Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The ID view of Darwin; the Darwinian view of ID.

William Dembski
January 7, 2006
Darwinism, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

mistakes

Comments
I was going to comment earlier but you beat me to it...really the only "mandate" is when it comes to direct Darwinian pathways.Patrick
January 10, 2006
January
01
Jan
10
10
2006
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Roger, of course the word “mandates” doesn’t appear in the Behe quotes. It was the word I used in describing Behe’s position:
Why would that be an "of course"? Why wouldn't one relate Behe's position using his words? For example,
Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect circuitous route.
That appears to undercut "MANDATES" pretty significantly. It is a nuanced position, that you wish to convert to an absolutist position, for reasons that are reasonably obvious. A substantive debate on Behe's position would seem to be constrained by what Behe has said, not what words you try to assign to him.Roger
January 10, 2006
January
01
Jan
10
10
2006
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
Roger writes: "And not a “MANDATES” in the lot. Why am I not surprised?" Roger, of course the word "mandates" doesn't appear in the Behe quotes. It was the word I used in describing Behe's position: I wrote: "Behe is claiming that he has identified a property of systems, irreducible complexity, that MANDATES the existence of an intelligent designer capable of engineering it into the system." Roger again: "Instead we see more nuanced claims, such as “I argue”, and “conclude” and “realize”. But no “MANDATES”." Roger, either you didn't read all the quotes or you're being downright dishonest. Look again: "...we must conclude that they, like a mousetrap, were designed." "...if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed." "...the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed." "...my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems..." What is "nuanced" about "we must conclude", "was designed", "were designed", and "requires"? Do you really think that "we must conclude" is not a mandate? Roger concludes: "So, are you ready to abandon such rhetoric? Or do you have more “quotes” where the “MANDATES” may be hiding?" Roger, you made an honest mistake. No big deal. Let it go. Let's get back to substantive debate.keiths
January 9, 2006
January
01
Jan
9
09
2006
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
keiths says:
But again, my point is that unless irreducible complexity rules out both direct AND indirect evolutionary pathways, then Behe’s justification of ID remains a “designer of the gaps” argument.
And Behe made it clear in his book that IC doesn't rule out indirect pathways. He just finds the prospect rather logically daunting for complex systems using only random changes. You are free to avoid a "designer of the gaps" perspective, and remain with a "naturalism of the gaps" perspective. But clearly the two have something in common: the gap. Since we don't know what we don't yet know, claims about what future knowledge will reveal aren't really evidence for one side or another.Roger
January 9, 2006
January
01
Jan
9
09
2006
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
keiths In case you're wondering, your comment 28 didn't show up right away because it had more than four links in it and was tagged as potential spam in the moderation queue. On the "designer of the gaps" argument I'll make two points. 1) macro-evolution is a "darwin of the gaps" argument. We're just playing by the ground rules in effect which are obviously that you do not actually have to observe something for it to become the most well tested theory in science. 2) in a manner most scientific Darwin said his theory could be falsified by showing that any complex organ could not have come about through incremental small changes where each change along the way had a fitness advantage. If you are now making the claim that it is impossible to show this because it would be an "argument from ignorance" rule then Darwin's theory becomes unfalsifiable pseudo-science. The ball is in your court. A guantlet is on the ground. It is claimed that the bacterial flagellum is an organ which cannot evolve through successsive small changes with each change causing increased fitness. Unless you are willing to concede that macroevolution is unfalsifiable pseudoscience by way of point 1 or 2 above then the onus is on defenders of Darwin to show a flagellum can indeed evolve in a Darwinian manner. Good luck, you're going to need it. But not as much luck as you're going to need to show that my IC structure of choice (the ribosome) could have evolved via Darwinian pathway. By the way, co-option is fine, so long as the coopted structures can be 1) shown to have preceded the final structure and 2) the coopted structure is itself shown to be producible via Darwinian pathway. I realize the magnitude of the challenge here so take all the time you need. In fact I realize that it might an impossible job and all the time in the world won't be enough. Just be advised that ID is a live option for the flagellum while you're coming up with a plausible scenario.DaveScot
January 9, 2006
January
01
Jan
9
09
2006
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
keiths says:
I’ve listed six below.
And not a "MANDATES" in the lot. Why am I not surprised? Instead we see more nuanced claims, such as "I argue", and "conclude" and "realize". But no "MANDATES". So, are you ready to abandon such rhetoric? Or do you have more "quotes" where the "MANDATES" may be hiding?Roger
January 9, 2006
January
01
Jan
9
09
2006
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
MGD asks: "The wreck of the Beagle sinking in the Darwinian sunset?" I'm afraid not. She "died" on land at the age of 50 (sold for scrap). [I can hear the scrap-related metaphors coming already...] A British archeologist may have located the remains: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1148523,00.htmlkeiths
January 8, 2006
January
01
Jan
8
08
2006
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
Roger asks: "Do you have a citation for that?" I've listed six below. But again, my point is that unless irreducible complexity rules out both direct AND indirect evolutionary pathways, then Behe's justification of ID remains a "designer of the gaps" argument. The following quotes are from Michael Behe: The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom. Instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51 I argue that each of the steps of the clotting cascade is irreducibly complex (see Chapter 4 of my book)—requiring the rearrangement of several components simultaneously before a viable, controlled clotting system could be in place, and that is why I conclude that the cascade is a product of design. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=47 The functions of the other biochemical systems I have discussed are readily identifiable, and their interacting parts can be enumerated. Because the functions depend critically on the intricate interactions of the parts we must conclude that they, like a mousetrap, were designed. (Darwin's Black Box, p. 205) But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=54 It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=54 And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=445keiths
January 8, 2006
January
01
Jan
8
08
2006
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
The wreck of the Beagle sinking in the Darwinian sunset? On co-option and the flagellum, this site has some very detailed info and some good pictures and animations (a lot of them wont load on my crummy dial up). http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Flagellum.html I may have posted this before, if so, sorry.MGD
January 8, 2006
January
01
Jan
8
08
2006
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
keiths says:
Behe is claiming that he has identified a property of systems, irreducible complexity, that MANDATES the existence of an intelligent designer capable of engineering it into the system. The burden of proof is on him to show that evolution cannot produce systems with this property.
Do you have a citation for that? Because I read Behe as saying something quite different than that, not only in his books, but in his further writings, and even in his testimony in the Dover trial. His position, as I've heard him say, is more nuanced. Nothing about "MANDATES", but a lot about arguments for a better explanation. But maybe you can find that "MANDATES" quote. And maybe the "fundamental contributions to science" quote is nearby. Who knows?Roger
January 8, 2006
January
01
Jan
8
08
2006
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Keith- once again, ID says NOTHING OF THE DESIGNER. You've tried for the longest time to demand that ID say something of the designer, but it's not going to work. They're not going to change the theory for your sake. So, there's no need to falsify the designer hypothesis when ID says nothing of the designer and ONLY the design. There is no "designer hypothesis" to falsify. How many times do we have to go over THAT? As for your explanation, I found it somewhat funny. So ID is now PARTLY science? Just not fully science because they won't deal with the designER tho you demand they do? ID says nothing of the designer, ID says nothing of the designer, ID says nothing of the designer...(click your ruby heels while you say this.)Josh Bozeman
January 8, 2006
January
01
Jan
8
08
2006
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Keiths, on why co-option is a canard, please see the 3 articles I linked in my above post. Pleae read them thoroughly. "...finding a subsystem of a functional system that performs some other function is hardly an argument for the original system evolving from that other system. One might just as well say that because the motor of a motorcycle can be used as a blender, therefore the motor evolved into the motorcycle. Perhaps, but not without intelligent design. Indeed, multipart, tightly integrated functional systems almost invariably contain multipart subsystems that serve some different function." -- William DembskiBombadill
January 8, 2006
January
01
Jan
8
08
2006
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Josh writes: "…so Keiths, since you’re touting Miller, you must now proclaim ID is science, no? He’s claimed to scientifically refute IC, so it MUST be science. Pick one or the other- you either support his claim that ID isn’t science or he’s refuted it scientifically. Think hard about this one…" Josh, How many times do we have to go over this? Individual claims made by ID proponents may be falsifiable even if the main claim (the designer hypothesis) is not. The IC of the flagellum is a falsifiable claim. If a supernatural designer is not ruled out, and if other constraints are not placed on the designer, then the designer hypothesis is not falsifiable. As DaveScot would say, write that down.keiths
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
DaveScot writes: "I’ll give Justice Alito your best regards as he exorcises that last nasty activist spirit and sets this country right again…" I'm still hoping that "Scalito" will have an epiphany and start channeling Thurgood Marshall once he settles into that cushy SCOTUS chair... :-) Dave, Patrick: Here's the thing about irreducible complexity. Behe wanted IC to be a certain indicator of design. Here's a post of mine from https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/587 , back when Patrick was still "Gumpngreen": Gumpngreen responds to my statements about irreducible complexity: “Behe’s IC has always been about direct Darwinian pathways. He noted the improbable indirect pathways in his first book. Considering no one has yet to meet Behe’s challenge regarding those indirect pathways I’m not sure it’s a problem that requires fixing.” Behe is claiming that he has identified a property of systems, irreducible complexity, that MANDATES the existence of an intelligent designer capable of engineering it into the system. The burden of proof is on him to show that evolution cannot produce systems with this property. Otherwise, you’re back to a “designer of the gaps” argument: “Evolutionary biologists have not identified an indirect path to an IC system. Therefore the designer made it.” Comment by keiths — December 21, 2005 @ 11:54 amkeiths
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Keiths Let's put this IC thing in a nutshell. No one has observed one of the complex bits of molecular machinery in a cell materialize from simple precurors. No one has mapped and tested a path whereby one of these structures can self-assemble by random mutation and natural selection. Yet you boys say this is how it happened and it's the most tested theory in science. Uh huh. Are you going to try to sell me a bridge next? And you wonder why the public doesn't buy this story. The public evidently has enough horse sense to know a pile of manure when they smell one. The Darwinian narrative is already lost. The only thing propping it up is the establishment clause and that's being remedied as we speak. You see that just takes a little longer because we have for SCOTUS justices to retire or die before we can replace them. The easy part was taking over congress, the executive branch, school boards, etc. If it wasn't for tenure there'd be even more reorganization going on. You can't fight city hall. Write that down.DaveScot
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Keiths Dude! The Darwinian ship already sank, buddy. The ghost of SCOTUS past is all that's keeping the memory of it alive. I'll give Justice Alito your best regards as he exorcises that last nasty activist spirit and sets this country right again... :-)DaveScot
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
GilDodgen, Good quote. See, that's what I meant above when I referred to Phillip Johnson's charisma. He's got his own "big rhetorical guns." Unfortunately, in the chaos of battle he's failed to notice that the damage is mainly to his own vessel, and that the damage to the Darwinian battleship is only political, not scientific. "But in the end reality will win.” Let's hope so. Maybe in 15 years we'll have a blog reunion and laugh about how we used to argue over this stuff.keiths
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
"Darwinian evolution with its blind watchmaker thesis makes me think of a great battleship on the ocean of reality. Its sides are heavily armored with philosophical barriers to criticism, and its decks are stacked with big rhetorical guns ready to intimidate any would-be attackers. In appearance, it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed to be only a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and the more perceptive of the ship's officers have begun to sense that all the ship's firepower cannot save it if the leak is not plugged. There will be heroic efforts to save the ship, of course, and some plausible rescuers will invite the officers to take refuge in electronic lifeboats equipped with high-tech gear like autocatalytic sets and computer models of self-organizing systems. The spectacle will be fascinating, and the battle will go on for a long time. But in the end reality will win." -- Phillip Johnson The quotation above is the last paragraph of the epilogue in the 1993 second edition of the book, Darwin On Trial. Phillip's book dedication I also find illuminating: To those (especially Kathie) who listened and read, and did their best to help me stay on the straight and narrow path; and To those brave souls who asked the hard questions even when there was never a chance of getting a straight answer; and To those in science who want to allow the questions to be asked.GilDodgen
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
"I do too. Could you point me to some arguments that show why IC remains a problem for natural selection despite the possibility of co-option?" Does he need to? IC has always been about direct Darwinian pathways. That is the main thrust of the point has not been refuted (as far as I know). How does pointing out highly improbable possibilities based upon indirect Darwinian pathways that have never been observed present a major problem to that point? If YOU could point out an article I'd appreciate it. Don't bother with talk reason, talk origins, or Panda's Thumb since I've read most, if not all, of their responses.Patrick
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
Bombadill asks: "Do people really believe that because of the Dover decision, that ID is a 'sinking ship'?" Bombadill, I think most of us on the Darwinian side see Dover as a symptom of the sinking, not as the cause. It remains to be seen how quickly the ship is taking on water. "He still thinks that co-option/homology solves the problem of Irreducible Complexity." I do too. Could you point me to some arguments that show why IC remains a problem for natural selection despite the possibility of co-option? "Miller is charismatic - that’s all he has going for him. ID simply needs a charismatic bulldog to hit the streets." I think Phillip Johnson is pretty charismatic, but it probably would be better to have a scientist in the bulldog role.keiths
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Reminds me of this page http://www.IDtheFuture.com meet http://www.IDthePast.com Phil PPhilVaz
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
"I did find it interesting, especially where Miller claimed that Behe testified during the Dover trial that astrology had made some very fundamental contributions to science. Interesting thing is, that is nowhere to be found in the transcripts." If Behe didn't say this, he should have. It was astrology, after all, that led to making accurate measurements about the location and movement of the stars. Without astrology, we may never have engaged in astronomy. The fact that we don't believe in astrology anymore doesn't mean that it didn't make some fundamental contributions. That is one of the main problems with a lot of this debate -- it assumes that you have to "be right" to make good contributions. In fact, in science, the good contributions (the measurements and observations) are still valuable even long after your ideas about their cause has been debunked.johnnyb
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
keiths says:
I think you’ll find it interesting, even if you don’t agree with his conclusions.
I did find it interesting, especially where Miller claimed that Behe testified during the Dover trial that astrology had made some very fundamental contributions to science. Interesting thing is, that is nowhere to be found in the transcripts. You don't suppose Miller was taking some poetic license, do you?Roger
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
I found this:
Before the vote was taken at the end of the debate, Dawkins felt compelled to make an impassioned plea with the audience for a zero vote for creation. He stated later, "I do think every single vote in favour of creationism would be a disgrace to Oxford." Audio CDs of the debate are available, and on those tapes the debate chairman can clearly be heard stating that the number of votes in favor of creation was actually 150! No wonder somebody changed the data, and no wonder Dawkins now refuses to debate creationists!
How sad that he said that. He always claims to be scientific and open minded, yet he's as closed minded as they come. I will note that the prestigious Los Alamos Govt lab has a young earth creationist doing research there. But, Dawkins claims that anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of the evidence shouldn't be allowd at Oxford. I bet if we looked at the history of Oxford, we'd find that it was founded by religious men- and I bet they were creationists (tho this is just an assumption based on the fact that most top level universities were founded by these sorts of men.)Josh Bozeman
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
They've misplaced the records of the debate? And you have a copy? I'm confused. :) Maybe I need to reread your comment again! I think it's miserable when Darwinists refuse to debate creationists...remember Dawkins long pause when asked for an example of a mutation that resulted in an increase in information from that one video and he couldn't answer? The Darwinists attacked the producer (Brayton admits on his site that he emailed her and basically told her she was a fraud)...tho they had to apologize when the skeptics looked at the raw footage and audio and concluded that Dawkins did indeed pause forever on that question and couldn't answer. Their reply to all of this? Well, it's okay...he was just upset because he realized he was talking to creationists. Excuses excuses. They act as if they're the only ones allowed a seat at the table and if you're a creationism (old or young earth) you're damned and they refuse to even debate you. Their refusal to discuss the issue and actually waving off an entire group of people as crazies says a lot about many of them.Josh Bozeman
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Also note that after this debate, Dawkins refused to debate creationists any longer.johnnyb
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
If anyone wants to hear a good, classic creation/evolution debate, you should hear the Dawkins/Wilder-Smith debate at the Oxford Union. The evolutionists won, but not by the landslide they hoped. It was 115 to 198. This was _at_ Oxford. If anyone wants a copy, I have an agreement with the copyright holder to be able to provide it to you. Just send your mailing address to johnnyb@eskimo.com and I'll pop one out to you. The results of this debate were so surprising to the Darwinian establishment that the AAAS misinformed people of its results and the Oxford Union has "misplaced" the records of the debate.johnnyb
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
[Sidenote: We can have lively debate without being nasty. ;)]Bombadill
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
"Miller's Tales"... http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392 http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/wd_still_spinning.htm http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/derbyshire_vi_behe_s_bacterial_flagellum_1.htmlBombadill
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
LOL. This is funny...so Keiths, since you're touting Miller, you must now proclaim ID is science, no? He's claimed to scientifically refute IC, so it MUST be science. Pick one or the other- you either support his claim that ID isn't science or he's refuted it scientifically. Think hard about this one...Josh Bozeman
January 7, 2006
January
01
Jan
7
07
2006
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply