This is not so. For the 65+ years prior to Dobzhansky’s synthesis of Darwin and Mendel, there was no adequate explanation for the mechanism of Darwin’s theory. Would you then say that Darwin was not a critique of Lamarck for the first 65 years?
Don’t let your faith in current knowlede blind you to hypothetical possibilities. I agree that Behe is simply pushing a god of the gaps, but a declaration that IC cannot be critique unless it is proven is not correct. It is more correct to say that it is an ineffectual and useless critique (since it does not yet seem to have provided a falsifiable hypothesis), but your claim that it will require proof before it becomes a critique seriously overstates the case.
I don’t think it was. It did not show a weakness in Lamark.
Respectfully, I disagree. A “critique” is defined as a critical analysis of an argument or position. In order for IRC to qualify as a proper crtique of evolution, it would have to criticize or evaluate or challenge some weakness in the theory. IRC is not a response to a weakness in evolutionary theory. If IRC were proven to exist it would become a critique because it would show a substantive phenomenon which could not be explained by the theory. Positing aisuperfluous or unnecessary hypotheses does not critique anything.
“Proof” may not have been the best word to use, but I think Diogenes’ point still stands. In order for IC to enter the arena against Darwinism, it needs to:
Be defined. Come up with an objective criterion that anyone can use to decide whether or not a given system is “irreducibly complex”. (I’m assuming we’re all agreed that Dembski’s work in this area is inadequate).
Demonstrate how this definition applies to a particular biological system.
Prove - and I can’t think of a better word here myself - that this demonstration is inconsistent with neo-Darwinian evolution.
Hypothesise a new theory of biological development which covers this inconsistency, which explains all the existing data at least as well as neo-Darwinian evolution, and which is consistent with the remaining body of science.
This may indeed happen. But it’s got a long way to go before it gets there.
Another point is that it would be required to teach ID alongside evolution. Whether or not ID is creationism or not, it certainly does not meet the standards of accepted science. Would a school board be allowed to require a teacher to teach alchemy in a chemistry class or astrology in an astronomy class?
Basically. I say it’s not a critique because it simply does not respond to any part of evolutionary theory. Saying that conceptually it would be a critique of the theory is just a tautology. It’s the statement that if we find something that the theory can’t explain, then we will have found something the theory can’t explain. There are any number of purely hypothetical and equally unsupported “holes” that we could posit for any scientific theory. Hypothetically, we could all be living in the Matrix and having all of our thoughts and perceptions controlled by robots. Does that mean the Matrix represents a “critique” of evolution? If I hypothesize that diseases are caused by telepathic witch doctors in the Sirius constellation, does that mean telepathic witch doctors represent a critique of the germ theory of disease?
It’s not a critique unless it actually responds to something present in the theory. Even if you do want to call IC a critique of evolution, you would have to explain why that particular hypothetical hole in the theory should be preferred over any other hypothetical hole in the theory.
Irreducible complexity may or may not exist in biology, but even if it does, it does not imply the existence of a designer. Take an arch, for example. An arch is “irreducibly complex”: remove any stone and it will collapse. Yet it was built up stone by stone, and at each stage in its construction there was at least one stone missing. We don’t assume that the arch was put into place fully formed; we assume that there was scaffolding and support during the process of building that was removed when it was done. Now why couldn’t something analogous happen in biology? Even if a flagellum is irreducibly complex, that doesn’t mean it was put into place fully formed by some designer. It still could have evolved piece by piece, with pieces disappearing as they become unnecessary.
In his book Vital Dust Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1974) makes this very point and states that biochemists can identify traces of the “scaffolding.”
I agree with the second review in this cite. The first part of the book is a difficult task for the layman and requires reading and rereading, but it is worth the effort. When the author gets into general speculation about ecology and the future I stopped reading because it wasn’t anything new. But the first part is great although it strans the brain.
On review I found that my software tags the cite as a popup. I had to turn my popup blocker off to get it.
Excellent. Am I right in reading this as a pretty broadly-written opinion, not just suggesting that this particular schoolboard violated the Constitution, but that any attempt to inject ID into a public science classroom is unconsitutional?
But the judge is only tasked with preventing the “establishment of religion”. Just because something is junk science, doesn’t **automatically **make it religion. There is no law that I’m aware of that prevents the teaching of junk science. Refer to my earlier example of teaching that space aliens built the pyramids. Where’s the religion in that piece of junk science?
I’ll have to read the decision by the judge before commenting on it. If he has indeed been convinced that ID = creationism, then it would be proper to disallow it in public schools. But I’m still not convinced that ID can’t, in some way shape or form, be stripped of it’s religiosity. Perhaps this particular curiculum did not, but another might.
John Mace - powerful point. In an article in the New Yorker a week or so ago, they went into the utter ineptitude of the ID’ers in Dover - just blatant examples of them stating that they want to forward the agenda of Creationism and were using ID as a vehicle for that.
I love this ruling and the breadth that it appears to put forth in its decision. However, I can see a more calculated/masked attempt to forward the cause of ID just as you describe.
Oy. This is a great ruling, but it feels like it is just another battle in a never-ending war. I wish the fundies would just leave it alone, but that will never happen. sigh