Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 10-07-2002, 10:22 PM

I got this off of the AIBS-GA evolution list I'm on. Enjoy, Rufus.

Why ID has no peer-reviewed publications:

>From Darwinism Under Attack, The Chronicle of Higher Education,
>2001/12/21
"Baylor's Mr. Dembski also has little interest in publicizing his
research through traditional means. "I've just gotten kind of blas�
about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to
get things into print," he says. "And I find I can actually get the
turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed
there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets
read more.""

I also have a quote from Behe, responding to a question from Ken
Miller asking why, if Behe feels he is being censored in the
peer-reviewed publication arena, he never presents his ID theories at
conferences (most conference papers are allowed without judgement).
Behe answered that he didn't think it was a proper forum. Baloney!

Behe is also apparently starting to realize some of the major flaws
in his logic:

>From Biology and Philosophy, vol. 16, pp 685-709
"However, commentary by Robert Pennock and others has made me realize
that there is a weakness in that view of irrreducible complexity
[...that removing parts leads to a loss of function...]. The current
definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already
functioning system. Thus, seeking a counterexample to IC, in "Tower
of Babel" Pennock writes about a part in a sophisticated chronometer
whose origin is simply assumed, which breaks to give a system he
posits can nonetheless work in a simpler watch in a less demanding
environment. The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however,
would not be to remove components from a pre-existing system; it
would be to bring together components to make a new system in the
first place. Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current
definition of IC and the task facing natural selection. I hope to
repair this in future work." [note he hasn't done so!]

Doubting Didymus · 10-07-2002, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
"However, commentary by Robert Pennock and others has made me realize
that there is a weakness in that view of irrreducible complexity
[...that removing parts leads to a loss of function...]. The current
definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already
functioning system...

The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however,
would not be to remove components from a pre-existing system; it
would be to bring together components to make a new system in the
first place. Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current
definition of IC and the task facing natural selection. I hope to
repair this in future work."

Oh! Ah! Mmmmm! Lovely!

I knew he said that somewhere! I've been looking for that quote for ages! Months! And you just get it sent to you! Do you have any idea where I might find an online version? I hope he understands that it means he has had his entire theory arse over tit from day one.

Personally, I am very surprised that he never realised this for himself, and had to have it pointed out to him. By his first definition, (something that comes apart if you take a piece out is 'irreducibly complex'), practically everything is irreducibly complex. Like a stack of rocks.

I appreciate the glimmer of honesty that Behe employs here. If he goes after irreducible complexity using his new definition (I.E. something that cannot be built in small steps), and keeps an open mind about it then he should find that no such thing exists in biology. If he is truthfull, then when he finds this out, he will be able to admit it.

RufusAtticus · 10-07-2002, 11:17 PM

From Biology and Philosophy, vol. 16, pp 685-709

Nialler · 10-09-2002, 05:07 AM

Is his theory irreducably complex? I mean to say, it doesn't appear to work too well when you remove that single component!

Irreducable complexity is irreducably complex. Ooohhh. My head hurst. I'm going to bed.

LiveFreeOrDie · 10-09-2002, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nialler:
Irreducable complexity is irreducably complex.

Proof that it was Intelligently Designed(tm).

theyeti · 10-09-2002, 06:25 AM

Actually, Bill Dembski has redefined IC for Behe and has specifically tied the fate of his own SC criteria in with IC. As IC goes, so goes SC. The only way Dembski can claim "couldn't have evolved" and apply his silly probability calculations is to assume IC. As for Behe, he doesn't seem to have come up with anything new since 1996, but he still participates in the DI travelling road show.

The real problem with IC is when one finds an IC system that has evolved or could have evolved. See this thread about the <a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000152" target="_blank">immune system</a> for example. Blood clotting is another of Behe's IC systems that has had an evolutionary pathway outlined in the literature. Even finding one such system is sufficient to falsify the IC argument. When this is pointed out to Dembski, he just switches arguments and demands that the evos now show him a detailed, step by step process for its evolution. What does "detailed" mean? It means more detailed than anything you can reasonably come up with given the current evidence. It's a very movable goal post. But it's lost on Dembski that unless he can demonstrate that IC = could not have evolved, then his so called evidence for ID, as flimsy as it was to begin with, has dried up.

theyeti

Albion · 10-09-2002, 09:44 AM

So Behe is finally admitting that complexity doesn't have to work the same way in both directions? That something could have been put together in small functional steps even if it can't be taken apart in small functional steps? I wonder why he's been so shy about publicising that revelation that poor old Didymus has had to search for months.

I wonder what journals Dembski's talking about that take two years to get papers into print. If he could be induced to name names, the fallout might be entertaining. On the whole a journal article can appear a lot faster than a book. But it's less profitable.

hezekiah jones · 10-09-2002, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Over twenty years ago, when first making some of my geological researches, I came face to face with the question: How shall I publish my scientific discoveries? If I wait for the dilatory methods of "orthodox" scientific pedantry, through the media of papers before scientific societies, etc., I will be grayheaded before I can force recognition of these discoveries. On the other hand, if I publish in some "unorthodox" (scientifically) way, such as through the popular or religious journals, I will very likely be boycotted by the standpat scientists, and almost turned out of the scientific synagogue.

I chose the latter method; and the result has been as might have been expected. But I have never regretted my choice; for I believe a much greater number of people have been benefited by my publications.

- George McCready Price, 1924

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

KeithHarwood · 10-14-2002, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:
I wonder what journals Dembski's talking about that take two years to get papers into print. If he could be induced to name names, the fallout might be entertaining.

When I was in the astronomy business many years ago, two years between submission and publication was not unusual.

Albion · 10-14-2002, 11:04 PM

Good grief...

Where I work, papers standardly come out within six months of submission. There's no way you could get a book out in that time.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]

10-07-2002, 10:22 PM	#1
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Why ID has no peer-reviewed publications I got this off of the AIBS-GA evolution list I'm on. Enjoy, Rufus. Why ID has no peer-reviewed publications: >From Darwinism Under Attack, The Chronicle of Higher Education, >2001/12/21 "Baylor's Mr. Dembski also has little interest in publicizing his research through traditional means. "I've just gotten kind of blas� about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print," he says. "And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."" I also have a quote from Behe, responding to a question from Ken Miller asking why, if Behe feels he is being censored in the peer-reviewed publication arena, he never presents his ID theories at conferences (most conference papers are allowed without judgement). Behe answered that he didn't think it was a proper forum. Baloney! Behe is also apparently starting to realize some of the major flaws in his logic: >From Biology and Philosophy, vol. 16, pp 685-709 "However, commentary by Robert Pennock and others has made me realize that there is a weakness in that view of irrreducible complexity [...that removing parts leads to a loss of function...]. The current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system. Thus, seeking a counterexample to IC, in "Tower of Babel" Pennock writes about a part in a sophisticated chronometer whose origin is simply assumed, which breaks to give a system he posits can nonetheless work in a simpler watch in a less demanding environment. The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove components from a pre-existing system; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place. Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of IC and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this in future work." [note he hasn't done so!]

10-14-2002, 11:04 PM	#10
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Good grief... Where I work, papers standardly come out within six months of submission. There's no way you could get a book out in that time. [ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2002, 11:17 PM	#3
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	From Biology and Philosophy, vol. 16, pp 685-709

10-09-2002, 05:07 AM	#4
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	Is his theory irreducably complex? I mean to say, it doesn't appear to work too well when you remove that single component! Irreducable complexity is irreducably complex. Ooohhh. My head hurst. I'm going to bed.

10-09-2002, 06:25 AM	#6
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Actually, Bill Dembski has redefined IC for Behe and has specifically tied the fate of his own SC criteria in with IC. As IC goes, so goes SC. The only way Dembski can claim "couldn't have evolved" and apply his silly probability calculations is to assume IC. As for Behe, he doesn't seem to have come up with anything new since 1996, but he still participates in the DI travelling road show. The real problem with IC is when one finds an IC system that has evolved or could have evolved. See this thread about the <a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000152" target="_blank">immune system</a> for example. Blood clotting is another of Behe's IC systems that has had an evolutionary pathway outlined in the literature. Even finding one such system is sufficient to falsify the IC argument. When this is pointed out to Dembski, he just switches arguments and demands that the evos now show him a detailed, step by step process for its evolution. What does "detailed" mean? It means more detailed than anything you can reasonably come up with given the current evidence. It's a very movable goal post. But it's lost on Dembski that unless he can demonstrate that IC = could not have evolved, then his so called evidence for ID, as flimsy as it was to begin with, has dried up. theyeti

10-09-2002, 09:44 AM	#7
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	So Behe is finally admitting that complexity doesn't have to work the same way in both directions? That something could have been put together in small functional steps even if it can't be taken apart in small functional steps? I wonder why he's been so shy about publicising that revelation that poor old Didymus has had to search for months. I wonder what journals Dembski's talking about that take two years to get papers into print. If he could be induced to name names, the fallout might be entertaining. On the whole a journal article can appear a lot faster than a book. But it's less profitable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.