Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ps418 · 09-13-2002, 05:13 PM

Howard van Till has a review of Dembski.

<a href="http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/vantillecoli.pdf" target="_blank">E. COLI AT THE NO FREE LUNCHROOM: Bacterial Flagella and Dembski�s Case for Intelligent Design</a>

Its a PDF file, so you'll need Adobe Acrobat if you dont already have it.

Quote:

ABSTRACT: The Intelligent Design movement argues that it can point to specific biological systems that exhibit what ID�s chief theorist William A. Dembski calls �specified complexity.� Furthermore, Dembski claims to have demonstrated that natural causation is unable to generate this specified complexity and that the assembling of these biological systems must, therefore, have required the aid of a non-natural action called �intelligent design.� In his book, No Free Lunch, Dembski presents the bacterial flagellum as the premier example of a biological system that, because he judges it to be both complex and specified, must have been actualized by the form-conferring action of an unembodied intelligent agent. However, a critical examination of Dembski�s case reveals that, 1) it is built on
unorthodox and inconsistently applied definitions of both �complex� and �specified,� 2) it employs a concept of the flagellum�s assembly that is radically out of touch with contemporary genetics and developmental biology, and 3) it fails to demonstrate that the flagellum is either �complex� or �specified� in the manner required to make his case. If the bacterial flagellum is supposed to demonstrate ID, then ID is a failure.

Grumpy · 09-13-2002, 05:26 PM

This doesn't address the topic directly, but a thought occurred to me while reading the Abstract. ID, in particular the principle of IC, is a form of atomism. There must be, for IDers, a catalog of all features which could not have arisen naturally: certain metabolic reactions, organelles, maybe even symbiotic relationships. This is a catalog of "indivisible" elements I would like to see someday. (Maybe there's even a periodic order to these features, such that they could be charted!)

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>

Bubba · 09-13-2002, 05:49 PM

Thanks, Patrick for the link.

Chris

Valentine Pontifex · 09-13-2002, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy:
<strong>This doesn't address the topic directly, but a thought occurred to me while reading the Abstract. ID, in particular the principle of IC, is a form of atomism. There must be, for IDers, a catalog of all features which could not have arisen naturally: certain metabolic reactions, organelles, maybe even symbiotic relationships. This is a catalog of "indivisible" elements I would like to see someday. (Maybe there's even a periodic order to these features, such that they could be charted!)
</strong>

Basically IDists are setting up a brain dead cardboard version of explanatory reductionism, "show" that brain dead cardboard explanatory reductionism does not work in biology, and then concludes that because brain dead cardboard explanatory reductionism does not work in biology that ID is true.

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

09-13-2002, 05:26 PM	#2
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	This doesn't address the topic directly, but a thought occurred to me while reading the Abstract. ID, in particular the principle of IC, is a form of atomism. There must be, for IDers, a catalog of all features which could not have arisen naturally: certain metabolic reactions, organelles, maybe even symbiotic relationships. This is a catalog of "indivisible" elements I would like to see someday. (Maybe there's even a periodic order to these features, such that they could be charted!) [ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>

09-13-2002, 05:49 PM	#3
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Thanks, Patrick for the link. Chris

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.