Video: What are the Limits of Darwinism? A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 22, 2013

News}

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

Comments

OT: A Skeptic's Journey to Faith (in Oxford) - Carolyn Weber, PhD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcjqznbzGkI Here's a synopsis of her book 'Surprised by Oxford': Surprised by Oxford is the memoir of a skeptical agnostic on a surprising journey toward a dynamic personal faith in God. When Carolyn Weber arrived at Oxford for her graduate studies in Romantic literature, she felt no need for God. Her childhood in a broken but loving family taught her to rely on reason and intellect—not faith—for survival. What she didn't know was that she was about to embark on a love story of her own—one much deeper, more colorful, and more surprisingly God-shaped than any she'd read before. From issues of fatherhood, feminism, and doubt to doctrine and love, Weber explores the intricacies of coming to faith with an aching honesty and insight echoing that of the poets and writers she studied. Rich with illustration and literary references, Surprised by Oxford is at once gritty and lyrical; both humorous and spiritually perceptive. Organized according to the Oxford Liturgical academic calendar, Surprised by Oxford tells the real-life tale of a young woman's search for—and eventual discovery of—purpose, identity, faith and what it really means to be human.bornagain77_{February 27, 2013
February
02
Feb
27
27
2013
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Gregory @74
Design is evident to those who have faith.
Obviously, Gregory still does not understand the difference between "faith-based" methodology and "observation based" methodology. A faith-based inference to design would be a contradiction of terms since it would be assuming the same conclusion that is also alleged to have been arrived at through inductive logic.StephenB_{February 27, 2013
February
02
Feb
27
27
2013
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

The problem isn't in the IC or IBE arguments themselves, but rather that they address the reasonable, productive limits of material forces, something that Darwinism proponents ignore out of supposed epistemological necessity. The arguments address something that cannot be up for debate in the Darwinist's mind, which is why Darwinists have never felt the need to provide an evolutionary metric that describes what Darwinism can and cannot account for. It necessarily accounts for everything, from their perspective.William J Murray_{February 27, 2013
February
02
Feb
27
27
2013
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Optimus, I like the IBE very much (inference to the best explanation, an abductive argument). It reminds me I need to give SITC a second read, perhaps before Meyer's next book. I think it's a good strategy to develop multiple positive arguments for ID, while also calling attention to the real deficiencies of unguided accounts for life's origin and diversity. After all, ID is attacked on both fronts, with proponents of Darwinian evolution not only proclaiming the power of their theory to account for apparent design, but attempting to negate the positive inferences to design by denying any real comparability to agency (DNA sequences are not codes, systems like motors are not really machines).Chance Ratcliff_{February 27, 2013
February
02
Feb
27
27
2013
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, Yes, you interpreted me correctly, and you're very welcome. I see your argument as one of the notable lines of evidence that calls attention to the patterns of intelligence observed in living systems, and which provide an empirical hurdle that puts the burden of proof upon those espousing unguided processes as a sufficient cause for apparent design. Thank you for developing it.Chance Ratcliff_{February 27, 2013
February
02
Feb
27
27
2013
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

Hi Chance, You are quite right. IC is alive and well in the semiotic argument. It is not possible to transfer recorded information into specified physical effects without two coordinated arrangements of matter operating in an IC system. This IC system establishes the physicochemically arbitrary relationship which is fundamental to the task. This is not an anti-Darwin observation in terms of genetic change over time, it is (as you suggest) a positive indicator of design prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution. It is indeed the very thing that makes Darwinian evolution possible. If I interpreted your comment correctly, then I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement.Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

Chance @ 89
So I think it’s possible to take IC as a positive argument, and I think it’s at home in the “indicia of design” arsenal. After all, we see IC systems as the products of intelligent design, and we do not observe them as the result of blind processes, absent any potentially forthcoming empirical evidence, which is, of course, just around the corner.
I agree with you that it is possible to frame IC as a positive argument. Perhaps my difficulty lies more in the way Behe frames his argument in his book. In my reading it seems to rely quite heavily on the limits of the creative power of Darwinian processes. If the argument was formulated in such a manner that more emphasis was put on our abundant empirical knowledge that intelligent agency is causally adequate to account for IC, I think the rhetorical power of the argument would be strengthened. What I meant by alluding to Meyer was not about OOL issues, but rather the way he structures his argument using IBE. In his he book he stresses quite heavily that intelligent agency possesses causal adequacy to acount for CSI. Of course, some negative argumentation is necessary in IBE, as competing hypotheses must be shown to be deficient, granting the remaining hypothesis causal uniqueness and securing it as a reliable inference. However, I would say that this negative argument differs in character from the one Behe makes. Behe's argument is concerned with showing in principle that Darwinian evolution is impotent in accounting for IC, whereas the IBE approach that Meyer uses emphasizes the present lack of empirical strength of competing explanations. I suppose one could say that Meyer's IBE approach (drawing on the principle of uniformitarianism) is a little more cautious in making proscriptive statements about the causal power of rival explanations. In any case, it's fair to observe that my mind is hardly set on the matter:-)Optimus_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Optimus @88, I'm not sure how the observation of any sort of complexity navigates one clear of having to prove a negative, whenever we're dealing with the realm of Darwinian evolution. For instance, if we point to specified complexity, are we not inviting a similar rebuttal -- that we cannot establish the impossibility of Darwinian mechanisms to produce it, specifically with regard to novel proteins and protein complexes in a self-replicating system? Or by making reference to Meyer, are you perhaps taking your preferred design arguments to the territory of the OOL? If so, then there too we see the need of an irreducibly complex system, a self-replicating one, as a logical predecessor of Darwinian evolution; and so irreducible complexity makes an appearance as a positive indicator of design, not bound to any proclamations of the power of Darwinian evolution, because it necessarily proceeds it. I believe that Upright BiPed frames the semiotic observation in IC terms, but I'm happy to be corrected there. So I think it's possible to take IC as a positive argument, and I think it's at home in the "indicia of design" arsenal. After all, we see IC systems as the products of intelligent design, and we do not observe them as the result of blind processes, absent any potentially forthcoming empirical evidence, which is, of course, just around the corner. ;)Chance Ratcliff_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @ 85 Thanks for your thoughts. I have yet to read the Dembski/Wells book you cited, though I would certainly enjoy doing so. I just recently finished Phil Johnson's Darwin On Trial and John Lennox's God's Undertaker . Lennox himself made the point about the difficulty inherent in the IC approach. I really appreciated hearing him say that, because I've always felt a little uncertainty about how strong the argument is. In my view it's suggestive but not conclusive. It also diverts attention from the positive case for design to negative arguments against Darwinian evolution. I prefer using mechanical complexity or systemic complexity in making a positive case for design, since these terms aren't inherently negative arguments against Darwinism (which is an incredibly mobile target). That's why Meyer's approach is so invigorating. It completely stands on its own without reference to Darwinian processes.Optimus_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

"Hope I didn’t sound overly serious..." Not at all, only thoughtful. :) With great power comes great responsibility.Chance Ratcliff_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Collin: A friend of mine claimed that Behe has backed off the idea of irreducible complexity. Does anyone know if that is the case? What a leading question! Like spreading rumors much? What's the matter with you? Didn't you watch the video? I could be wrong but I am beginning to suspect that you and Robert Byers are the same person, an atheist plant, an impostor whose job is to make the ID side look stupid. In my opinion, you are not what you pretend to be. You are a weasel. Telling it like I see it.Mapou_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Chance @ 84 Thank you for your comments! Your post was indeed humorous. Hope I didn't sound overly serious - still need to figure out how to include those emoticons... I too am unsure of Behe's actual thoughts on the matter, but I do hope he continues with his work. His publicizing of the tremendous complexity present in the cellular environment has immense value.Optimus_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Optimus (83): Good point. It is rarely possible to prove that something is impossible. Where ID proponents put the emphasis on showing what Darwinian processes can't do, they invite the rebuttal that all the evidence isn't in yet. The discovery of the step-by-step pathway to the flagellum may be just around the corner, the Darwinians will say. Thus, Darwin's reasonable-sounding offer of a means of refuting his theory turns out, in practice, to be almost vacuous. To be sure, Behe is generally careful not to say "impossible" -- he usually says only that Darwinian construction of new complex machinery is very implausible. But the few times he has said "impossible" or the equivalent, it has come back to haunt him, for the reason you give. I like your suggestion that ID people should put the onus on the Darwinians to provide the details of how Darwinian means could construct complex new machinery. In fact, one of the best ID books, and one that is little-read, is Dembski and Wells's *The Design of Life*, in which the emphasis is exactly that. I highly recommend it (along with Behe's books and Denton's books).Timaeus_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Hi Optimus, I intended the comment at @82 to be humorous, but you raise some interesting points. The Darwin quote, as given in Darwin's Black Box, goes like this:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." via DBB, Behe, Kindle location 654
You are absolutely right, that the statement appears to demand the proving of a negative, which is an impossibly high standard from a logical point of view. One could view this as, technically, an immunity from falsification. Any contingent occurrence is, by definition, not strictly impossible. However there are many such occurrences that are quite implausible. The argument of irreducible complexity, I believe, provides just cause to do as you suggest, which is to turn the burden of proof on those making the claim that "natural" processes are capable of such feats, by rejecting an impossible standard of falsification. In other words, if no such systems existed, we [the skeptics] would have no reason to protest. That we find such systems in biology demands elucidation of the unguided processes which produce them, if anyone is obligated to believe that such is reasonably possible, i.e., plausible. You wrote, "Even after having elucidated the particulars of some obviously IC biological machine, the typical Darwinist response is to sigh with irritation and chide the Darwin skeptic for hastily jumping to conclusions, saying something to the effect of, “It may be complex, but we can’t say that it is impossible for natural selection and mutation to build it. You’re just arguing from personal incredulity!”" I'm afraid that they can issue similar responses to practically any challenge. In the world of the Darwinist, there simply is no alternative possible cause. They never ask whether Darwinian processes are capable of producing biological sophistication; they apparently can only seek out how such occurred. When choosing between options A and A, A is always the reasonable choice. In short, I do not accept that an argument for irreducible complexity necessarily forces us to prove a negative. I think it's acceptable to take the Darwin quote in it's reasonable sense, substituting plausible in place of possible, and that we need plausible mechanisms for the technological sophistication observed in nature -- the apparent design -- of irreducibly complex systems exhibiting specified complexity. Of course, Behe may not be currently pursuing further elucidation of IC as the centerpiece of his work. It seems to me that it's spoken forcefully already. But I think that's different from "backing away" from it, which carries the connotation of revising one's opinions about its nature or relevance. Please note that I am speaking without knowledge of Behe's actual mind on the matter.Chance Ratcliff_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Chance @ 82 I can conceive of another plausible reason why Behe (or any design proponent) might back away from IC. Personally, it seems a perfectly legitimate concept and, in a non-biological context, should be uncontroversial. The problem as I see it lies in attempting to prove a negative. In one of the introductory chapters of Darwin's Black Box Behe makes reference to Darwin's famous quote to the effect that 'the discovery of any organ that couldn't have been formed through numerous, slight, successive, modifications would cause my theory to break down' (pardon my rocky paraphrase). I applaud Behe's courage in rising to the challenge, but at the same time realize that his task is effectively impossible. Even after having elucidated the particulars of some obviously IC biological machine, the typical Darwinist response is to sigh with irritation and chide the Darwin skeptic for hastily jumping to conclusions, saying something to the effect of, "It may be complex, but we can't say that it is impossible for natural selection and mutation to build it. You're just arguing from personal incredulity!" I'm starting to think that the better way to dispute the causal adequacy of the mutation-selection mechanism is to let the burden of proof properly rest with those who make grandiose claims about its power.Optimus_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Hi Collin,
"A friend of mine claimed that Behe has backed off the idea of irreducible complexity. Does anyone know if that is the case?"
Anything's possible I suppose. However if Behe ever does so, it will likely be because the notion that, a system which requires n total parts in order to function will cease functioning if it's reduced to n-1 parts, which is self-evidently true, suddenly ceases to be true. ;) He may also back off of IC in the case where it's demonstrated that a chance process can assemble a system which requires n total parts in order to function, incrementally by combining the parts one at a time in such a way that each step renders the new system superior to the one before it, within the context of a larger system which is self-reproducing, where the measure of superiority is proportional to the larger system's fecundity. There may be other cases where Behe would back away from the concept of IC, but those are the ones that seemed most obvious. Third on the list would be a situation where he agreed to distance himself from IC after receiving terrorist threats to humanity -- in other words, to save the world. :)Chance Ratcliff_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

PeterJ (76): Gregory has dropped a few hints that he might be leaving us soon. He has alluded to some competition that he has won, and insinuated that it is leading him to some kind of promotion within the academic world which will lift him above the plane where he has to talk to yokels like us. I expect that the moment his new position is confirmed, he will drop us a note telling us: (1) how incompetent we all are to discuss evolution and design, and that he can speak with expertise because he now holds position X at institution Y; (2) that because of his august new position, he will now have time to talk only with important people, and will no longer be able to share his pearls of wisdom with us. So you may not have to listen to him for much longer.Timaeus_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Polanyi's image is illuminating and highlights the importance of the human capacity to discern significance. Any such judgment involves at least a degree of intuition. "Our capacity for discerning meaningful aggregates, as distinct from chance aggregates, is an ultimate power of our personal judgment. It can be aided by explicit argument but never determined by it: our final decision will always remain tacit." The human mind is able to discern patterns within nature, patterns that are laden with significance and meaning. Similarly, the abiding popularity of detective fiction testifies to the human desire to make sense of clues, riddles, and mysteries, and the satisfaction that is derived from their resolution. - McGrath, Alister E. A Fine-Tuned Universe
Sort of puts the lie to Gregory's claims about ID.Mung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Collin, it's Big I Big C Irreducible Complexity that Behe's backed away from, but he still accepts little i little c irreducible complexity.Mung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

A friend of mine claimed that Behe has backed off the idea of irreducible complexity. Does anyone know if that is the case?Collin_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Gregory could be like the goat, sent out into the wilderness bearing the sins of the IDM.Mung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

I think it must be fairly obvious to everyone by now that Gregory has very little to offer this forum now. His arguments are rather pointless, and all he seems to be good at is making a bit of a twit of himself. I have a distinct feeling that those who Gregory is at odds with are enjoying his efforts, but I can't help but feel a little bored with it now. Gregory's arguments are simply taking up too much time and space, and he would be doing everyone a great favour if he was to move on. Sorry to be so blunt.PeterJ_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

weak Gregory, very weak. :)Mung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Design is evident to those who have faith. Yes, we're very much in agreement! Who cares to try to prove Big-D Design other than ID-theorists who say it is only a natural scientific claim?Gregory_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Gregory managed to quote this part of my post: "Sort of like preaching to the choir." While completely ignoring the rest:
A world-view that can only “see” the “design” in nature through “the eyes of faith.” But Gregory is just wrong, as is evident from the entire history of “the design argument.” Even Dawkins is compelled to admit that living organisms have the appearance of design. Design is evident, even to those without faith. How can that be?
Mung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Gregory
Wow, StephenB just whipped out his ‘Cause Detector’ and said “Voila – you must be an idiot simply because you reject ID theory!”
If I have come to question Gregory's analytical skills, it is simply because he appears to be incapable of following or advancing a logical argument. Notice here, for example, that he responds to my assessment of a mindless and worthless video (@64) by implying that my only complaint is that it (and Gregory) rejects ID theory. Ironically, Gregory depends on this video to make his argument for him since he cannot come up with one on his own. Indeed, he cannot he even summarize the argument that is supposed to be there or tell us why we should car about it. Is it supposed to refute the notion that forensic science uses a design inference to differentiate between murder and accidental death? Evidently not, since it doesn't even question the validity of process. To be sure, I have nothing against cartoons that make a point. It takes a lot of skill to reduce a complex problem to its simplest essence and also make it entertaining. On the other hand, I am not impressed with a simple-minded animation that tries to pass off a contemptuous sneer as a rational argument.
Look, it’s ‘design technology’ – it’s an I-pad, a computer a GPS tracking system. *Everything* qualifies as an example of ‘Intelligent Design’! Theory be damned, a ‘Design Detective’ will save the day. :P
The above paragraph is just another emotional outburst searching for a thought. Obviously, it contains no intellectual content. Again, this causes me to wonder if the capacity for rational thought is there at all.StephenB_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Glover’s video is priceless on this topic!
You do realize that poking fun at an idea isn't the same thing as disproving it, don't you? Humor does not an argument make. Priceless humor is subjective, while a priceless argument is not. Objectively, the argument is lacking. A better analogy would be a coroner showing up at the scene instead of a detective. After examining the body, the coroner would determine whether the death was accidental, suicide, or homicide. It isn't the coroner's job to catch the criminal; that's the job of a detective. It's the coroner's job to figure out cause of death so that we know whether a detective is needed or not. Does this diminish the importance of a coroner and his/her work? The two guys at the scene made an inference as to the cause of death. How did they arrive at their conclusion? Was their inference valid? A coroner doesn't use a device to determine cause of death. What does s/he use then?Phinehas_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Observe the following exchange: “If he is not calling for the expulsion of natural science from the university on the grounds that it is ‘dehumanizing,’ what exactly is his complaint?” – Timaeus 'Concept theft. Big-ID theorists stole the concept ‘design’ (false transferability) from theology, applied and social sciences, and have been trying to validate it in natural sciences, like biology.' -- Gregory There is a historical problem with this account. William Paley, in *Natural Theology* (1802), took the notion of "design" and used it to interpret biological phenomena. He treated design as a real cause of the way living things were arranged, in the sense that unguided or unplanned natural processes could not account for such structures, instincts, etc. Now 1802 is somewhat earlier than the founding of the DI, or the writings of Johnson, Thaxton, Denton, etc. So if the "blame" for bringing design ideas into science is to be assigned to someone, it should be to Paley, not to modern ID. And Paley himself had predecessors, in both early modern and ancient times. So it seems to me that Gregory is rejecting not just ID, but the whole tradition of teleological thinking about nature. He seems to be saying that it is just plain wrong to think about nature teleologically. I would like to know if this is his view. I would also like to know the basis of this view -- is it philosophical, theological, scientific, or some combination of these?Timaeus_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
that one was your weakest.
Strange, we have been saying that about Gregory's posts.
Hopefully there won’t be another.
And we keep hoping but Gregory keeps on spewing.Joe_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Wow, StephenB just whipped out his 'Cause Detector' and said "Voila - you must be an idiot simply because you reject ID theory!" Join the movement! Become a fanatic for ID. The rest of #67 is simply ad hom. Look, it's 'design technology' - it's an I-pad, a computer a GPS tracking system. *Everything* qualifies as an example of 'Intelligent Design'! Theory be damned, a 'Design Detective' will save the day. :PGregory_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply