Canadian vendor of Darwin’s certainties strikes back against O’Leary

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 19, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yes, Calgary Herald columnist Rob Breakenridge has felt the need to respond to my response to his abuse of anyone who does not worship Darwin.

Could anyone here help Breakenridge’s readers understand better why the world in general does not worship Darwin?

Comments

I think it should be mentioned that Bill Dembski does not believe that the scientific evidence supports common descent or universal common ancestry. So if you are going to be intolerant of people who doubt Darwinian descent, I ask why are you not blocked.PannenbergOmega_{August 24, 2008
August
08
Aug
24
24
2008
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Jerry asks,
Jack, you keep on ducking the issue. Why is something taught in the science curriculum that fails the Kansas science standards?
I don't understand this question. How can something "fail" the Kansas science standards? And schools teach lots of stuff that is not in the standards: the standards are a core set of learning outcomes, not a complete curriculum. So I really don't understand this question.Jack Krebs_{August 23, 2008
August
08
Aug
23
23
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, "Evolutionary theory is not atheistic, and teaching it is not teaching religion." But if a major part of evolutionary theory has no basis in science and is still taught. One has to ask the question why is it taught. It may not be classified at teaching religion but the teaching of it is most likely ideological. It certainly is not science. Jack, you keep on ducking the issue. Why is somethig taught in the science curriculum that fails the Kansas science standards?jerry_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs:
The track record for science figuring stuff out has been pretty good the past five centuries or so, so some confidence that we still can figure out things that we haven’t yet is not unwarranted.
This is an unbelievably cocky statement. Physicists have a long list of bafflers: dark matter, dark energy, the big bang. Biologists have been working on this first life thing for centuries. Nearly all they have found is that life occurred a lot sooner in the early earth than they thought, that all known life is way the heck more complicated and more precise than they thought. Biologists have a bunch of other sticky questions: First information, Irreduceable complexity, The cambiran explosion, Which came first, the protein, or the DNA or RNA code that defines it. There's LOTS more. Will science discover a whole bunch of new stuff? Oh, why, yes! Why? Because there is so darn much to the universe that science hasn't discovered yet! Will science discover answers to the great questions that I mentioned in this post? One or two of 'em, maybe. I really expect that the nature of dark matter will be discovered (or that the whole dark matter think will prove to be spurious.) Will the OOL equation ever be solved? Well, that depends on what really happened. If primodial soup happened, yup, but I'm not holding my breath. If panspermia happened, possibly. If "poof" happened, well, no.bFast_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

bfast: Your comments @75 provide several interesting thought stimulators.StephenB_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Jack, consider for a moment that DNA based life on earth just popped into existance. Consider for a moment that it didn't arrive via outer space (panspermia), rather it just went poof, and there it was. Now, this sits outside of the framework of philosophical naturalism. It sits outside of the possibility of being discovered via the mechanism of methodological naturalism. Yet, when there is no serious evidence to the contrary, to say that this is not what happened is unjustified. If, without serious evidence to the contrary, we say that the poof hypothesis is in error, we are declaring a committment to philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism couldn't find "poof" if it wanted to, but cannot discount "poof". Philosophical naturalism discounts "poof". To discount "poof" is to adopt the position of philosophical naturalism. Even though the discovery that there is a naturalistic pathway to DNA-based life would not discount a theistic explanation, to confidently declare that we will discover how life came to be, that we will discover that "poof"is invalid, is to adopt the position of philosophical naturalism. Now, as for your challenge that, "We don’t know how to get a tumor to stop growing yet", somehow this is fundimentally a different question. We know that tumors grow. We know that we can stop tumors from growing (killing the patient works.) We just haven't found a way of stopping all tumors from growing without killing the patient. (We have found ways of stopping many tumors from growing without killing the patient.)bFast_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

-----bfast: "Jack, I am puzzled. I understand your frustration with the Kansas YECers who present ID as an education option. I agree with you when you suggest that they are being decietful. However, I fail to understand why you discount the religious perspective of the evolutionist adherants. If the true motivation of those who want evolution taught is to make them feel more fulfilled as athiests, why would you not see this as a problem? Why would you not see that teaching neo-Darwinan evolution is, in a real way, teaching religion in schools?" bfast: Here is how Jack’s game is played. If you are a Darwinist, your motives don’t matter, because Darwinists are scientists and they would never allow their atheism to leak into their science. If you are a theistic evolutionist, (or a Christian Darwinist) your motives don’t matter either, because you can safely distinguish your science from your religious sensibilities. However, if you are ID, your motives are everything and you deserve to be exposed for the ideologue that you are. You may think you are doing science, but your intense desire for the supernatural prevents you from thinking straight about the laws of nature. Your religion soaked mind will contaminate your thinking so severely that you will be unable to consider any hypothesis other than “God did it.” And even if you don’t, the YECs that support you do, so that means that you do as well. What it all adds up to is this: If you are serious about your faith and, unless that faith has been reconciled to Darwinism, it contaminates your mind and invalidates your science. That is what Jack believes and, in effect, that is what he tells the world.StephenB_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

For the great majority of people who want evolution taught, making them fulfilled as atheists is not the "true motivation", or even a motivation at all. Among other things, many such people are Christians or people of other religious perspectives. Evolutionary theory is not atheistic, and teaching it is not teaching religion. Also, I do understand your point about "yet", although I disagree that adding it is equivalent to moving from methodological to philosophical naturalism. We don't know how to get a tumor to stop growing yet, but having some confidence that we might eventually do so doesn't mean I'm a philosophical naturalist. The track record for science figuring stuff out has been pretty good the past five centuries or so, so some confidence that we still can figure out things that we haven't yet is not unwarranted.Jack Krebs_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Jack, I am puzzled. I understand your frustration with the Kansas YECers who present ID as an education option. I agree with you when you suggest that they are being decietful. However, I fail to understand why you discount the religious perspective of the evolutionist adherants. If the true motivation of those who want evolution taught is to make them feel more fulfilled as athiests, why would you not see this as a problem? Why would you not see that teaching neo-Darwinan evolution is, in a real way, teaching religion in schools?bFast_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs (62):
(although mainstream scientists would say that we are “penetrating” these areas in bits and pieces)
This is a prime example of the "Yet", as in we don't have an explanation for the origin of life yet. This "yet" is philosophical naturalism. In my book, it is every bit as much religion as any other religion is. While I do believe that scientists should be pursuing a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, I also see an incredible exageration of how close science is to answering this question. For methodological naturalism to keep itself separate from philosophical naturalism, it must insist that this may be the problem that will never be solved via natural means.bFast_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Dave, please. I know very well that the ID MOVEMENT, is in part, faith based. That has nothing at all to do with ID science. Jack is conflating the two to obfuscate the point and justify his contention that ID science is faith based. Don't let him off the hook on this one. His point is to suggest that ID motives, (from whatever source) leak into the science and invalidate it. This cannot be allowed to stand.StephenB_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

StephenB Trust me here. There IS plenty of evidence that ID is faith based amongst many adherents. Be that as it may the entire spectrum of adherents are not all faith based. ID as defined on the sidebar is the general definition composed by a group of "IDists" of differing religious faiths or no faith at all. Any deviation, addition, or subtraction from it, is a departure from the science of ID and an indulgence of personal beliefs held by the individual making the departure. Those personal beliefs may be based on science, or religion, or nothing at all. For instance I believe the earth is the billions of years old that disparate sciences with no religious dogs in the hunt say it is. My belief is based in science. Other ID pundits disbelieve the age of the earth and I can assure you the disbelief stems from a more literal interpretation of biblical revelation rather than from any dispassionate review of the scientific evidence - the bible is the authoritative reference in that case and scientific evidence is interpreted as needed to make it conform to the authoritative source. If those person want to persist in holding the bible out as the ultimate source of scientific truth that's their business but they shouldn't be surprised when they continue to be marginalized and alienated by their peers who do not view the bible as an inerrant scientific reference. On the other hand there are certainly a lot of scientists who are the polar opposite, positive atheists, who also let their faith in a purposeless universe become the basis for belief and they too interpret the scientific evidence as needed to be congruent with their faith so, as usual, there's plenty of blame in the way of letting personally held dogma interfere with and corrupt an honest, objective pursuit of science. The political fighting inspired by the dogmatists is enough to drive the rest of us to distraction. It really needs to stop. DaveScot_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Since Jack Krebs is evading the issue, I will frame the issue for him. He has stated that there is plenty of evidence that "ID is faith based>" That is a flat out untruth, and I am asking him to back it up. First of all, the phrase is a semantic monstrosity. The only formulation that means anything is whether ID SCIENCE is faith based, which it obviously is not. Whether the ID movement is faith based is a totally separate question, and that is something that can be discussed separately. Also, he presents this false logic that some YECs are ID therefore ID supports YEC That is like saying that since most blacks are democrats, it follows that most democrats are black. I am asking him to provide his evidence that ID science is faith based and use ID science to back up that ridiculous charge.StephenB_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

I'm sorry Jerry. I did not read thoroughly enough: you did clearly state in a later paragraph that you were talking about the two big issues of the OOL and "macro" evolution. My apologies for responding to just one statement without carefully reading the rest of your post.Jack Krebs_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, I am well aware of what biology had found out about life but I am talking evolutionary biology here and you know it. I said there was two big things about life that we know nothing about and you immediately deflect to all the other stuff. Today's biology books are over a thousand pages long and evolutionary biology is about 15% of that. As I said there are two big questions and science is no further on either one than they were in Darwin's time. You then deflect by saying OOL is not part of the curriculum. But Jack, macro evolution is part of it and the science that is used to explain macro evolution is bogus and does not meet Kansas standards. So please don't deflect again.jerry_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

P.S. Neither here nor there I have I said categorically that ID is not science - I think if you review my posts you will see that.Jack Krebs_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the link. I'm sure all of us return to topics that we've discussed before, and all of us have topics that we are most interested in. I think I said some of the same things there that I said here, but maybe more specifically there.Jack Krebs_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Geez, Jack, didn't this general conversation (ID is not science) already take place? https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/complex-speciation-of-humans-and-chimpanzees/#comment-189913Patrick_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Jerry writes,
The science used in Kansas to explain the questions of life do not meet these science criteria.
I'm not sure what Jerry means by the "questions of life," but the Kansas Science standards don't contain any statements on the origin of life. Jerry also writes,
However, there is one major area for which natural laws can not seem to penetrate and that is life.
It seems to me that modern biology is finding out more about life all the time. I understand that there are points of contention about the origin of life and aspects of evolution (although mainstream scientists would say that we are "penetrating" these areas in bits and pieces), but significant progress has been made and is being made on the natural processes that are going on in living things.Jack Krebs_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

CECO9 @57 You write three more paragrphs without making a point. Would you mind making it now.StephenB_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

CEC09, Let me point out something to you that your are obviously aware of but fail to mention. Since the beginning of time people have wondered about the cause of reality and all the phenomena they witnessed. The natural tendency was to attribute it to something with great power and in the process formed all sorts of scenarios for the world and what happens in it. Then along comes people like Gailileo, Newton, LaPlace and others who develop theories that explain a lot of the order in terms of what are called natural laws. It has reached its culmination today with the current theories of physics and it is still striving to explain even more. These natural laws are extended in many directions and the phenomena which they explain seem to encompass everything. However, there is one major area for which natural laws can not seem to penetrate and that is life. Many people assume that life will succumb to the explanation of these natural laws. We have a myriad of different hypotheses that are devised to account for life's properties and we assume it is just a matter of time before life too will succumb to logical extensions of these laws. Along the way there are hypotheses generated and tested and then discarded to explain some of the major questions of life. Two of these major questions are how did life get started and then once it got started how did it expand in complexity over time. Now herein lies the problem. While physics and its offshoot chemistry seem to keep expanding their field of explanation, the hypotheses for the explanations about life are at a stand still. However, this is not admitted in the academy. Instead the general public is told and also the members of the academy are told that great strides are taking place in each of these two questions and have essentially been solved. The main tool to do this is to use a bait and switch approach with something called Darwinian evolution. The original hypothesis proposed by Darwin has been expanded and modified many times but the essential underlying hypothesis is still there. This modified theory does explain a lot of small stuff but neither of the two main questions has been answered. The multitude of small things which this theory can explain is presented and then before we know it, we are told that the major things have also been explained. But they are not. We are presented with either the false proposition that the second of the major questions has been solved or that it has essentially been solved and the answer to the first question is just around the corner. But that is false. Current science is no closer to solving these two questions today then they were in Darwin's time. Oh we understand a lot more about a minor sub question of how life changes over time but we are not closer to the questions that puzzled people since the beginning of time. This is an interesting phenomena. With all this knowledge, why are we no nearer the solution then before. Maybe there is an explanation that is not being considered. Some people recognized this and say that some of the science used in our schools is false and we should admit it. Some form different approaches to counter the false science. One set uses a very religious basis for their approach and this runs into legal challenges because of its religious connotations. Others say that there is no need to bring religion into this because the basic disagreement is over science. Let's use science to counter these false scientific claims. And so you have ID. Maybe not quite science the way it has traditionally been practiced but it uses the tools of science to expose the shortcomings of the current science. Along the way it tries to develop hypotheses about alternative explanations and possible way of falsifying them. The academy is desperate so what do they do but attack the philosophical implications of this second approach rather than present their own science itself or answer the scientific objections presented or God forbid actually admit the current level of scientific knowledge. Jack Krebs was involved in developing science standards for the state of Kansas. The science used in Kansas to explain the questions of life do not meet these science criteria. ID objects and when it does it is the religion of the objectors that is examined, not the claims about the bogus science. So you can go on all you want about the shortcomings of Dembski and Behe's work but it essentially avoids the real issue. Namely, bad science is being portrayed as good. And why? Do you not think it is for ideological reasons? So I would apply you micro scope some where else.jerry_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

CECO9 &56 you write four irrelevant paragraphs challenging my proposition that ID motives have nothing to do with ID science. Inasmuch as not one word in those four paragraphs addresses that proposition, would you care to try again.StephenB_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs: Basically your argument is this: Many YECs on the board supported ID, therefore ID supports YEC/ Obviously, that is a monumentally naïve logical error. In fact, it constitutes two logical errors. First, it doesn’t follow that IF A, then B therefore, IF B, then A. Second, you are comparing a demographic with a thought system. So, you commit two logical errors in one proposition. That is no small trick. Of course, I understand your mission. The idea is to stretch logic and the truth to peddle the idea that ID is not science. Naturally, if we get into the science, it will become obvious that it has nothing to do with religion. Which is, of course, the reason why you avoid it.StephenB_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
So, rather than discuss issues like “specified complexity,” or “irreducible complexity,” or “cosmological fine tuning,” you immediately change the subject and start discussing possible ID motives.
H. J. Muller identified interlocking complexity and treated it as a common phenomenon in evolution long before Behe called it irreducible complexity. But let's forget that. How, precisely, does the empirical observation of irreducible complexity put the notion of intelligence and purpose in your head? Is it just the universal tendency of humans to anthropomorphize natural phenomena that astound and mystify them? Or could prior belief that some entity that is like humans because it made humans like itself play just a teeny-tiny role in your interpretation of what you see? How would you ever set up a (false) dichotomy of intelligent, purposive design and unguided evolution unless you had some prior hunch that a purposeful intelligence had been at work in nature? Ideas like that do not come out of thin air. I hate to tell you this, but... As best I can tell, Dr. Dembski last wrote about specified complexity in early 2005. I'm not sure, but I think he may not have mentioned the explanatory filter in writing since then, either. He seems to have moved on to the "no free lunch" regress and active information, but not to have told his acolytes that they should do the same. If I have missed something, do please tell me. In its latest (final?) form, CSI was founded on a radical extension of Fisherian hypothesis testing. I have my doubts that the statistics would have gotten through peer review, had Dembski written up just that part of his work and submitted it to some journals. What I'm saying is that CSI is not dead because of the ID, but because of a faulty statistical foundation. CECO09 - Accolytes? You can go act like an asshat elsewhere. Obviously you hold an unshakable faith that nothing but religion is behind ID and now your frustration in no one here accepting that is causing you to become frustrated and insulting. Since you can no longer contain your disdain you are no longer welcome. Goodbye. -dsCEC09_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

StephenB (49):
... the motives of ID followers have absolutely nothing to do with the methods of its scientists.
Show me a scientist who says, "ID has these strengths, but these weaknesses, and may one day be replaced by a better theory." Then I will accept that there is such a thing as an ID scientist, rather than an ID believer. I have not encountered a single ID advocate who considers ID a tenuous explanation of observations. In other words, I have not encountered a single advocate of ID as a scientific theory, rather than as a reality science must be made to acknowledge. There is disagreement among ID advocates as to what was designed when. The "your hypothesis is OK, my hypothesis is OK" state of affairs is embarrassing. What scientists do in such situations is to devise tests of vying hypotheses. They're not worried about anyone leaving the little tent of science. I have bent over backwards to make sense of ID without reference to religion. I would not say that ID is intrinsically religious, but I find its intellectual content unexplainable without reference to religion. The observation of complex material entities of apparently low probability does not force on us explanation in terms of non-material intelligence and purpose. ID makes plenty of sense if one regards it as constructed to square with the belief that humans, created in the image of God, are not merely material entities, but spiritual entities purposefully and intelligently altering the course of events in the material world by acts of free will (creation of information). And God of course created the universe and humankind with purpose. In and of itself, ID is intellectually legitimate. What is illegitimate is to deny the origin of ID, which is clearly documented. It is also illegitimate to claim that ID scientists are engaged in legitimate research when it's under wraps. The mathematical work of Dembski is not science. Behe's interpretation of selected research results of other scientists is designed only to support ID theory, not to test it.CEC09_{August 22, 2008
August
08
Aug
22
22
2008
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

----Jack: I think there is a lot of evidence to support the contention that for many people - the majority of supporters - ID is a religious-based enterprise. Now this is precisely what I was referring to earlier when I pointed out that you misrepresent ID and you have been doing so for a long time. On the one hand, you seem to know nothing at all about the science, since each time I raise the issue you simply ignore the point. On the other hand, you may know enough about the science to know that it really is science. So, rather than discuss issues like “specified complexity,” or “irreducible complexity,” or “cosmological fine tuning,” you immediately change the subject and start discussing possible ID motives. Instinctively, you seem to know that any discussion about ID methodology will immediately refute you entire thesis about ID being religion based. So, you begin the motive mongering. The idea is to take away IDs privilege of defining itself and to redefine it as something else. Can you catch an ID scientist talking about God in public? Great. Impute fundamentalist motives to him and define ID science on those terms. Can you dig up an old copy of the “wedge” document? Excellent. Focus on ID as a social movement and raise the prospect of a theocracy. Can you find a quote from Dembski about his religious faith? Perfect. Portray him as a religious ideologue and tell everyone you know that he intrudes his religion on his science. Whatever the perceived failing, make sure that you describe is as the norm and keep pushing the theme of guilt by association. Do whatever it takes to keep the discussion away from the only reality that counts--- the empirically- anchored design inference that makes ID what it is.StephenB_{August 21, 2008
August
08
Aug
21
21
2008
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

bFast,
So what is my underlying motivation for being ID? Its simple. I develop computer software for a living. I look at DNA, and I see software. I find it inconceivable that the thing that I use my best intellect to do can actually be done better by a few simple laws, some jiggling, and a bunch of zeros in the years column.
Your comment 47 strikes me as tremendously honest, and I truly appreciate that. I have no problem with ID per se, but I do with people who dissimilate in hope of circumventing federal case law regarding separation of church and state. See my next note, a response to StephenB@48. Let's leave out the jiggling for a moment. Did you know that Marcus Hutter gave an algorithm for solving all well defined problems, and proved that its running time for a problem is no more than five times that of the fastest algorithm for solving that problem (plus an additive constant)? The additive constant may be large in some cases, but in many important cases it is close to zero. The general algorithm is highly parallel, so you can essentially get around the expense of human programming by running the general algorithm on a network of computers. Computer time is cheap relative to human time. The upshot is that the importance of human programming is not always what you and I, as programmers, intuitively sense it to be. I think you might feel differently about the capacity of undirected processes to latch in information about orderly environments if you actually worked hands-on with programs implementing them. Consider predicting what your next observation of a natural process will be. Loosely speaking, if processes are more likely to be simple than complex, all you have to do to gain an advantage over random (uniform) search of model space is to prefer simple models to complex ones in a randomized search. The theoretical basis for this is in an area known as universal learning. We don't know that apparently complex processes generally have good models that are simple. But as a practical matter, we can't do science if it is not so. We assume it is so, and we seem to succeed in modeling natural processes. So we keep doing what we've been doing.CEC09_{August 21, 2008
August
08
Aug
21
21
2008
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

To bfast: I see your point. I was following Stephen's language when he used phrases such as "arbitrarily reject ID as science." My point is that they are not arbitrarily rejecting ID a priori, but because they think it is wrong. Now some of the ways they think it is wrong may be because they think it is making untestable philosophical arguments and they may also think it is wrong in that where it does make potentially testable statements it is wrong. I think one would have to look at particular statements to decide where along this spectrum any one particular statement lies.Jack Krebs_{August 21, 2008
August
08
Aug
21
21
2008
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

1. The majority of ID supporters reject at least one of the above four propositions. Almost all of the group who worked on and voted for the Kansas Science standards were YEC's. Fourteen out of the 17 ID supporters at the Kansas Science hearings denied accepting common descent, and quite a few denied an old earth. I don't think I have mischaracterized a substantial majority of ID supporters, and the facts I just mentioned surely show that my whole statement is not nonsense. 2. As I said above, TE's accept all of the above as a "solid description of and explanation for the history of life on earth." They don't accept the ID disclaimer that some extra input is needed for something "new, complicated, functional" to arise through evolution.Jack Krebs_{August 21, 2008
August
08
Aug
21
21
2008
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Jack:
I know I’m being redundant here, but TE’s don’t arbitrarily reject ID as science. They reject it as science for what they consider good reasons.
I'm confused by this statement. Whats with the "its not science" bit. This seems a very different statement than "its in error". Behe presented a very simple, testable hypothesis. He chose as his feature example the bacterial flagellum. He simply challenged that this device is "irreduceably complex" and therefore is not likely to be evolved. This is an hypothesis, it is clearly falsifiable. It is science! To say that it is not science seems ludicrous to me. Now, somebody has suggested that the type 3 secretory system or whatever it is is built up of a subset of the flagellum's proteins. The statement is then made, by Miller at least, that the ICness of the flagellum has been falsified. I fail to follow this. Just because bicycles use wheels, does that prove that the car is not irreduceably complex? The ID community has countered that there is good reason to believe that the secretory system came into existance after the flagellum did. This should undo the "falsification" of the flagellum in the first place. Jack, I can understand that you would suggest that ID is poor science, that it is eroneous, but you said that it "is not science". Please explain. ps: I know right well that Dr. Dembski, the owner of this site, is quite prepared to zap anyone who considers ID to be "not science". He finds the position to be anathema. Though I would make different decisions than he makes, I well understand him in that.bFast_{August 21, 2008
August
08
Aug
21
21
2008
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply