Darwin's Beagle

DB===
I believe that the core of ID theory is as follows:

There are things in the universe that show complexity that could not have arisen by natural means, thus, it must have arise n by some type of directing intelligence.

DNA==
There are SOME things in the universe that show SUCH complexity that IT APPEARS THEY could not have arisen by natural means ALONE, thus, THE INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION IS THAT some type of directing intelligence WAS INVOLVED.

DB=
Sigh, just when you think you’re out, they drag you back in. DNA, your clarifications above remove ID from being a “theory”, even with my lenient definition of a theory. Why is it now not a theory? Because you use “weasel words” to avoid the possibility of being falsified. Note, that I capitalized your differences from my original statement. Everything, capitalized is a “weasel word” (or a “weasel phrase”). If there are “SOME things”, then there are “things”. The word “some” is not needed. When you say these things “show SUCH complexity that IT APPEARS THEY could not have arisen by natural means ALONE”, are you seriously trying to say that ID theory leaves open the door that everything could have arisen by natural means despite appearances? If it does then, BOOM there goes any pretense of theory since it now says things may have arisen by a directing intelligence or possibly not. A theory DOES have to eliminate some possibility. If ID theory does not leave open the possibility that everything could have arisen by natural means (a conclusion I think any reasonable person would come to), then your “weasel words” are not needed and only obfuscate the issue. When you say “THE INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION IS THAT” , you are essentially saying “the theory says” because a theory is supposed to be a person’s “inference to the best explanation”. Since we started off by saying this is what the theory says, those “weasel words” are not needed either and are redundant. Finally, when you say some “directing intelligence WAS INVOLVED”, you mean to imply that the complexity could have partially arisen by natural means and partially by intelligent design. I think that ID theorists have gone to great lengths to come up with complexity of a type that COULD NOT have arisen by natural means … PERIOD. Behe’s IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is essentially meaningless if it can arise by natural means. Dembski’s COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION indexes purport to tell us exactly what can and cannot be products of “chance” (which he equates to natural means).

Thus, I think I am more accurate than you in assessing the core of the ID theory. As to your objection about the certainty, THAT IS WHAT A THEORY IS. IT SAYS THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED THIS WAY AND NOT ANOTHER WAY. You have to have BOTH parts. Sure it opens the theory up to being wrong, but that is the job of a theory.

pz===
Try pinning [Behe] down on the issue of human origins. He suddenly starts waffling.


DNA==
I thought I remembered seeing it posted here a couple of times that Behe accepts the "common descent of man". Can't remember offhand but it was someone (Miller?) warning Creationists that Behe doesn't see things their way: he was surprised by Behe's stance. Ring a bell to anyone?

If I remember correctly, Behe accepts common descent of all life forms, including man...he just doesn't think that it was all the result of purely natural processes. Common descent and its mechanism can be two different things.

DB=
Behe did at one time say that he accepts common descent including humans. But, I have heard others arguing on his behalf say with confidence that he thinks humans were specially created. I tend to believe he accepts common descent including humans, but there is confusion on exactly where Behe stands in that regard and until he definitively tells us we wont know.

Behe at one time proposed his “Super Adamite” bacteria as a mechanism for common descent. Behe suggested the intelligent designer created a bacterium with all the complexity all future organisms would need within their genome. Only, the genes were turned off awaiting a time when NATURAL SELECTION would turn them on to produce what we see as evolution. Daniel Dennett described this a Behe acting like a person who says “I have no problem with Darwinian evolution in practice, only in theory”. IMHO it is one of the most ridiculous mechanisms ever proposed in print by a practicing and publishing scientist. And of course, since 1996 (the publication date of Behe’s book), virtually nothing has come of this idea. Not only the evolution camp but the ID camp as well seems to have dismissed it. I’m not even sure Behe, himself, believes there is any validity in it anymore. However, the sad fact is that Behe’s “Super Adamite” bacteria is the ONLY mechanism an IDist has ever presented to my knowledge.

By the way, Dembski has on occasion as well stated that he has no problems with common descent, and on other occasions has argued against it. There is confusion as to exactly where he stands in that regard. Common descent is such an important part of the core of evolutionary theory, the theory IDists contrast there theory against, it is somewhat surprising that the leading ID proponents do not take an unqualified stand one way or the other. Of course, if they did come out and support common descent openly and forcefully, this would cause a loss of public support from the Christian fundamentalists, and if they went against common descent, it would open up their theory to criticisms concerning the overwhelming data that supports common descent. So one could argue that by taking a stand on the subject they have nothing to gain and can only lose. However, it should be pointed out that this is true ONLY POLITICALLY, not scientifically. By avoiding a stand on common descent, it opens up questions about their scientific integrity and whether or not their true motives are POLITICAL versus SCIENTIFIC.

Jobar=== (as quoted by DNAunion)
In a world where ID was true, and evolution untrue...

DNA==
More than one person has presented this false dichotomy: that either evolution is true, or ID is true, but not both.

DB=
It is only a false dichotomy if Jobar was arguing that for one to be true the other MUST be false. He made no such allegation. He simply posed a hypothetical world in which ID is true AND evolution false. He also pointed out that in such a world if the Christian God is the designer, then you would not expect to see viruses and bacteria becoming resistant to our antibiotics. For someone who spends a great deal of time claiming Kenneth Miller misrepresented Michael Behe, you should be EXTREMELY careful not misrepresent others yourself.

Now let’s deal with the crux of your argument concerning Miller and Behe.

You claim Kenneth Miller misrepresents Behe’s position. Your claim stems from a single quote : “Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned.” And you reference as Ken Miller from above URL. But there is no “above URL” given.

You then claim that Miller has (1) produced “an exaggerated distortion of an opponent’s position”, and (2) that ID does not require natural laws be violated to account for intelligent design found in living organisms.

Your defense of Behe comes at the price eviscerating an already weak theory to the point where it isn’t even a theory anymore. What observation would falsify your version of ID? You first start quoting Behe as saying “… anything could have been designed”. That quote alone, goes a long way destroying any credibility it has as a theory. It basically says – design is unfalsifiable. That puts the theory on the same par as the theory in which the whole universe was created out of cow flatulence just 5 minutes ago. It only seems older because our memories which were also created 5 minutes ago out of cow flatulence gives us that misleading impression. The cow flatulence theory is unfalsifiable as well.

OK, Behe says that while some things are possibly the result of natural processes others are definitely designed – or at least that is what I get from “It turns out that the cell contains systems that span the range from obviously designed to no apparent design.” So what exactly IS his criteria for determining obvious design? In this post you do not say, but most people who have read Behe would say it is IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. Behe gives a definition of it but alas I will have to quote it from memory since I do not have access to it at this time. To the best of my memory a system is IC when it is composed of numerous well-matched parts that work well together to accomplish a specific purpose and removal of any one of those parts makes the system non-functional.

Now while that sounds specific, it is not. What about substitution of parts? One of Behe’s favorite macroscopic example is a mousetrap. Is it OK to substitute the hardwood floor of a house for the base of mousetrap? Obviously, the mousetrap will still work if the spring, hook, hammer, and catch are attached to the floor instead of a wooden plate, but surely one would not consider the floor to be well-matched. So is the base part of the IC mousetrap or not?

Also Behe makes statements suggesting that the IC that is evidence for ID occurs at the cellular level. But why there and apparently only there? Behe stated that it was entirely plausible for one to believe in Darwin’s day that the eye could evolve by natural means from single light sensitive cells (eg as in _Planaria_) to light sensitive cells lining a pit (eg as in starfish) to light sensitive cells forming a retina in a deeply embedded pit with muscles that move it (eg as in _Nautilus_) to an eye with a lens (eg as in vertebrates). But with the advent of new information it is impossible for the biochemical systems underlying phototransduction to have evolved without the assistance of intelligent design.

But exactly why should I think that the biochemical system is more IC than the macroscopic eye? In the macroscopic vertebrate eye you have the cornea, aqueous, lens, vitreous, photoreceptors, amacrine-bipolar-horizontal cells, ganglion cells forming a well-matched set and removal of any one of them and the eye is not going to be able to discern a clear image. The only reason I see to exclude this level from the burdens imposed by IC is that plausible evolutionary mechanisms by which they can be produced are already known. This makes Behe’s argument another God-of-the-Gaps/argument from ignorance type of argument.

Here is a Behe quote you give:

“Even then, why is Gould’s panda scenario incompatible with intelligent-design theory? The panda’s thumb is a black box. It is entirely possible that in the production of the Panda’s thumb, no new irreducibly complex systems were required in the cell. It is possible that the systems that were already present – the systems that make muscle proteins and nerve fibers, that lay down bone and matrix protein, that cause cells to divide for a while and then cease division – were enough. It is possible that these systems were quite sufficient to cause a bone protuberance when some chance event perturbed their normal pattern of operation, and it is possible that natural selection then favored this change. Design theory has nothing to say about a biochemical or biological system unless all of the components of the system are known and it is determined that the system is composed of several interacting parts. Intelligent-design theory can coexist quite peacefully with the panda’s thumb.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p229)

What is Behe referring to here? The answer is Stephen Jay Gould’s essays on the Panda’s thumb. The Panda’s thumb is a sesamoid bone that is elongated it is not a phalange like all other mammalian thumbs. It works better than no thumb but since there is no claw (which would be beneficial for stripping the leaves and twigs from bamboo) it does not appear to be as good as a thumb like a human or chimp or even a raccoon would. Gould essays point this out as being example of how evolution molds structures. It has no foresight like you would expect from an intelligent designer. This has been referred to as the problem from jury-rigged (aka jerry-rigged design).

Behe is saying there is no reason to think the thumb is IC and , thus, there is no reason to think that it REALLY is anti-design example. What does he use as his evidence that it is not IC? Well Behe says it is POSSIBLE (a word he used quite often) that the systems that make muscle proteins, nerve fibers, and bone along with cell division were already in existence and ready for a mutation to cause a bony protuberance that natural selection could then mold into a thumb.

But it does not rule out the thumb being IC. Look what it has to do. There has to be muscles attached to it to move it in appropriate ways. The nerves must be able to excite these muscle in a coordinated way with the other muscles of the hand. The bony protuberance must have the right length to grasp the bamboo. If any of these things are absent then it is doubtful that the Panda will be effective in holding the bamboo. So WHY NOT consider the thumb part of an IC system?

Or for that matter why stop at the cellular level. Why not extend IC down to the molecular level. I’ll use your Behe quotes to demonstrate. Here Behe is talking about lipids that form the membranes of our cells. He is making a case AGAINST them being IC.

Because these [detergent-like] molecules form bubbles on their own, because the association of molecules is indiscriminate, and because a particular individual molecule is not necessary to form a membrane, it is difficult to infer intelligent design from cell membranes. Like the stones in a stone wall, each of the components is easily replaced by a different component.

However, if I wanted to make a case for the to be IC I would point out that what Behe says is a tad misleading. Phospholipids ARE required to form membranes. While there can be different fatty acid chains they all are long chain hydrocarbons and bear a close resemblance to each other. The indiscriminate association of molecules is a REQUIREMENT for membranes to work well. And even his analogy, a stone wall, is the product of intelligent design. So why not consider lipids IC? The answer is, of course, it is not hard to see how particular lipids might have occurred by natural means.

Here is another of your quotes of Behe dealing with hemoglobin possibly not being IC.

“The question is, if we assume that we already have an oxygen-binding protein like myoglobin, can we infer intelligent design from the function of hemoglobin? The case for design is weak. The starting point, myoglobin, already can bind oxygen. The behavior of hemoglobin can be achieved by a rather simple modification of the behavior of myoglobin, and the individual proteins of hemoglobin strongly resemble myoglobin. So although hemoglobin can be thought of as a system with interacting parts, the interaction does nothing much that is clearly beyond the individual components of the system. Given the starting point of myoglobin, I would say that hemoglobin shows the same evidence for design as does the man in the moon: intriguing, but far from convincing.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, 1996, p207)

But wait a second, hemoglobin has 4 subunits, each with a porphyrin ring bound in such a way as to make the affinity for oxygen LESS than myoglobin’s oxygen affinity. Another important feature of hemoglobin NOT found in myoglobin is that the O2 binding curve is S-shaped. That means that once hemoglobin binds one oxygen molecule, it is easier for it to bind a second, third and fourth. Conversely, once it gives up an oxygen molecule it is easier to give up a second, third and fourth. If it were otherwise then you wouldn’t get oxygen transferred to the muscle from the blood very effectively. The hemoglobin subunits have to be well-matched to accomplish that feat and if one is removed or changed a bit (as in sickle-cell trait) it doesn’t perform very well. So why not consider it IC. The answer again seems to be that since the structure of the subunits of hemoglobin so closely resemble that of myoglobin, it is entirely plausible that hemoglobin evolved by natural processes from a myoglobin precursor.

So despite Behe’s stated definition of IC, the TRUE criteria he seems to be using is whether or not there is a known plausible pathway for natural evolution. Stating that ID accepts that SOME things MAY have evolved naturally does not help ID’s position. If something as complex as hemoglobin could have evolved naturally then there is no reason that something else, say the proteins in a bacterial flagellum could have evolved by natural means as well.

In fact, if I am correct, the argument that Kenneth Miller is presenting that you so vehemently object to as a mischaracterization of Behe is one suggesting that much of the bacterial flagellar apparatus did evolve from a Type 3 Secretory System. If that can happen then why can’t the rest of it have evolved naturally as well? Why would one suspect that there is more complexity in a protein for the dynein motor of a cilium than in a protein for the Type 3 Secretory System? If one can evolve, why not the other. If there are reasonable indirect pathways for some IC to evolve naturally why should one go to the unnecessary step of postulating a hidden intelligent designer for which there is no independent evidence for to explain other instances of IC? Doesn’t it seem more parsimonious to assume there is some as yet unknown indirect pathway instead?

Then finally while Behe admits that there are “theological implications” for the designer, he also says the designer COULD be some ET or even some cosmic consciousness. Why is there no push amongst IDists to identify the designer? Shouldn’t there be an active program to come up with strategies to rule these possibilities in or out? For instance, Behe’s proposal on the “Super-Adamite Bacteria”, perhaps he could check to see if a bacterium with a bunch of excess DNA could (1) survive, and (2) speciate. But several years have gone by since the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Program has become public. In it, there were goals for ID to publish in mainstream journals and develop research programs able to compete for grant dollars. If the stated deadline for those goals hasn’t yet arrived it must be close. Yet, there has been no progress on either of these scientific fronts. The ONLY progress that ID has made has been on the political front. Why is this? Could it be that political paydirt and not scientific evidence are the only things holding up the theory? If so, it will never be taken seriously in science, and all it will ever be able to do is drive a wedge further between science and religion. While that is not particularly productive if it has to be, I can live with it. I’m an atheist and if there is going to be a contentious split between scientific types and religious types, I would rather have the scientific ones on my side.

Regards

DB

DNAunion

DNAunion: I skimmed over parts of your long post and this point seemed to be the main one you were making. The problem is, many IDists don't care whether or not ID qualifies as a true scientific theory; they aren't trying to earn that label for it - they're satisfied with labeling it as an inference to the best explanation.

If you had any other points in there that I missed in my skimming, let me know.

RBH

DNAUnion wrote I'm still waiting to see what that explanation looks like beyond the label "it was designed." I've read Dembski, Behe, Johnson, et alia, and have yet to see an explanation that has more substantive content than a three-word label: "It was designed."

RBH

Darwin's Beagle

Well thanks for the effort you put in to it. There are plenty of other points and they are all stated right there in the post above yours, all you have to do is read it.

Actually, I would not say that many IDist don't care whether or not ID qualifies as a true scientific theory. I believe it does -- it is just a very poor one. My point was that your defense of it makes it even less. Your defense takes away all pretense of it being a theory. You make it so that ID has NO DEFINITIVE PROPOSITION WHATSOEVER.

Now if you think it does, why don't you quit whining about how ID has been misrepresented and give us your version of what definitive, testable statements ID actually makes.

Regards,
Darwin's Beagle

Another

As a theory of generation, it has always confused me as to why ID is presented as an alternative to evolution. Different issues are addressed. It also seems to me that they must also assume ID plus constant intervention, else we are just as "accidental" as under the modern synthesis.

I also understand the concern about designating ID as a theory. Scientific theories must make predictions, be subject to study and potential disproof. I am not sure ID qualifies here.

However, part of the price of progress is to be open to the study of a great deal of bunk in order to find the occasional gems which reside outside currently accepted thought. Personally, I think ID is no such gem. Even so, let us encourage them to formulate and test their ideas. In so doing, they may find understanding and an appreciation of science that thus far ID seems to lack.

RufusAtticus

Because evolution=atheism, ID=christianity. They know that, their audience knows that, they just can't say it (too much) because the courts will find out.