Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Guardian Interview with Behe

William Dembski
September 13, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A Design for Life
John Sutherland meets Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent design, the controversial theory that evolution alone cannot explain life’s complexity
Go here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1567967,00.html

Comments
Dr. Arnhart, Again, what relevance is your question to the specific structure of the design inference as it's articulated in the literature? Your question may make for a good zinger or soundbite, but I fail to see how it bears on any claim made by any of the major ID proponents. Another question: would you ask the same question of Guillermo Gonzalez that you asked of Behe? Are Gozalez' arguments for the apparent design of the earth invalid until he proposes a mechanism by which the designer might build a planet? Fine, I offer Douglas Adams' planet-generating factory from So Long and Thanks for All the Fish. It has all the qualities of a causal mechanism that you asked for. Now what possible relevance would that have to Gonzalez' argument?dave
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Arnhart, IDT is science. It proves rationally that many things in nature are designed. But science cannot say who the designer is. From here theology starts. Theology affirms the designer is God. You are free to not believe theology. You are free to not believe IDT too. In this case you deny science and rationality.niwrad
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
To DaveScot: You say that the intelligent designer employs "advanced technology." What kind of technology? Is this compatible with what niwad says about God designing bacterial flagella "out of this world, before time, and without need of any natural causes"? Or would the intelligent designer's "advanced technology" work through natural causes?Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
"A puff of smoke? To talk like this plays into the hands of ID’s opponents, who want to argue that ID is religion and not science. Surely, the IDers must reject that if they want ID to become the new scientific paradigm. " What has Darwinism, or any form of naturalism, ever offered but a puff of smoke. Victorian fairy tales do not constitute a valid scientific research program. That is why critics of darwinism see it as a form of religion, or worse, superstition.MGD
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Arnhart: "Any sufficiently advanced technology appears as magic." --Arthur C. Clarke This is what Behe was alluding to with "puff of smoke".DaveScot
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Arnhart: The bacterial flagellum self-assembles. Working details of one method of self- assembly of nanometer scale machinery is described in this online reference http://www.foresight.org/EOC/ This is one way a designer could have done it.DaveScot
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
niwrad says "God designed bacterial flagella, out of this world, before time, and without need of any natural causes." That can't be the ID position. Because if it were, then there would be no difference between ID theory and Creationism. I am reminded of when I asked Mike Behe how exactly the intelligent designer created bacterial flagella, and his answer was: "I don't know. Maybe there was just a puff of smoke." A puff of smoke? To talk like this plays into the hands of ID's opponents, who want to argue that ID is religion and not science. Surely, the IDers must reject that if they want ID to become the new scientific paradigm.Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Miller's explanation, as far as I understand it, is typlically Darwinian. First take known facts on a small scale, which are not disputed by anyone. In this case, note that the bacterial flagellum (BF) incorporates components used in other structures. Then speculate as to how one might have begotten the other; as arnhardt says: offer "detailed explanations for how bacterial flagella could have evolved." (my emphasis). But the key to the rhetoric is to articulate the latter with the same confidence that you do the former, proudly proclaiming evolution as fact. I'm wondering how exactly Miller's theory can be tested. And Arnhardt, remember your standard is "exactly where, when, and how..."SteveB
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Arnhart, would you know “where, when, and how the intelligent designer used natural causes to create bacterial flagella?”. I answer you without any shame: God designed bacterial flagella, out of this world, before time, and without need of any natural causes. So you can finally be scandalized.niwrad
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Dr. Arnhart said: "You say that “an intelligent designer could create the flagella in a number of ways.” Can you give me some examples of what you have in mind?" Even if he could, what relevance would that be to an actual design inference, which looks to patterns and specificity for its explanatory power, not to some hypothetical causal mechanism? I fail to see how your question addresses the design inference or the explanatory filter, as articulated as formal arguments in the literature, i.e., Dembski's The Design Inference.dave
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Arnhart, Doesn't your objections hold to all intelligently designed objects, and not simply those found in nature?JaredL
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Lurker, You say that "an intelligent designer could create the flagella in a number of ways." Can you give me some examples of what you have in mind?Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
I wouldn't even consider Ken Miller's proposed explanations plausible. Quite the contrary - I think they're loaded with fundamental problems.ultimate175
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Arnhart said: "Once again, I ask, When are the IDers going to create a positive theory of exactly how the ID creates bacterial flagella so that we can go into the laboratory and test it?" A similar question has been asked of the Darwinists - When will the Darwinists go into the laboratory and show that the flagella can be formed without intelligent input? Ken Miller's detailed explanations are only plausible explanations (i.e. speculation). Take his theory into the lab and show it can be done. You don't know it can be done, yet you have no problem assuming it can be done. An intelligent designer could create the flagella in a number of ways. Why limit it to just one? As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Take 10 automotive engineers and ask them to design and build a car. You'll likely 10 different designs and 10 different assembly methods.Lurker
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Dr. Arnhart, And these Darwinian theories include all three parts of your requirements, including where and when the flagella evolved? What might be a possible test that proves or disproves when and where the flagella evolved, given that it occurred in the remote past? Once I again I say that ID offers no such theory, and ask you why it follows that there can be no scientific case for the fact of intelligent design. It is possible to infer from the effects of a cause to the cause itself, even if we do not have knowledge of the exact mechanism by which the cause led to the effect. You try to do the very same thing when you use Darwin's argument about the species on the Galapagos Islands relation to mainland species. The relationship of the species, you say, is an artifact of evolution and proves common descent even if we cannot scientifically demonstrate how species A involved into species B. In fact, I have heard evolutionists argue many times that the fact of evolution can be established independent of any particular mechanism of evolution. Fair enough. If you can prove that Darwin's finches evolved without giving a specific theory of when, where and how the finches specifically evolved, can't ID make a similar argument from the artifacts of intelligence?taciturnus
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Taciturnus, Yes, I hold evolution to the same standards. It would not be enough for a Darwinian scientist to say, "Since the IDers can't give a detailed explanation for how the ID created bacterial flagella, then evolutionary theory must be the only explanation." In fact, Darwinian biologists have offered some detailed explanations for how bacterial flagella could have evolved--e.g., Ken Miller's chapter in DEBATING DESIGN. I'm not defending these explanations as fully persuasive. But my point is that at least they are offering positive explanations that can be developed and then tested. Once again, I ask, When are the IDers going to create a positive theory of exactly how the ID creates bacterial flagella so that we can go into the laboratory and test it?Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Arnhart, same goes for Darwinism. However what Behe showed is that in principle Darwinian mechanism is not capable to account for this feature. ID is NOT anti-evolution and it is not about the process of biological development but is all about design detection. Please do some reading about ID claims. Be informed about them and than come here and debate (and there is a lot to debate). Otherwise, you are shooting blanks.Srdjan
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Dr. Arnhart, Of course the answer to your question is no. The conclusion you wish to draw is... that therefore the fact of intelligent design cannot be scientifically established? How does this follow? Does the SETI project need to understand the details of alien radio transmitters before it can conclude that an intelligible message from the beyond has its origin in an alien intelligence? I assume you hold the theory of evolution to the same standards, and have at hand a testable theory of exactly when, where and how unintelligent processes created bacterial flagella.taciturnus
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
So, in other words, the answer from all of you to my original question is "No, Behe CANNOT provide a testable theory of exactly when, where, and how the intelligent designer created bacterial flagella by natural causes"?Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Arnhart- You're the one putting the scare word "DIVINE" in there. ID simply says there's a designer, and leaves it's identity and nature to metaphysics and/or theology. If I'm walking through a jungle in South America and come across a carving embedded in a cliff face, I don't have to figure out whether it was made by the Incas, the Mayans, or some as-yet-unknown tribe before I can make the determination that it is not a natural formation.jimbo
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
"But this says nothing about DIVINE intelligent design." Well, yeah. It is not "fallacious reasoning by equivocation." Mark that ID has very little to say about "DIVINE" anything, as it only theorizes about design simpliciter in biotic objects. We do know about design simpliciter from common experience. Do you understand that point?matt_nadler
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
That HUMAN intelligent agents can modify genetic information confirms HUMAN intelligent design. But this says nothing about DIVINE intelligent design. To speak about "intelligent design" without distinguishing HUMAN intelligent design (which we know by common experience) and DIVINE intelligent design (which is not part of our common experience) is fallacious reasoning by equivocation.Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Further to Arnhart: the point of ID is not to keep all knowledge within the realm of science--quite the opposite, in fact. If ID is successful in demonstrating its points, it raises questions outside the realm of science. This is not a mortal science sin. Quantum mechanics raises all kinds of questions that cannot be answered within the realm of science. So does the relationship between mind and brain. Evolutionists have been using their scientific beliefs to point to philosophical and moral issues for decades.* To the extent that ID succeeds, it has to make a handoff from science to philosophy and theology. The handoff includes information: "It appears empirically that at least part of nature was designed" (with supporting/clarifying details, of course.) If ID gets that far, it has done its most important job. The handoff also includes a question: "What do we make of that?" That's really the question you raised, and it is not properly a question of science. I am not saying that ID wipes its hands and says, "that's it, we're done," if it gets as far as satisfying the world that there is design behind nature. It will have decades of work to do in identifying where and when design interventions took place and where they did not; discovering what can be learned of the discontinuities in nature where those interventions happened (that's also part of the question you raised, and to some extent there may be answers someday from within science); continuing (as evolution has) to learn about the continuities that exist where there was no intervention, and much more. Some of this will continue to provide useful information to the "what do we make of that?" question. But the question is bigger than science, so its full answer, though it will take scientific knowledge as input, will be provided (if ever) by other disciplines. *Some would say their philosophical/moral beliefs preceded their science, which is largely true, but not the main point here. The point is that no one really believes science has to have all the answers.TomG
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Arnhart, Define "natural causes". Intelligent agents in genetic engineering laboratories today can effect heritable changes to living organisms. The possibility of intelligent design is thus a proven quantity. Would your definition of "natural causes" label a gene splicing machine as an unnatural cause? Even knowing that the gene splicing machine operates through well understood natural law? The long and the short of it is that asking for a specific methodology used by a putative intelligent designer is a red herring. There's not enough data available to characterize the designer and eveyone knows it. All we can characterize is the design. We have proven it possible that intelligent agents CAN modify heritable genetic information and have demonstrated some methodologies that work to that end but we have no way of knowing if that was the methodology employed by an unknown intelligent agent in the distant past.DaveScot
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Behe HAS NOT TO PROVE what you ask. Behe never has pretended that. Behe simply discovered Irreducible Complexity in the cellular systems. So he proved that those systems are not Darwinian-process generated. They were intelligently generated. That’s all.niwrad
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Why doesn't Behe offer a testable theory of exactly where, when, and how the intelligent designer used natural causes to create bacterial flagella?Arnhart
September 14, 2005
September
09
Sep
14
14
2005
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply