According to intelligent designer believers...

[tomndebb]

@JustAnotherGeek

While at Kenneth’s talk, I got to ask him about his views on sociobiology, or the branch of science that is trying to use evolution theory to explain human behavior. His response was basically that he thought it was interesting, but flawed. From this I infer he believes that a God made a soul or mind, but left all other aspects to material evolution.

You may, of course, be excactly right in your inference.

Alternatively, it could be that he is unfamiliar with the field’s current status (which does have its own issues, being as young a field as it is), and, recalling the wanderings (and some results) of Social Darwinism along with some of the claims by B.F. Skinner and associates over the years, he may simply prefer to express reservations until such time as there is more concrete evidence.

---

filmyak, there are many people with many different beliefs and many separate views. The problem with your question, (not evil, just flawed), is that as several of us have noted, there is no ONE approach to ID and the people who embrace it range from people like Behe who generally accept evolutionary science, but feel that it needs a nudge from God every one in a while, to YEC supporters who are willing to use anything to get God into biology in the classroom (even though they reject even Behe’s acceptance of some evolutionary actions).

Getting “the answer” or even “an answer” regarding what “ID supporters” believe is simply not possible as a single statement.

My guess would be, (based on your short description) that your coworkers might be YEC believers who would be horrified to hear some of Behe’s comments. I doubt that they are even in the camp of Dembski who wants an active God in science. Rather, they believe that every creature has been designed by God and so they latch onto the phrase “Intelligent Design” because they hear it in the news, much like the Austrian archbishop who (prompted by the Discovery Institute of Seattle) showed up in the New York Times last month preaching “Intelligent Design” when it was clear from his text that 1) he was pretty much ignorant of biological science and 2) that he was really making a case for theistic evolution. (Which is not to say that he would choose to reject ID if he understood science, but his ignorance of the topic was pretty clear in his remarks.)

(This is one reason why I hold out for a more limited definition of ID–too many people use the phrase with too many meanings, confusing any discussion when we start from the phrase without defining it.)

[JustAnotherGeek]

@tomndebb

Alternatively, it could be that he is unfamiliar with the field’s current status

He probably has a deeper understanding than I do. But you’re right, my inference is only a guess. Let me restate by saying many extremely knowledgible people sometimes introduce a god/IDer into their version of Evolution, but hold that scientific progress must be acheived by assuming that all processes have a physical, natural explanation.

From the Europeans I have spoken to (and I’m including some British as Europeans, whether they ilke it or not ), it seems that it is a fairly common belief that God set up the universe to run the way science can test, but also interacts on the sub-atomic level to give us our souls. And I believe that this stems (at least in part) from Pope John Paul II’s “Truth Cannot Condratict Truth” speech Personally, I feel differently, but I also understand that my evidence is as abundant as theirs, i.e. non-existant.

[John_Mace]

@tomndebb

Alternatively, it could be that he is unfamiliar with the field’s current status (which does have its own issues, being as young a field as it is), and, recalling the wanderings (and some results) of Social Darwinism along with some of the claims by B.F. Skinner and associates over the years, he may simply prefer to express reservations until such time as there is more concrete evidence.

BF Skinner was not associated wtih Sociobiology. In fact, his work was done long before that term was even coined (by E.O. Wilson in the mid '70s).

[tomndebb]

I am aware of that. He was also not associated with Social Darwinism–except in the general tradition of several different movements over the last 150 that have perceived human actions as being subject to irresistable outside forces that could be discovered through scientific means.

[RTFirefly]

@JustAnotherGeek

Behe’s basic argument of Irreducible Complexity:
Consider a moustrap. It’s made of 5 components. Take away any of those components, and it no longer works. Now consider the flagellum of a bacterium. It is composed of 50 components. Take away any, and it no longer works. If the mousetrap of five components was clearly designed, so too must be that flagellum, hence, the system is irreducibly complex, and must be designed.

Miller’s refutations:
No look. <he removes one component of a mousetrap; it still works. he removes two components, it still works…gets down to one component, it still works, but not as effectively> Several months go by; Miller is communicating with a colleague; the colleague points out, that’s not the way evolution works. ??? Colleague shows how mousetrap of missing pieces can still be useful. For instance, remove the bait and trigger, and it is an effective (if ugly) tie-clip. Miller goes ::smack:: This is surprising, because Miller has shown the comparable agrument in a biological setting. Going back to the flagellum: if you remove not one, but 40 of the 50 components, you have a protein injector that is still being used by other bacteria. Hence, the system is not irreducibly complex.

Behe’s Response:
No, no, no. What I meant was that if you reduce the system, it no longer works as it currently does.

Funny thing Miller should have taken so long to see it. I’m a number cruncher, not a biologist, but I’m aware that different biological attributes are re-used for different purposes in different situations.

As a result, when I first came across Behe’s mousetrap example while reading the first part of his book several weeks ago, my path of reducibility took a route where one started with a wooden box lid, which ‘evolved’ a handle, then hinges for the handle, then by adding a spring turned into a clip to hold papers together, then added a hook so that the clip could be hung from the wall, then added the catch (with the hook as holding bar), then finally the hookness of the hook withered away so it was just a holding bar. Mousetrap evolution complete.

The problem, like you say, is with Behe’s definition. And it isn’t just one problem - first, as you’ve said, his definition simply says that if you remove any one piece, the mechanism has to merely stop doing what it’s now doing, rather than ceasing to have any useful function. A second problem is that it doesn’t allow for the last step of the evolution being a subtraction rather than an addition - and a subtraction of a piece needed for a prior function but not for the current one could not only conceal the lineage of the present mechanism, but would clearly flummox Behe’s definition.

ISTM that biological mechanisms can be irreducibly complex by Behe’s definition, even while their evolutionary path is known. That makes the definition self-defeating as science, but makes it more effective for propaganda purposes than an honest definition would be.

Speaking of propaganda, I hadn’t realized before the past few days that Behe’s been involved in the writing of chapters for school ID textbooks. An honest scientist would be waiting for the controversies surrounding such a young theory to settle somewhat before trying to include the theory in high school curricula. That Behe’s not so scrupulous speaks volumes about the man.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

Speaking of propaganda, I hadn’t realized before the past few days that Behe’s been involved in the writing of chapters for school ID textbooks. An honest scientist would be waiting for the controversies surrounding such a young theory to settle somewhat before trying to include the theory in high school curricula. That Behe’s not so scrupulous speaks volumes about the man.

Actually, it’s worse than that. There is no controversy among scientists-- the matter is settled. Or rather, it was never initiated. Behe has presented no data to support his hypothesis (it can’t be called a theory), he has simply criticized evolutionary theory. The “controversy” is entirely political.

[Liberal]

@Voyager

Hmm, my reading of theistic evolution is that mankind (in God’s image) is an inevitable outcome of creation - either through hacking evolution invisibly or through the careful setting of initial conditions. So sextillion Big Bangs would produces sextillion instances of us.

It’s classically unfalsifiable - but my understanding is its proponents know it is, and don’t pretend that its science.

I’m not disagreeing with you that most theistic evolutionists look at it that way. I’m just saying that it is not a necessary tenet of the philosophical underpinning. The sole necessary interference is the creation itself.

[JustAnotherGeek]

@RTFirefly

Funny thing Miller should have taken so long to see it. I’m a number cruncher, not a biologist, but I’m aware that different biological attributes are re-used for different purposes in different situations.

I think this says quite a bit about Miller (in a positive way). He actually took the time to explain his mistake and give credit to a colleague. I was thouroughly impressed.

Speaking of Behe…

[Voyager]

@RTFirefly

Speaking of propaganda, I hadn’t realized before the past few days that Behe’s been involved in the writing of chapters for school ID textbooks. An honest scientist would be waiting for the controversies surrounding such a young theory to settle somewhat before trying to include the theory in high school curricula. That Behe’s not so scrupulous speaks volumes about the man.

@NYTimes

In that definition, Mr. Rothschild asked, couldn’t the words “intelligent design” be replaced by “creationism” and still make sense? Professor Behe responded that that excerpt from the textbook was “somewhat problematic,” and that it was not consistent with his definition of intelligent design.

Mr. Rothschild asked Professor Behe why then he had not objected to the passage since he was among the scientists who was listed as a reviewer of the book. Professor Behe said that although he had reviewed the textbook, he had reviewed only the section he himself had written, on blood clotting. Pressed further, he agreed that it was “not typical” for critical reviewers of scientific textbooks to review their own work.

This sums up my opinion of Behe. Since his pet hypothesis gets no support among his scientific peers, he is all too willing to wallow in the Creationist’s manure trough to get publicity and attention. Reviewing your own chapter is not reviewing. He either should have reviewed the other sections, removed his name from the reviewer list, or withdrew his chapter. But in this, as in other cases, he allows people to use his work to support a position he claims he does not support.