fires of peer-review -- as being authoritative. This is simply irresponsible.

3) He has repeatedly obfuscated when presented with alternate views on the evolutionary development of these structures. Rather than meeting these objections head-on, he has indulged in online whining about how he has been blackballed (my word) from serious professional journals with regard to his hypothesis of IC, feeding into the popular misconception that there is some scientific conspiracy to silence people who are not metaphysical naturalists. This is entirely disingenuous. As a working scientist, Behe knows damn well that supernatural explanations of things/events are out of bounds in science. This isn't because there is an inherent bias among scientists (many scientists are, in fact, theists of some stripe; they just leave that aspect of their lives at the door when they do research and formulate theories) but because this is how science is done! As a scientist and an educator, I would hope that Behe would not be so quick to reinforce popular misconceptions in this way.

4) Behe has not done a sufficiently good job of distancing himself from those elements of the creationist community with whom he clearly disagrees. Behe himself accepts common descent and natural selection (not to say an ancient age of the earth as well) but has tacitly allowed people who aren't as enlightened on these issues to use his work as a springboard for furthering their own agendas. In fairness to Behe, even a cursory reading of his book makes clear that he accepts common descent, etc., but his silence with regard to the YECers damages his credibility, in my view. I suspect that the low-level celebrity he now enjoys has clouded his judgement in this respect.

5) Ultimately, IC is a lousy argument because Behe has offered himself a readily available out, no matter how far biochemistry may progress in explaining these structures. If some team of researchers offers a plausible step-by-step explanation for the development of, say, bacterial flagella, Behe can always move the goalposts and say, "Aha, you still can't explain the blood clotting mechanism." If that mechanism, in turn, is explained he can always resort to some other structure that is not yet explained. And so on. At bottom, IC is nothing other than an argument from personal incredulity and since there will always be more questions in science than answers, he will always be able to invoke IC without feeling any responsibility for getting his own hands dirty rebutting his own assumptions.

No doubt, there are many others in these fora who are far more qualified to take on Behe than I am, but these seem to me (a layman) to be fairly damning indictments of Behe's modus operandi with regard to this issue.

Hope that helps, Atticus.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Darwin's Finch ]</p>

Tabula_rasa

Oolon Colluphid has already answered my question wrt naturalism vs. supernaturalism.

I would add a couple of points.

First, theists seem only to desire to inject the supernatural Evolutionary Science. There is a whole field of Physical sciences that they won't even go near because they know they will come off as complete whackos. Gravity is a natural occurence. Electromagnetism is a natural occurence. The reality is, asexual and sexual reproduction have always been observed to occur naturally. There is absolutely no proof to the contrary.

Second, as I stated in my last post, we are talking about people who have sworn an oath to Biblical inerrancy, as if that is the only possible explanation for a god or gods. The Bible is not the only possible explanation for the supernatural. There are many other religious explanations for the supernatural.

I do not consider Mr. Behe to be a serious scientist in the field of biology for a very good reason. He, along with William Dembski and Philip Johnson, have contributed nothing to the advancement of understanding in the field of biology.

The ToE, OTOH, is the unifying theory for all of biology. In order for the HID to even begin to compete with the ToE, it must perform a feat equivalent to that of Einstein's Theory of Relativity explaining why Newton's Laws of Mechanics breakdown at high speeds. Not only does ToR explain this, but it shows that at lower speeds, NLoM are a good approximation. In addition to that, ToR provides testable mechanisms, some of which have been proven recently, gravity having an effect on light being one of them.

I'm sorry, Finch, but the HID has absolutely no predictions that can be tested. HID is nothing more than Paley's Watchmaker argument dressed up in twenty-first century pseudoscientific garble.

Have you read the references I gave you? I haven't seen replies to many of the questions I've asked in previous posts in this thread. I'd like to get some answers to those before I spend any more time on this discussion.

Thanks & cheers.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Tabula_rasa ]</p>