I am kinda dissappointed that Hebzabeb has not returned to discuss any of the responses yet.
Hi Scotth,
I see you have been having a grand old time critiquing “Hebzabeb” and making out that she is an ignoramus and troglodyte creationist, unacquainted with the most basic scientific methodological assumptions and facts. I think it is a discredit to your obvious intellectual abilities that you have to make these false and unnecessary insinuations. Just make your argument without all the potshots. Is that too much to ask? You know: honey attracts better than vinegar . . .
To give a brief background on myself: I am basically an agnostic on the subject of macroevolution and the grand theory (and I am a Catholic). I fully accept microevolution, the old earth (of course), and uniformitarianism. If the current evolutionary theory as a whole
(Darwinian or otherwise) is true, I believe it must involve design and God somewhere along the line. My principle objection, in other words, is to materialism or naturalism. I don’t believe it has been scientifically demonstrated that matter alone has the inherent capability to organize itself into the existing universe, according to what we know of the laws of science, and observations and scientific experiments.
Skepticism used to be highly regarded amongst a certain strain of intellectuals, generally hostile to theism in general and Christianity in particular. But now that Darwinian evolution is the reigning
orthodoxy and dogma, anyone who dares question it at all has to be “whipped” and burned at the stake of so-called “progress” and “scientific fact.”
This is, of course, both nonsensical and hypocritical. No one can compel me to believe anything. I use my mind and my critical faculties to decide for myself, thank you. I don’t believe things simply because someone tells me I HAVE to believe them (whether a religious person in a frock or a scientist in a white coat). That’s not how critical thinking works. So if you or anyone else has a hard time with me exercising my skepticism and critical faculties with regard to difficult questions of the origins of the universe and life and currently fashionable theories about same, too bad. Learn to live with it. Life is tough. Not everyone thinks the way you do. That may be
difficult to fathom at first, but it’ll come to you if you keep trying.
And not everyone is an ignoramus and science-basher simply because they disagree with your take on things. There are intelligent, educated Christians, and there are very backward, anti-intellectual Christians, of course (and many in-between). But so what? There have also been plenty of quack scientists and evil scientists. Have we so quickly forgotten the Nazi period, with the very intelligent and sophisticated Nazi scientists (not particularly Christian, if you had asked them) doing their experiments on Jews?
As recently as the 1920s many respectable scientists in America espoused phrenology and eugenicism in blatantly racist terms. There were forced sterilizations of black people, and forced abortions currently take place in China. Full-term babies are now being ruthlessly slaughtered by “doctors” by sticking scissors in their necks and sucking their brains out. This is legal in the US (it’s called “partial-birth abortion”), in the name of “medicine” and social
“progressivism.” At the same time we do operations on babies in the womb far younger than that. The only difference is that one parent wants the child and the other doesn’t. Too bad that the child can’t pick a mother which wants him or her, huh? And that is because society values “choice” so much. So moral and logical absurdity obviously has a great hold in our present society.
The history of evolutionary speculation is likewise strewn with folly, absurdity, and nonsense. We have, e.g., the example of “Nebraska Man,” constructed from a single tooth, which was later determined to have come from an extinct pig. Or “Piltdown Man,” which was an obvious hoax, but which was believed as authentic for more than 40 years. You can talk about the Galileo incident until Kingdom Come (and distort the details for your own ends as well), but science itself is not
immune from the usual dogmatic attitudes and resistance to change, either. Read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or S.J. Gould’s The Panda’s Thumb sometime.
It’s not like no scientists have expressed the same agnosticism, when it comes to specific questions of origin, mechanism, and process. I can produce a host of evolutionary scientists, who ask difficult questions and sometimes wondering aloud why no answers (or even speculative attempts at answers) have been forthcoming from within the (materialistic) evolutionary paradigm.
So if many scientists have expressed the limitations and lack of knowledge in many areas of scientific inquiry, why is it improper or unacceptable for people like myself and “Hebzabeb” to simply agree
with them to that extent? I see that Michael Behe has been one of your whipping boys on this thread (as indeed is fashionable). It’s always easy to run people down in general terms. Very well, then (since you claim to be so knowledgeable in these matters): I challenge you (or someone else here) to answer the tough questions he has been asking about biochemical evolutionary mechanisms. Go ahead and tell me how the complex biochemical processes he describes have come about in an evolutionary manner. I, for one, would be eternally grateful if you could do that. Here are some statements by Behe that I would like to see answered here:
=====================================================================
Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. As I have shown in my book, if you look in the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in a Darwinian fashion, there aren’t any. It’s startling.
There’s a journal called the Journal of Molecular Evolution which is about 25 years old and has published over 1,000 papers since its inception. The journal publishes a lot about trying to determine which proteins, genes, and nucleic acids are related to which other ones by looking at their protein or nucleotide sequence. That may be interesting, and it may be a legitimate question in its own right, but comparing sequences simply can’t tell you how these complex molecular
machines came to be step-by-Darwinian-step. So essentially, over its 25- year history, the Journal of Molecular Evolution has completely avoided the real question of how the heck these extremely complex systems could have been put together.
So most scientists completely ignore evolution in their work, . . .
(Biochemist Michael J. Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, “The Evolution of a Skeptic”:
http://www.origins.org/real/ri9602/behe.html )
The critics of my book . . . do not see that there is a distinction between arriving at a conclusion simply from observation of the physical world, as a scientist is supposed to do, and arriving at a conclusion based on scripture or religious beliefs . . .
. . . A public TV show named Think Tank was interested in setting up a debate between Dawkins [author of The Blind Watchmaker - Norton: 1986] and myself. They asked if I would be willing to participate, and I happily said yes. And they approached Richard Dawkins, but he refused to appear with me, saying he was insufficiently versed in biochemistry to address the issue. But then the TV show asked Dawkins to appear by himself on the show, which he did. During the interview, which I had an opportunity to see recently, the show host asked him about my book. He seemed to grasp the idea of irreducible complexity pretty well. However, he said it was cowardly and lazy of me to come to a conclusion of intelligent design, and he said that if I thought for myself I would realize that there must be a Darwinian explanation out there somewhere, and I should get off my duff and go out and find it.
Certainly Richard Dawkins is entitled to his strongly held opinions. But, in fact, from the evidence, I think intelligent design is the best explanation. And it’s not a matter of whether I like the idea or not, or whether I like to sleep late and am lazy, rather it’s that Darwinism is barking up the wrong tree and I think a better scientific explanation is design. I hope to meet with Richard Dawkins in the future, though.
(Ibid.)
In the summer of 1996 Free Press published my book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, . . . Modern biochemistry has indeed discovered stunning, unexpected complexity at the basis of life. We have learned the cell is literally run by molecular
machines. Bacteria propel themselves through liquid with a molecular outboard motor called a ‘flagellum’; molecular supplies are packed inside tiny trucks that shuttle across the cell, delivering
the cargo to specialized compartments; the cell rearranges its DNA to make new antibodies to fight disease. I argued that these systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that they require a number of parts to work. Just as a mechanical mousetrap requires each of its few parts to act as a mousetrap, so too these biochemical systems require each of their parts and so are quite unlikely to have been assembled gradually, as Darwinian theory would have it . . .
Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed widely. In particular, a number of prominent evolutionary biologists, strong Darwinists all, have gotten a chance to take a hammer to it in print. Perhaps the best example was a two-page, lead review in Nature, the most prominent science journal in the world. The reviewer was Jerry Coyne, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago . . . he admits in passing that, by the way, “Behe is a genuine scientist,” that I don’t believe in a young earth, and think common descent is a reasonable idea. Guilt-by-association does make a reviewer’s job easier. After more such fun, Coyne finally gets around to addressing
the design argument.
The answer to Behe’s argument lies in realizing that biochemical pathways . . . have been rigged up with pieces co-opted from other pathways. . . . Thrombin, for example, is one of the key proteins in blood-clotting, but also acts in cell division, and is related to the digestive enzyme trypsin. Who knows which function came first?
Good question—who knows which came first? No one knows. And no one knows how one function could explain the other. It’s like saying springs are found in both watches and mousetraps, so maybe one explains the other. But the question of how complex biochemical systems came together doesn’t really interest Coyne.
We may forever be unable to envisage the first (biochemical) proto-pathways. It is not valid, however, to assume that, because one man cannot imagine such pathways, they could not have existed.
Coyne’s apparent argument is that we don’t need evidence; life simply had to have arisen by Darwinian principles. Coyne is not alone in his inability to answer biochemical arguments for intelligent design. In the New York Times Book Review, science writer James Shreeve declares,
“Mr. Behe may be right that given our current state of knowledge, good old Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin of blood clotting or cellular transport.” In National Review, microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago acknowledges, “There are no detailed
Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Andrew Pomiankowski, writing in New Scientist, declares “Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution. Turn to one of these and you will be lucky to find anything better than ‘evolution selects the fittest molecules for their biological function.’”
Darwinism is dying of the same affliction that has killed other discarded theories—the progress of science itself. It seems that with each new discovery—especially discoveries about the molecular basis of life—natural selection has a new problem.
(Michael J. Behe, “Dogmatic Darwinism,” in Crisis magazine, June 1998 -
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Crisis/1998-06/darwinism.html )
[Michael Behe responded to some criticisms of his book and credibility in postings to the Talk Origins Newsgroup (it seems that the charge of “ignorance” is a rather wide-ranging one, where Darwinists and their critics are concerned): ]
Reply to Robison and Ikeda
From: Mike Behe <mjb1@lehigh.edu>
Organization Lehigh University
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:12:59 -0700
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Message-ID: <32654FDB.7A15@lehigh.edu>
[ . . . ]
. . . My book has now been reviewed quite widely, including reviews by academic biochemists. Several of them were quite hostile to my idea of design, but all agreed that the systems I described are enormously complex and currently unexplained. The hostile reviewers were confident that the systems would eventually be explained by Darwinism in the future. I do not share their confidence. Neither did James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago who reviewed
Darwin’s Black Box for National Review a few weeks ago. He, too,
thinks Darwinism has failed for these systems, but hopes that they will be explained by some other non-intelligent mechanism.
. . . I think nearly everybody is ignoring the difficulty of understanding biochemical evolution. Certainly that seems to be the case when you examine biochemistry textbooks and the biochemical literature . . . I see no sign of a serious effort to explain specific, complex systems within a Darwinian framework.
. . . I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
And again, in his article, “The Sterility of Darwinism,” Dr. Behe responds to H. Allen Orr’s discussion of his book in the Boston Review, Dec/Jan 97:
As it struggles to comprehend nature, science sometimes has to completely re-think how the world works . . . Revolutions in biology have included the cell theory of life in the 19th century, as well as the slow realization in this century that cells are composites of enormously complex molecular systems.
. . . A mechanical engineer can't contradict a physicist on fundamental principles of matter. And evolutionary biology can't overrule biochemistry (1) on fundamental principles of life. It's
not a question of pride–that’s just the way the world works.
Curiously, some people seem offended by the way the world works . . . the evolution of biochemical systems is itself biochemistry. When a protein sequence changes, when DNA mutates, those are biochemical changes. Since inherited changes are caused by molecular changes, it is biochemists--not evolutionary biologists--who will ultimately decide whether Darwin's mechanism of natural selection can explain life. No offense--that's just the way the world works.
Orr hankers for the respect accorded physicists, and thinks
evolutionary biologists can finally lay aside their “physics envy”
because “we biologists have discovered the structure of DNA, broken
the genetic code, sequenced the entire genome of some species . . .”
Orr is like a podiatrist claiming credit for progress in brain surgery.
Biochemistry made those dramatic advances; evolutionary biology played no part. I mean no disrespect, but this is not a minor academic turf war--the point is crucial. Anyone who wants to address questions about life's basic mechanisms has to do so from a molecular
perspective. Orr does not . . .
. . . To test natural selection requires much more evidence than mere sequence similarity: it requires experimentation. In all of the scientific literature, however, no experimental evidence can be found that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biochemical systems. To rebut my arguments Orr could simply have cited papers in the science literature where the systems I discuss have been explained. He didn't do that because explanations are nowhere to be found.
What has biochemistry found that must be explained?
Machines–literally, machines made of molecules. Let’s look at just one example. The flagellum is an outboard motor that many bacteria
use to swim. It consists of a rotary propeller, motor, and stationary
framework. Yet this short description can’t do justice to the machine’s full complexity. Writing of the flagellum in Cell, (2) Lucy Shapiro of Stanford University marvels,
To carry out the feat of coordinating the ordered
expression of about 50 genes, delivering the protein
products of these genes to the construction site, and
moving the correct parts to the upper floors while
adhering to the design specification with a high degree of
accuracy, the cell requires impressive organizational
skills.
Without any one of a number of parts, the flagellum does not merely work less efficiently; it does not work at all. Like a mousetrap it is irreducibly complex and therefore cannot have arisen gradually.
The rotary nature of the flagellum has been recognized for about 25 years. During that time not a single paper has been published in the biochemical literature even attempting to show how such a machine might have developed by natural selection. Darwin's theory is
completely barren when it comes to explaining the origin of the
flagellum or any other complex biochemical system.
The sterility of Darwinism indicates that it is the wrong framework for understanding the basis of life. As I argue in my book, an alternative hypothesis is both natural and obvious: systems such as the flagellum were intentionally designed by an intelligent agent. Just as in the everyday world we immediately conclude design when we see a complex, interactive system such as a mousetrap, there is no reason to withhold the same conclusion from interactive molecular systems. This conclusion may have theological implications that make some people uncomfortable; nonetheless it is the job of science to follow the data wherever they lead, no matter how disturbing.
One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a
bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could
arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that
neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to
have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly
disproved . . .
Notes
-
By biochemistry I mean all sciences that investigate life at the
molecular level, including molecular biology, much of embryology,
immunology, genetics, etc. -
Lucy Shapiro, “The Bacterial Flagellum: From Genetic Network to Complex Architecture,” Cell 80 (1995): 525-27.
====================================================================
Yours,
Dave Armstrong
Scientific Materialism, Intelligent Design, and the Cosmological Argument (web page)
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM
Yowza! Somebody is getting serious. Very good.
A couple quick points:
- The OP is primarily trying to goad straight creationist and especially Young Earthers that completely deny the fossil record, etc. into looking at the evidence. It would appear from your post that even you would chastise them (feel free to correct me on if I am putting words in your mouth there).
- That is alot of directly quoted material, I don’t mind, but the mods might.
- Regardless of point 1), this is good ground to examine and there doesn’t appear any other points to address right now.
Welcome to the board… I think I shall enjoy your stay, I hope you do as well.
I’ll be back to you late tonight, or sometime tomorrow with the initial analysis.
Hi Scotth,
>Yowza! Somebody is getting serious. Very good.
Is this board known for comedy or something? LOL
>A couple quick points:
>1) The OP is primarily trying to goad straight creationist
and especially Young Earthers that completely deny the
fossil record, etc. into looking at the evidence.
Okay; that wouldn’t apply to me (I don’t even know why you would bother trying to reach such people); however, there is a marked tendency amongst doctrinaire-type evolutionists (which seem to be most, these days) to paint virtually all creationists with a broad brush as anti-intellectual biblical hyper-literalists, who know little about science, and so forth.
In other words, it is the same old Scopes Trial stereotypes, which are considered great fun and an endless source of amusement amongst the “intelligent folks,” but which accomplish little towards the end of advancing intelligent, fruitful discussion on the vexed scientific/philosophical issue of origins. The Galileo incident is used in exactly the same sense. What Scopes is to fundamentalist Protestantism, Galileo is to Catholicism (in the eyes of those who love to cite – and distort for their own ends – these incidents).
When pressed, it is admitted that yes, there are old-earth creationists, and creationists who can add 2 and 2 together and spell their name correctly, and who have heard of Newton and Darwin and Einstein (some few might even have somehow amazingly attained to a BS in science!), and that there are theistic evolutionists as well. But one wouldn’t find this out very readily in looking over a board like this one, would they? To be fair, I have just glanced at the posts thus far. If I missed such clarifications, I would appreciate someone directing me to them.
>It would appear from your post that even you would chastise
them (feel free to correct me on if I am putting words in
your mouth there).
Absolutely. I always have. Christianity doesn’t gain by anti-intellectual folly and stupidity. I am not opposed at all to vigorous critique of young-earth type, biblically-based creationists (if one runs out of things to do), but to materialism, painting with a broad brush, and sheer (unfounded) dogmatism in the name of science.
>2) That is alot of directly quoted material, I don’t mind,
but the mods might.
I thought the only limitation was on length. I posted a lot because there has been a lot of strong critique against both creationism and ID (which is NOT a young-earth fundamentalist position, contrary to your characterization of the point of this thread), so I thought there needed to be a significant reply. In common parlance, “I love a good fight.” LOL
>3) Regardless of point 1), this is good ground to
examine and there doesn’t appear any other points to
address right now.
Good.
>Welcome to the board… I think I shall enjoy your stay,
I hope you do as well.
Thank you. That was nice of you to say. Is this some sort of agnostic / “rationalist” board or website? That was the impression I got, looking it over briefly.
If there is good discussion to be had, I will hang around. I also like to post my dialogues on my Christian and Catholic apologetic website, where I have exchanges with people of many, many different viewpoints (I usually ask permission – out of courtesy – from my opponents to post their words, but I don’t regard that as an absolute ethical requirement, since these boards are already “public” in nature, and on the Internet). I like free speech, competing ideas, and I am a Socratic in philosophical and dialogical methodology.
>I’ll be back to you late tonight, or sometime tomorrow
with the initial analysis.
Great! Please tell me a little about yourself too, so I have a little bit of an idea about who I am interacting with. Thanks.
Yours,
Dave
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dave Armstrong *
**You know: honey attracts better than vinegar . . . **
We’re trying to drive the Creationists away, not attract them.
Um… if you accept microevolution, you automatically accept macroevolution. Macroevolution necessarily follows from microevolution.
Got a couple minutes here. Just got home from work and will be entertaining shortly.
Believe it or not, entertaining in this case will actually be a debate with a guy who insists on a literal interpretation of genesis.
I live in North Texas. By what you have said so far, it would appear that you consider the “literal Genesis” crowd is pretty small, but here it is very very prevelant. That is another story, though.
I’ll go for easy stuff while I am here for the moment.
Me:
33 y.o. male. Write software for a living. Grew up in Indiana, moved to west Texas in my teens and graduated HS there. Joined the Marines when I was 19 and spent 8 years doing that. I spent most of my time in 29 Palms, CA… (that sucks like you wouldn’t believe) and was a Radar Tech (on a couple of radars) and also spent a couple years flying the Pioneer RPV. Got tired of being dirt poor and got out of the Marines and came to Dallas. If you are looking for a real “credentialed” science background here, you aren’t gonna find it in me. None the less, don’t expect that I will be too ignorant.
Feel free to quote our exchanges, like you said, this is a public forum and I don’t feel like I have any right to privacy here. If I didn’t want my opinion known or scrutinized I would be picking a pretty poor hobby in this.
I will make a quick observation on your opening before I have to adjorn for my guest. Your opening was pretty short on honey and pretty long on vinegar… But then, you probably had me pegged as a guy that wasn’t gonna be scared off.
You might considered that some of my remarks directed at other posters were somewhat over the top, deliberately… and really, you have to admit the assertions made by Hebzabeb were far enough afield to indicate a serioius lack of understanding.
I freely admit I made of accusation of ignorance there. Looked to be fairly well supported by the statements made. I’ll stand by it as at least a reasonable working idea until Hebzabeb returns and makes at least a showing.
Anyway, I will start addressing the real issues in earnest after my “debate”… who knows when that will be, but I will give it a shot tonight.
If you don’t object. I may address your post in pieces as I have time instead of in one big post, as there is so much of it.
Funny line about driving creationists away. 
>Um… if you accept microevolution, you automatically
accept macroevolution. Macroevolution necessarily
follows from microevolution.
It does, huh? Okay; then I’m sure you can explain the step-by-step process of evolution of the sorts of biochemical organisms that Behe describes, not to mention other fun discussion topics such as the evolution of flight, or whales, or the reptile-to-mammal transition. I look forward to learning from you how all these things work.
Yours,
Dave
Well, for starters, this statement is incorrect. See here.
See the article I just linked to. Behe fails to distinguish between an absence in the literature being the result of lack of study, and his perception that the absence is the result of lack of evidence, period. This sounds very much like an appeal to a “God of the gaps”: if we don’t know, it must be design. However, the key word missing from such an inference is “we don’t know yet.” And that is one of the basic problems with ID: so long as gaps in our knowledge exist, for whatever reason, these will be pointed to as being “evidence” for ID. However, as indicated in the linked article, pieces are beginning to come together in the case of the flagellum.
Here, I have a philosphical disagreement. We know certain things to be designed, because we know we were responsible for them (e.g., mousetraps, pocket watches lying in fields). One cannot carry that same thinking over to nature, because we do not know a priori that complex structures were designed. We may surmise as much, but we must then be able to test that theory. Behe’s version of ID hinges on its proof being in the absence of a naturalistic explanation; in other words, it relies on the absence of evidence from another theory. ID, in order to have any merit, must stand, or fall, completely on its own.
And this quote from Behe’s book is a perfect example of what I just said. Producing a Darwinian pathway only verifies that natural selection may have been involved. It still says nothing whatsoever about any original design intent (or realization of that intent). Nor does the absence of such a pathway provide verification of ID. Again, ID cannot rely on gaps in knowledge from another theory, it must be able to produce experiments all on its own which can verify or falsify it. Thus far, to my knowledge, none have been put forth.
You will, unfortunatley, not learn much about how this particular sequence works, since there is no “reptile-to-mammal” transition - reptiles did not evolve into mammals.
Oh…sorry about screwing up the margins by quoting the double-underline thingy.
In order to create a new species, all that’s necessary is for a few genes that affect fertility to be affected. For example, there are insect species that are defined solely by the structure of their genitals; in all other ways, they’re identical to other insect species. If the genes responsible for sperm-egg compatibility shift even slightly, a population of animals can split into mutually infertile subspecies relatively quickly.
There have been lots of hypotheses about how and why flight evolved, but none of them require anything more than the accumulation of minor genetic changes.
Mammals probably didn’t evolve from reptiles. It’s more likely that they had a common ancestor. Some think that the dinosaurs were warm-blooded; do they qualify as reptiles?
Evolution can have some rather strange effects. For example, many reptiles have highly efficient kidneys that can remove most of the water from their urine. This gives them an edge in desert survival. For some reason, mammalian kidneys seem to have a maximum water-extraction of about 30%.
Clearly, one system couldn’t evolve into the other without some fairly improbable mutations that altered characteristics of the entire system. However, a more basic and simple system can easily be imagined to have acquired new and different characteristics over time, some of which were incompatible, in different groups of organisms.
Four questions, SVP:
1.) What do you make of the accusations of dishonesty which have been leveled at Behe?
2.) How are your arguments different from a God-of-the-Gaps argument?
3.) What books on evolution have you read which have been written by evolutionists? Because plenty has been written about the topics you mention above. (Although I’m surprised by the comment that there was no reptile-to-mammal transition. Aren’t therapsids the transitional species, like dimetrodon?)
4.) If a single system were claimed to be IC, and it could be shown that it was not, wouldn’t that destroy the validity of the argument from IC once and for all? After all, the argument is entirely an argument by default. Behe is claiming that one can so definitively determine that it was impossible for evolution to have produced a particular structure that one is forced to conclude that it was ID. But if it can be shown that that determination isn’t conclusive after all, how can you claim to have “proven” that evolution couldn’t be at work?
I don’t see that alot was left for me to tackle.
I had in mind to basically start with Darwin’s Finch’s “philosphical disagreement” line, but I think he might have done a better job with than I had quite worked out.
Its late here, guess I will see where this sits in the morning.
Synapsids (including therapsids) share a common ancestor with anapsids (turtles, et al.) and the other reptiles.
To break it down: Amniotes gave rise to Synapsids on the one hand, and Sauropsids on the other hand. Synapsida is the branch which includes the therapsids, cynodonts, and mammals. Sauropsida is the branch which includes the anapsids (turtles, et al.) and diapsid (pretty much everything else reptilian) reptiles. Since reptiles and mammals were never on the same branch, one cannot be considered the ancestor of the other.
Now, Synapsids did come from lizardy-looking things, but those things were just amniotes, not true reptiles. And the early therapsids are generally known as “mammal-like reptiles”, but that’s quite a misnomer, as they were really neither. So, there was a transition from lizardy-looking things to “mammal-like reptiles” to mammals proper, but it is not, technically, a “reptile to mammal” transition.
Hi DF,
The author of the article you link to (Ian Musgrave) wrote:
>As I said this is speculative, and a more detailed analysis of FliG and the FliG homologs, plus other components of the system, is needed to get a clearer picture.
Is this sort of mere “speculation” considered by you to be scientific demonstration and observation of a process of evolution, as Behe has challenged Darwinians to produce?
He goes on:
>I have presented evidence that eubacterial flagellar systems evolved from, and still function today as, secretory systems.
This is a very tentative sketch,
A “very tentative sketch” is a scientific observation of process and causal explanation?
>but it does seem that a fully detailed evolutionary explanation for eubacterial flagella is not so distant.
Oh, of course. As always, the explanation is right around the corner. But it is not here yet, it seems to me. So Behe’s point about it not yet having been explained is true. He then makes a judgment of IC. I understand that you guys disagree with that, but it is neither dishonest nor the death of science to make such a claim.
>While the details of the motor/rotor/filament system assembly
seem reasonably clear, the details of the evolution of the FliG,M,N torque generating sytem are lacking, as we know little about how these systems generate torque.
Case in point again. The actual course of evolution is neither known or described. So the point stands.
>See the article I just linked to.
I did, and I don’t see the answer there. I see (by the author’s own admission), a “speculative” scenario and a “very tentative sketch.”
You may find that to be an actual detailed explanation, and compelling. I do not; sorry.
>Behe fails to distinguish between an absence in the literature being the result of lack of study, and his perception that the absence is the result of lack of evidence, period.
This is a distinction without a difference. You say it is due to a lack of study, and we will solve the mystery with further study. But that is always the Darwinist reply. We will solve the mystery of the origin of life with “just a bit more study” (yeah, right). We will discover life elsewhere in the universe pretty soon (yeah, right). The fact remains that the answer is not here NOW.
>This sounds very much like an appeal to a “God of the gaps”: if we don’t know, it must be design.
This is always the retort too: “God of the gaps.” I could write and write on this, but I don’t have the energy; the issues are many and complex. At this point I will simply say that, philosophically, there is little distinction between a bare evolutionary speculation with an unproven materialistic axiom behind it and a bare intelligent design speculation with an ultimately unprovable theistic axiom behind it. One always gets to a place where something is assumed, unproven, and unprovable. My argument here (bottom line) is that materialism is untenable as a starting-point. It is not necessary to do science (as most of the great early scientists were both Christians and creationists, and that didn’t seem to hamper their scientific abilities). Science itself begins with many unproven assumptions. Christianity provided many of those, which explains much about the time and place of the origin of modern science.
My opinion is that both competing views reduce eventually to philosophy, where it is a different ballgame. What you call “god of the gaps” is simply an acknowledgement that there are things that science cannot answer in its own purview and field of study. The honest scientists who knows his philosophy and epistemology will acknowledge this. But the pompous one who thinks science is the be-all and end-all of knowledge, will not.
Therefore, I say that appealing to God is no more an appeal to ignorance, or a “default” position as appeal to the supposed miraculous capabilites of mutations to create all evolutionary changes in due course, given enough time. Time is the other “quasi-God” concept co-opted. Matter can do anything, and time makes anything possible. As I wrote in another essay, materialistic science has merely substituted the all-powerful atom for the all-powerful God, and Time is the goddess that helps to make all things possible as well. It is a religious position at bottom.
Once one understands that science cannot be totally isolated from the philosophy of which it is but one branch, then they will realize that speculation about design and a Creator are not impermissible, simply because they cannot strictly be proven. They are concepts of spirit, not matter, but so is much of evolutionary speculation, which has no real basis in observation and demonstration. This gets into another huge discussion of the compartmentalization of knowledge: one of my long-running pet peeves.
>However, the key word missing from such an inference is “we don’t know yet.” And that is one of the basic problems with ID: so long as gaps in our knowledge exist, for whatever reason, these will be pointed to as being “evidence” for ID.
How is that substantially different from relentless appeal to the omnipotent mutation and the omnipotent atom, which can do absolutely anything we see in the universe? You can’t prove that and you can’t disprove that a God might be involved.
>However, as indicated in the linked article,
pieces are beginning to come together in the case of the flagellum.
That’s not good enough. If we are going to go by current scientific knowledge, then it ain’t there yet.
>Here, I have a philosphical disagreement.
Glad to see that you recognize philosophy as a field of knowledge, too.
>We know certain things to be designed, because we know we were
responsible for them (e.g., mousetraps, pocket watches lying in fields). One cannot carry that same thinking over to
nature, because we do not know a priori that complex structures were designed.
It’s an analogy. Of course we don’t “know” that there was design, by science, and I don’t see how we could know that by laws of physics. But analogical logic is a valid analysis of a set of facts because we use this sort of analysis all the time, in many fields of study.
>We may surmise as much, but we
must then be able to test that theory.
What would be a test of such a thing? I contend that it is philosophical, but it is not inconsistent with science. I think Behe would also admit this, if pressed, and that is probably what he means.
>Behe’s version of ID hinges on its proof being in the absence of a naturalistic explanation; in other words, it relies on the absence of evidence from another theory.
Not necessarily. I think he would say that in the absence of explanatory value of one theory, that we ought to be allowed to think “outside the box” and contemplate perhaps another explanation: that of theistic evolution or intelligent design. But dogmatic thinking structures do not permit thinking outside the box.
>ID, in order to have any merit,
must stand, or fall, completely on its own.
It can do so on philosophical grounds, in terms not inconsistent with science, though not technically within science as a field, epistemologically or methodologically. Materialistic evolution, on the other hand, is not so self-consistent. It claims to be demonstrable on scientific, empirical grounds alone, yet it fails to produce the goods all too often, and cannot be demonstrated, But it is believed anyway (which, to me, is the equivalent of “faith” in scientific circles: going beyond what is demonstrable). But materialism keeps pretending that it has all the answers when it clearly does not, and refuses to allow any alternative to have any airing whatever. It’s a sort of ongoing game or charade.
> . . . Producing a Darwinian pathway only verifies
that natural selection may have been involved. It still says nothing whatsoever about any original design intent (or realization of that intent). Nor does the absence of such a pathway provide verification of ID. Again, ID cannot rely on
gaps in knowledge from another theory, it must be able to produce experiments all on its own which can verify or falsify
it. Thus far, to my knowledge, none have been put forth.
I can’t imagine any such experiment. It is a philosophical construct in the first place, dealing with spirit and not matter, though the relationship between the two is highly complex, as anyone who has studied the classic mind-body question in philosophy knows.
Yours,
Dave
[Darwin’s Finch then provided links to articles explaining whale evolution and the origin of flight:
http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/whaleorigins.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html ]
Neither of your articles gives me the step-by-step explanation that I am demanding. It’s mere speculation, as always. Instead, we have statements like, “Perhaps the most perplexing and controversial aspect of the study of flight is the study of how and why flight evolved.” Or: “In this convergence, we can see some semblance of general ‘rules’ that may govern how animals evolve flight, and from these rules we can perhaps glean a hint of what it takes for an animal to have potential for flight.” Or: “Why wings (and hence flight) evolved from this point is a matter of contention among scientists.” He then gives four hypotheses which have been proposed (apparently not an exhausive list), one of which is, we are told, “non-falsifiable.”
This is not empirical demonstration, and it is hardly compelling. The true believer finds it to be marvelously persuasive “evidence,” though, because he manages to fit almost every conceivable
observation, theory, hypothesis, or merest speculation into a materialistic evolutionary framework in some fashion. Likewise, the article on whale evolution gives no hypothetical step-by-step
process whatever: not even a bare hypothetical speculation.
Therefore, no one has yet answered my challenge: “step-by-step process of evolution of the sorts of biochemical organisms that Behe describes, not to mention other fun discussion topics such as
the evolution of flight, or whales, or the reptile-to-mammal transition.” No one has even tried, let alone tackle the processes involved in Behe’s biochemical scenarios. You guys have all this
knowledge, just waiting to share it with inquirers and skeptics such as myself? I’m all ears. I’ve seen nothing of any significance in reply yet. You wanna claim that all these alleged evolutionary
step-by-step processes have been scientifically demonstrated? By all means show me, and please put it in layman’s terms. All good thinkers are able to simplify complicated data and information for the sake of teaching laymen.
Yours,
Dave
Ben wrote:
>Four questions, SVP:
>1.) What do you make of the accusations of dishonesty
which have been leveled at Behe?
I think it is the same old tired tactic of demonizing and personally attacking any critic of evolutionary theory – ad hominem fallacy.
>2.) How are your arguments different from a
God-of-the-Gaps argument?
Explained in another post, above.
>3.) What books on evolution have you read which have
been written by evolutionists? Because plenty has been
written about the topics you mention above. (Although
I’m surprised by the comment that there was no
reptile-to-mammal transition. Aren’t therapsids the
transitional species, like dimetrodon?)
The issue is not how much I know or don’t know. It is irrelevant how educated I am on the topic. I can hold my own, I think, but I approach the topic primarily in a philosophical way, as a philosopher of science would do. I am also playing the skeptic, and Socrates: I’m asking you to, in effect, “put up or shut up.” Even if one is relatively ignorant of a subject, if he has a logical and critical mind, he can see logical flaws in arguments.
You claim to have all this demonstrated evidence of process, whereas Behe says that you don’t? Very well, then; I am willing to listen to what you have to say. Explain to me this step-by-step process (of his biochemical organisms) in simple layman’s terms, without recourse to all sorts of technical information that can obfuscate the basic issues at hand by creating a facade of knowledge where in fact, there is none (about processes).
You write, “plenty has been written about the topics you mention above.” I’m delighted to hear this. That means, then, that you will find it very easy, certainly, to cut-and-paste something from the Internet. Thus far, no one has done any such thing. The cited articles so far were either entirely lacking in real, causal explanations of process, or tentative to such an extent that they were underwhelming in their persuasive force (to put it mildly). You only dig your own rhetorical grave if you make such comments and then fail to fulfill a simple request for information.
>4.) If a single system were claimed to be IC, and it
could be shown that it was not, wouldn’t that destroy
the validity of the argument from IC once and for all?
It might for that particular system; I don’t think it would disprove the entire outlook, anymore than tons of unexplained phenomena or anomalies do not cause the slightest dent in the materialistic evolutionary edifice, where the true believers are concerned.
>After all, the argument is entirely an argument by
default.
It is entirely a philosophical argument, which is not – by its very nature – anti-scientific or contrary to science. It is simply different from materialistic science, and goes beyond empiricism, which is not the only valid form of knowledge.
>Behe is claiming that one can so definitively
determine that it was impossible for evolution to have
produced a particular structure that one is forced to
conclude that it was ID.
This gets into plausibility and inductive leaps: very difficult subjects.
>But if it can be shown that that determination isn’t conclusive after all, how can you claim to have “proven” that evolution couldn’t be at
work?
I don’t think “proof” is the right word. What I’m arguing is a fair-minded look at the epistemology and root assumptions of both competing thought-systems. I would talk in terms of relative degrees of plausibility or believability. For me, ID is much more plausible and believable than materialistic evolution. You think the opposite. I wanna know why, and I wanna see demonstration of the processes that Behe claims have not been demonstrated in the literature.
Yours,
Dave
It may not have been fully explained, but the process is under way. And his judgment of IC, had you read the article with an unbiased eye, you would have seen to be false. It is not the case that all flagella everywhere require 50 different proteins to function. Nor is it the case that if indivudal parts are removed, the parts of the flagellum necessarily cease to function.
The point does not stand. A theoretical pathway has been put forth. If you don’t agree with it, refute it. That’s the way these things work. That the particular pathway hasn’t been “proven” is irrelevant.
I do not find it to be detailed explanation. But I don’t see any IDers putting forth any rebuttals, either, other than the handwaving you exhibit here. Why is that?
Which is precisely why Behe’s ID is nothing more than “God of the gaps.” As I said, if the theory cannot stand on its own merit, it is useless. Put forth one experiment, independent of any Darwinian theory, which can be used to falsify ID.
I just explained why “God of the gaps” is so often trotted out. It has nothing to do with evolution - it has everything to do with the fact that ID does not, nor can it, make any claims which stand on their own.
Which, of course, disqualifies IDers as “honest scientists”, since none are capable of disassociating the theory from its metaphysic. In the eyes of any IDer, naturalism must be false. Not “might be”, must be. Science, however, does not require ontological naturalism - it only requires methodological naturalism, which is not the same thing.
You can say that, but it doesn’t make your position tenable. The alleged “miraculous capabilities of mutations”, aside from being a strawman (mutations in and of themselves are not the creative force of evolution) have a logical, and empirical, basis. In short, there is, in fact, nothing miraculous about them.
Another strawman. Mutations have never been put forth as being “omnipotent”.
It ain’t there yet, but it’s a heck of a lot farther along than the ID alternative, now isn’t it? And what is that alternative? “God designed it.” Which, if you wish to put forth as a statement of faith is all fine and dandy. If, however, you wish to make that a scientific statement, you’re going to have to provide some real evidence. Feel free to do so.
Exactly - it’s a false analogy. One which is based in circular logic: nature cannot have designed itself. Therefore, anything which has the appearace of design in nature, must have had an exterior designer.
That’s the point: one cannot test, and thereby falsify, such a thing. It may not be inconsistent with science, but it surely falls outside of its purview as a consequence.
**
Well, we could also think “outside the box” and posit that it’s all fairy magic. But where does that get us?
This is a common complaint amongst IDers: that dogmatic thinking will not allow scientists to consider such a thing. Which is, of course, completely false. One is free to explore any philosophical possibilities one cares to; however, just because one can posit a non-scientific alternative does not make it valid.
**
“It’s too complex for nature to have done it” is hardly valid philosophical grounds for ID to stand on. And your claim that evolution cannot be demonstrated only shows the depth of your bias…and ignorance.
And, as I said, you can air any alternative you like. But if you’re going to fall back on the “non-scientific” philosophy of ID, then you must likewise admit that fairy magic is every bit as valid as an alternative.
Which, as mentioned, places it firmly in the realm of faith, not science. It has as much merit in this position as standard young-earth creationism. Which you’ve already claimed to reject - why do you accept the one but not the other?
What do you feel are the “basic issues at hand”? Please give examples of this “facade of knowledge”.
Can you explain how ID represents a philosophically more satisfying argument than materialism?
Suppose, for a moment, that we accept that ID is plausible. What then? What “knowledge” is gained thereby that a naturalistic methodology fails to provide? Of what practical use is such a position?
What sort of “real, causal explanations of process” are you looking for?