The Public Debate I Would Love to Hear: Behe Versus Dawkins

_{Gil Dodgen

November 4, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Here’s how a debate between Behe and Dawkins would go:

Behe would present this.

In response, Dawkins would counter:

Once upon a time there was a squirrel-like creature that jumped from a tree at a certain height; let us call it H. Then, through random mutations, the squirrel-like creature got some flaps under its arms, which broke its fall. Just follow this logic and it’s easy to see how birds and bats evolved by random mutation and natural selection from non-flying ancestors!”

Dawkins won’t debate Behe because Dawkins’s version of “science” is the above, and Behe’s version of science is actually evaluating the evidence.

Comments

ThortonB: "Astrology is not now nor has ever qualified as a scientific theory, not even a bad one." ===== LOL - How pathetic. Yes it is a even a bad one. "Theory of Astrology" or "Astrological Theory" ----Eocene_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Actually even Dawkins would say that astrology is a scientific proposition, like he has stated that the proposition that God exists is a scientific proposition. He just doesn't believe that it's a valid scientific proposition.CannuckianYankee_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

First; I've yet to read an explanation of Behe's logic. The logic that denies Biblical Creationism scientific status any yet admits astrology (and intelligent design). Second; Astrology hasn't been falsified. Yes, astrological predictions have been proved wrong. But the hypothesis that the positions of heavenly bodies have some mysterious effect on human affairs can never be falsified. (On this point ID and astrology are very much peas in a pod. Perhaps this was the straw Behe was grasping for?) Third; In response to my statement hat falsification wasn't the only requirement for a scientific theory you replied with a cut and paste from Wikipedia...
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions.
....as if anything I had said contradicted that. You then requested I....
....enlighten us with regard to the other requirements to which you refer.
Seeing that you know where the relevant page at Wikepedia is I'll refer you to the very first lines in the entry on 'Scientific Theory'.
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
A bit more to it than simple falsification I'm sure you would agree? For example; my hypothesis that the cat is in the bath is falsifiable but it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. Finally;.....
Single Malt, still waiting for you to be gracious. It’s not too late.
I need no lessons in grace from yourself.Single_Malt_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

Hawking's definition and mine aren't contradictory. His is just an expansion of mine. Astrology is not now nor has ever qualified as a scientific theory, not even a bad one.GinoB_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Wrong again GinoB. See my comment at 7 where I refer to scientific experiments that in fact tested and falsified astrological predictions. Oh, I see you did, and in typical Darwinist fashion, instead of admitting your error you try to change the subject.Barry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

Astrology works by making predictions so vague and open ended that virtually any event can be said to be a confirmation. Thus it does not provide any targets for falsification. That's also why astrology is not a science, Behe's inane claim notwithstanding.GinoB_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

GinoB: "In science a theory is an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations." Stephen Hawking writes: "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." Hmmm. I bashed Hawking recently when he ventured (badly) into metaphysics, a field in which he plainly has no talent. But here he is in his element. I choose his definition over GinoB's, and astrology qualifies. True, astrology is not a "good" scientific theory, because it has been falsified. But all scientific theories are, by definition, falsifiable in principle. And in fact some of the most successful scientific theories in history were later falsified. Ptolemy's cosmology, for example, was regnant for 1,500 years, because it accounted for the data so well. And it was utterly false.Barry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

The problem is not the definition of falsification. The problem is Behe's mangling of the accepted scientific definition of theory. In science a theory is an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. Behe attempted to squeeze ID into science by broadening the definition to that used in the common vernacular, with theory meaning merely a proposed explanation. There has never been a scientific theory of astrology, just as there no such thing as a scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Right now there is only an unverified hypothesis of Intelligent Design.GinoB_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Single Malt, still waiting for you to be gracious. It's not too late.Barry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

That's true GinoB and completely misses the point. Kindly inform us how astrology's predictions are not, in principle, falsifiable.Barry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

On the falsification issue: Wikipedia again: "A different approach to testing astrology quantitatively uses blind experiment. The most renowned of these is Shawn Carlson's double-blind chart matching tests in which he challenged 28 astrologers to match over 100 natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) test. When Carlson's study was published in Nature in 1985, his conclusion was that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing 'clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis.'" So, astrological predictions have been subjected to scientific experiments and falsified. Again, Behe was correct. Single Malt is wrong.Barry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Behe: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
I find the Darwinist insistence at ridiculing this quite reasonable statement to be quite absurd. What I also find absurd is that the fans of atheist materialism are championing their own form of astrology, since they believe, in accordance with physical determinism, that our fates, thoughts, and actions are entirely governed by the positions and motions of physical entities. It really makes no difference whether these physical entities are neurons, atoms and molecules on the one hand, or stars and planets on the other. Either way, they are promulgating an essentially astrological outlook.Matteo_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

"Behe elects to rope intelligent design in with astrology!" This gets my vote for the stupidist thing anyone has ever written on this blog. "Falsification is not the only requirement for a scientific theory." Wikipedia: "The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions." Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with regard to the other requirements to which you refer.Barry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

Not verified does not mean the same thing as falsified.GinoB_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

Falsification is not the only requirement for a scientific theory. If that were the case Biblical Creationism would have a strong claim to be scientific than astrology. Biblical predictions are ,in principle, falsifiable. But then Behe doesn't believe Biblical Creationism to be scientific either....
Q:Using your definition of theory, is Creationism -- using your definition of scientific theory, is Creationism a scientific theory? Behe. No. Q: What about creation science? Behe. No. Q:Is astrology a theory under that definition? Behe. Is astrology? It could be, yes.
So according to Behe, Biblical creationism; something that makes very specific claims about what we should find in the world does not qualify as science. On the other hand astrology; something that makes at best very vague general claims about what we should find in the world does qualify as science. And from this basis Behe elects to rope intelligent design in with astrology! Baffling, no?Single_Malt_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

Of course, even if you subscribe to the absurd notion that astrology has not been falsified, the point remains. Its predictions are, in principle, falsifiable. Therefore, it meets the definition of a scientific theory. Why am I not surprised you would refuse to do the gracious thing.Barry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Same to you Single MaltBarry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

DrREC, I doubt you believe astrology's predictions have been verified. I can only conclude, therefore, that you are being trollish. You are our guest here at UD. A polite guest is not trollishBarry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Astrology has never been falsified.Single_Malt_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

How has astrology been falsified?DrREC_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Single Malt, your initial point was that astrology cannot be considered a scientific theory. Astrology has been falsified, but Mike1962 demonstrated that nevertheless you are wrong. The gracious thing to do is admit that Behe was right and you are wrong. Are you going to be gracious?Barry Arrington_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

The fantasy of putting prominent 'Darwinists' in the dock and subjecting them to merciless, humiliating interrogation is a perennial one. William Demski's ill-fated 'Vise Strategy' was probably the highest profile manifestation of recent times.Single_Malt_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

Seems to me Behe already had his big chance in a nationally publicized trial and ended up with a few dozens of cartons' worth of egg on his face. What makes anyone think he'd do any better in a second go-round?GinoB_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

As hard as I try I am unable to fathom your meaning. Let's run through the apparent logic though, see if that helps. 1) My name is Single_Malt 2) The Scottish are known for single malt whiskey. 3) Your mother is Scottish. 4) So is the mathematician, James Clerk Maxwell. 5) Maxwell said “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” Therefore........? 6)...................................... James Clerk Maxwell was a mathematical genius therefore his theological declarations carry some extra weight? No, that doesn't work. We know from recent history the trouble that ensues when mathematicians dip their toes into theological waters. Finally, one can only wonder at the thought processes involved in attempting to bask in the reflected glory of a long dead Scottish genius by the tenuous link of having a Scottish mother.Single_Malt_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Single_Malt, I'm half Scottish on my mother's side (née Ralston). Scots are known for single-malt whiskey, but they are also associated with James Clerk Maxwell, one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians who ever lived, who once declared: "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." Oops, I guess JCM must have been an IDiot.GilDodgen_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

Whereas Intelligent Design, contrary to what many evolutionists will say publicly, does in fact make solid predictions for science that we can test:
A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html
In the last part of this following audio, Casey Luskin lays the evidence out for a Professor of evolution, who who has the audacity to challenge his students to come up with 'ANY' evidence for Intelligent Design:
Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - July 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-07-16T13_26_24-07_00
bornagain77_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

SM, Actually ID does put itself in a place of falsification by the scientific evidence:
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
ID even has a null hypothesis that purely material processes will never generate functional information:
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,, Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses: Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
Whereas neo-Darwinism, despite whatever Darwinists may say, has already been falsified by the scientific evidence:
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
further notes:
How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Paul Nelson - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa.html
Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ.
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. Philip S. Skell - Professor at Pennsylvania State University. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations - Michael Egnor - neurosurgeon - June 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 200 Years After Darwin - What Darwin Didn’t Know - Jonathan Wells - Simmons - Doug Axe - video http://www.truveo.com/200-Years-After-Darwin-8212-What-Didn%E2%80%99t-Darwin/id/2049477091
bornagain77_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

BTW SM (or is it Alan)- anyway- Behe explained his position on astrology in his deposition. His testimony was an extension of that. But anyway- what is YOUR version of science?Joseph_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Single_Malt perhaps when you get through with,,,
Argument Ad Hominem ? (William Lane Craig) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qg
,,,maybe you would like to have a moment of honesty, at least with yourself, and actually address the scientific evidence Behe puts forth, such as in the link Gil provided, instead of taking what you think are cheap shots at the man??? Or is truth a distant second in your view of science?? I would hope that you would at least have enough integrity in these matters to honestly look at the evidence!bornagain77_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

And that means it is many more light years ahead of your position, which is light years behind ID.Joseph_{November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply