Excellent Letter To School Board On Intellegent Design Teachings

Morbert

Firstly, I must point out again that intelligent design is a specific type of creationism, alongside old earth creationism, young earth creationism, creationist catastrophism etc. The only difference is that the intelligent design movement is politically savvy.

But that is not a sufficient condemnation. Perhaps ID proponents have a point, and ID, despite its roots, really is a scientific theory. Scientists involved with SETI, after all, look for signs of intelligence, so perhaps a similar methodology could be applied to molecular biology. We must then ask ID proponents "What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how can it be tested using the scientific method?" In other words, how can we scientifically test our inferences of design? To this day, not a single ID proponent has managed to answer this question. In fact, it seems that the ID movement has abandoned such a goal, and now settles for simply arguing against evolution. This strategy is especially reflected in their "strengths and weaknesses" political campaign. They use arguments such as irreducible complexity, which are clearly wrong*, so they fail even at this endeavour.

So it must be made clear that we are not simply arguing against the teleological arguments (Those arguments suffer from bad philosophy, but that is not for this thread.). We are arguing against the idea that intelligent design has a place in science.

*I don't know if this is off topic, so I won't say anything other than irreducible complexity assumes that natural selection can only be considered in the context of a specific function. Scientists have shown that irreducibly complex systems can and do evolve gradually through the selection pressures for different functions.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

If all the pieces appear simultaneously what "evolves"?

Now you're using simplistic terminology in the same way that JC does.

My understanding is that according to evolutionary theory things don't just 'appear', they evolve gradually.

Evolution is the gradual change from one state to the next. That is true if we are talking about guided evolution or otherwise. Dogs have evolved slowly based on intelligent selection, but at each point you have a dog that can function. There is slow change.

I'm not seeing anyone in this thread disputing slow change.

If everything happens at the same time then there is no evolution taking place, nothing is gradually changing. In fact nothing is changing at all. Everything just appears. Everything that is required for the function is instantly created.

Are you genuinely unable to understand the difference between things happening slowly and things happening simultaneously?

The only thing being created instantly here is your strawman.

Simultaneous appearance of all pieces is instant creation, which again is what IC is trying to demonstrate. It is an argument against evolution, or the gradual change from one state to the next because IC says that similar states cannot exist.

I have never mentioned instant creation. That is all in your head.

A Behe himself says

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional

Slight successive modifications of a precursor system is evolution, guided or otherwise. The instant simultaneous appearance of all component parts is not evolution

You're getting so needlessly excited about gradual that you appear to ignore what successive means. Behe is saying that an irreducibly complex mechanism cannot occur through successive parts evolving gradually through natural selection. This is because, until all the parts are in place, the others confer no evolutionary benefit and, in the case of some systems such as blood coagulation, would actually be harmful and detrimental.

Therefore there are two ways that such irreducibly complex systems could develop via evolution:
a) They could (where components are not harmful but simply useless) gradually evolve successively - but this cannot be explained by natural selection since the components confer no evolutionary advantage. This would only make sense if a designer were ensuring that the individuals that had the components of the future mechanism survived to pass on their genes.
b) The various components could gradually evolve simultaneously. Of course the odds against this happening without a designer are so high statistically as to make the positing of a designer more reasonable.

What do you think "simultaneous" evolution is PDN?

Say you have a mouse trap. You have 15 pieces that all have to exist at the one time for the mouse trap to do something. All 15 pieces must be present. 14 pieces and you have a non-functioning device

So you start with nothing and then simultaneously you create and assemble all 15 pieces into one device (this is Behe's example of Irreducible Complexity by the way)

How is that "evolution"? What is evolving if all the pieces have to be created at the same time?

They would not be 'created', but they would all gradually develop at the same time.

Personally it makes no difference to me whether they were created or whether they evolved simultaneously. But, then again, I don't have the same ideological act to grind on this that you obviously do.

All I'm doing is pointing out, from a philosophical and logical standpoint, that ID is perfectly compatible with a belief in guided evolution.

You are simply inventing an nonsense concept such as "simultaneous evolution" in other to try and win an argument that IC isn't trying to contradict evolution, guided or otherwise.

No, I'm pointing out the Hitchensesque trick that you're trying to pull of refining terms to suit yourself. Michael Behe himself has said that he sees ID as being entirely consistent with evolution. Wikipedia, no friend of Behe and ID, does not portray ID as being inconsistent with a theory of theistic evolution.

If you will get off your high horse and stop pretending that ID is something it isn't, then we might be able to move on to have a profitable discussion about it and whether it has any merit or not. I'm open to be persuaded either way. But I need to be persuaded by solid reasoning rather than by underhanded debating tactics and hysteria.

Just saying, "Yah boo! They're no different from creationists (hiss!)" won't cut it. While I am not a Creationist, I don't view them as being irredeemable Nazis whose mere mention clinches an argument.

Neither will saying, "It's all a plot by evil evangelical Christians to abuse children and sneak pseudo-science into schools while they build monstrous structures with American (or is it Filipino) money." Behe is a Catholic, not an evangelical, and hysteria and misinformation has never really done it for me.

Neither will saying, "A US court in Dover ruled against ID so that proves it!" For some strange reason I don't subscribe to the inerrancy of every ruling of the US judicial system.

Like I say, I'm open to be convinced, but the antics of the ID lobby aren't doing any favours for their case.

Tim Robbins

Surely ID fails by infinite regress. Say for the purpose of argument you consider it as a philosophical argument as it is most certainly not a scientific theory.

If something is irreducible complex
ergo
There must be an intelligent designer.

The corallary would be

The intelligent designer is irreducible complex (not evolved through natural selection)
ergo
There must be an intelligent designer which designed the intelligent designer.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I did make a genuine effort to understand it. I took your definition word by word, tested it and refuted it. Now you can offer a better definition if you wish or admit you can't define it.

Stop messing.

I didn't give a definition. I made a statement about irreducible complexity. We already had a statement from wikipedia that both Wicknight and I were referring to - and if you think your heart and brain are covered by that definition then you understand science evenless than I do.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Surely ID fails by infinite regress. Say for the purpose of argument you consider it as a philosophical argument as it is most certainly not a scientific theory.

If something is irreducible complex
ergo
There must be an intelligent designer.

The corallary would be

The intelligent designer is irreducible complex (not evolved through natural selection)
ergo
There must be an intelligent designer which designed the intelligent designer.

Irreducible complexity does not demand that the designer himself/herself/itself is irreducibly complex. That is quite a leap of logic.

You presumably see yourself as being an evolved being, but you are well capable of getting a set of Meccano (or lego, if you prefer) and building something that is irreducibly complex.

This thread is about ID, which is in itself a variation of the teleological argument. You are trying to derail it by discussing the quite separate cosmological argument or Argument From First Cause. While the Infinite Regress thing is often presented as a (pretty ineffective) rebuttal to that argument, in this thread it just demonstrates that when strawmen abound, red herrings soon appear also. Maybe Strawmen evolve into red herrings? Or are red herrings irreducibly complex? Who knows?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Stop messing.

I didn't give a definition. I made a statement about irreducible complexity. We already had a statement from wikipedia that both Wicknight and I were referring to - and if you think your heart and brain are covered by that definition then you understand science evenless than I do.

You made a statement which contained a definition which was refuted.
Why don't you just accept that instead of trying to wriggle out of it with semantics?

PDN wrote:

Irreducible complexity does not demand that the designer himself/herself/itself is irreducibly complex. That is quite a leap of logic.

It's not a leap of logic it's called a corallary.

you are well capable of getting a set of Meccano (or lego, if you prefer) and building something that is irreducibly complex.

No. Nothing irreducibly complex there.

This thread is about ID, which is in itself a variation of the teleological argument. You are trying to derail it by discussing the quite separate cosmological argument or Argument From First Cause.

I took a corallary from ID and tested it.

Now, what you should do is explain why this isn't a corallary or show what was wrong with my test.

You have done neither and instead tried to insinuate I deliberately moved onto an irrelevant argument. The argument was relevant by corallary.

You'd have an extremly limited form of critical thinking if you didn't allow corallaries be examined.

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

Neither will saying, "A US court in Dover ruled against ID so that proves it!" For some strange reason I don't subscribe to the inerrancy of every ruling of the US judicial system.

Like I say, I'm open to be convinced, but the antics of the ID lobby aren't doing any favours for their case.

This is the main problem with ID. The court in Dover ruled against the teaching of ID in science classes in America because a) The ID movement was found to be a creationist movement, and b) ID proponents were unable to present a scientific theory of intelligent design, or even a strong criticism of evolution.

As I mentioned in my previous post, irreducible complexity is a notion that is not supported by molecular biology. Scientist have shown that irreducibly complex systems can evolve gradually, as a system is only irreducibly complex in the context of a specific function. Darwin himself expressed the importance in change of functions throughout evolution.

Turtwig

OK, new approach,

It's matters not what ID is, I don't care anymore as no two people here seems to have a consistent view on it.
What matters is simply that evolution is science because it has made predictions that we can test.

Nobody has answered my question yet:(:
What predictions does ID make that Evolution DOESN"T and are also capable of being tested EXPERIMENTALLY?

Answer this and ID moves closer to being science, until then it is NOT science - End of discussion!

Teach it as religion or philosophy, I do not care, but ID has nothing in common with science at the moment..

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You made a statement which contained a definition which was refuted.
Why don't you just accept that instead of trying to wriggle out of it with semantics?

No, Tim, don't try and pull that kind of crap.

In post #81 I didn't give any definition of my own. I cited a definition from wikipedia which read:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.

Now, maybe you think that definition applies to your heart and brain - but that is your problem, not mine.

Then, in the same post, I went on to discuss the implications and ramifications of this by making the following statement to Wicknight.

Irreducible complexity means that if you remove one component of a mechanism then the other components serve no purpose or, even worse, would kill the organism in question.

At no point did I claim that my statement was a comprehensive definition of irreducible complexity, and I don't think any rational person would interpret it as such.

It is hardly semantics to point out that your response about your heart and brain, while studiously ignoring the quote from wikipedia, is just another example of you playing silly buggers. You refuted nothing except any notion I might have had about your willingness to engage in genuine discussion.

You have a track record of this kind of thing both here and in various fora - and you have derailed a number of threads and earned yourself infractions and bans from various moderators in the past. I'm warning you now - don't try it again here.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

No, Tim, don't try and pull that kind of crap.

In post #81 I didn't give any definition of my own. I cited a definition from wikipedia which read:

In post 83 I refuted a statement you made which I directly quoted. The reason why I did this was because this statement showed you didn't have a good understanding of what you were talking about.

You have a track record of this kind of thing both here and in various fora - and you have derailed a number of threads and earned yourself infractions and bans from various moderators in the past. I'm warning you now - don't try it again here.

Examing and refuting corallaries of arguments just isn't allowed then?
Why don't you just say that instead of the ad hominen?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You're getting so needlessly excited about gradual that you appear to ignore what successive means. Behe is saying that an irreducibly complex mechanism cannot occur through successive parts evolving gradually through natural selection.

No he is not (at least he wasn't when he published the Panda book, I've no idea what nonsense he is saying now). He is saying irreducibly complex systems cannot occur through successive parts evolving period because without all the part they system would not provide the function that the end product does and without that function the system cannot work (ie. it dies)

PDN wrote: »

Therefore there are two ways that such irreducibly complex systems could develop via evolution:
a) They could (where components are not harmful but simply useless) gradually evolve successively - but this cannot be explained by natural selection since the components confer no evolutionary advantage.

No no no no no. That is a completely different argument. Functioning fine but not providing evolutionary benefit (and therefore not being able to be selected by natural selection) is not irreducibly complex under Behe's definition of IC.

You are (again) ignoring the "irreducibly" part. If a system can function fine without some or any of the parts then it is reducible, not irreducible.

Again irreducibly complex means that the core functionality cannot take place unless you have all the parts in place. And without this functionally the system cannot work. At all. It fails. It dies.

So how can something change from one state to another state if it has to be in the final state in order for it to function at all?

You are, perhaps, stumbling into the huge flaw in the logic of Irreducible Complexity, that being that a system in a previous state can have another function that uses a sub set of the components and still survive.

Something is only irreducibly complex if it cannot survive at all without the components need to provide a particular end result function which is necessary for its survival. And life doesn't work like that, so it is not irreducibly complex.

PDN wrote: »

They would not be 'created', but they would all gradually develop at the same time.

But while they are gradually developing the system is not performing the function that is required of it if it is irreducibly complex.

If that has no effect on the system then it is not irreducibly complex, because it can be reduced and still survive.

PDN wrote: »

Michael Behe himself has said that he sees ID as being entirely consistent with evolution.

Of course he did, as soon as he published his "theory" biologists the world over pointed out all the nonsense flaws in it (including the one that you have apparently accidently discovered, that a system can be performing a different function with components that eventually evolve to provide the end result function). Between 1996 when he first published the idea and 2005 when he was in the Dover trial he has made numerous "updates" to the idea of IC trying to hang on to the basic idea

Again IC is nonsense. The various versions of IC are nonsense. It is a stupid theory, so if you are trying to figure out how it can make sense that could be why you are running into problems.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No he is not (at least he wasn't when he published the Panda book, I've no idea what nonsense he is saying now). He is saying irreducibly complex systems cannot occur through successive parts evolving period because without all the part they system would not provide the function that the end product does and without that function the system cannot work (ie. it dies)

Er, I presume you're referring to the book "Of Pandas and People"? A book that was written in 1989 by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, and was published by a group in Texas?

So, in your insistence on what you think ID is, you want to ignore anything anyone has said for 20 years, and go by a book that was published two decades ago? Thanks for wasting all of our time, I should have known it was a bad judgement call for me to re-enter a discussion when I'd already discerned you weren't interested in doing anything but pushing your own strawman.

I'm out of this nonsensensical thread. You can keep arguing with your own misconceptions of what you think ID is, but you're probably better off doing it over on the A&A forum where you'll get a more sympathetic audience that shares your ideological presuppositions.

Good night.

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

Er, I presume you're referring to the book "Of Pandas and People"? A book that was written in 1989 by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, and was published by a group in Texas?

So, in your insistence on what you think ID is, you want to ignore anything anyone has said for 20 years, and go by a book that was published two decades ago? Thanks for wasting all of our time, I should have known it was a bad judgement call for me to re-enter a discussion when I'd already discerned you weren't interested in doing anything but pushing your own strawman.

I'm out of this nonsensensical thread. You can keep arguing with your own misconceptions of what you think ID is, but you're probably better off doing it over on the A&A forum where you'll get a more sympathetic audience that shares your ideological presuppositions.

Good night.

I am having a hard time determining where you stand on the issue of intelligent design. I have three questions that might shed light on the issue.

Do you agree that "Of Pandas and People" has been rightly rejected by the scientific community?

Do you agree that arguments compiled by Michael Behe, the Discovery Institute, etc. have been rightly rejected by the scientific community?

Do you agree that the ID movement has not yet tendered a reputable theory of intelligent design, i.e. one that can be investigated and tested by the scientific community?

You seem to be arguing that, while there are aspects of the ID movement that are nonsense, ID itself (the claim that evolutionary biology is an insufficient explanation of the development of life and that design can be scientifically inferred from molecular biology) is still a scientific theory.

Soul Winner

Well that all ended nicely didn't it? Feck, I want more :mad:

Turtwig

Rightt no one has answered this yet:

Malty_T wrote: »

What predictions does ID make that Evolution DOESN"T and are also capable of being tested EXPERIMENTALLY?

If someone answers this then I'll entertain this discussion further. Otherwise, there is really no point in any of the anti-ID guys debating with the pro ID guys as it's simply circle after square after triangle after Cross after Cirlce blah blah..

stevejazzx

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well that all ended nicely didn't it? Feck, I want more :mad:

I think wiknights at cracking point TBH. I think his arguments here have been consistent and I have to say I have find the counter arguments weak and confusing. This reasoning from PDN that places ID in some kind protective cage where a designer isn't needed, only certain proponents are contradictory to evolution - not the main idea - and it's simultaneous ability to agree with evolution 'fact' (ooh I said fact) while disagreeing with overall evolution is just clouding up the thing to protect it from the criticisms it attracts and deserves. Also it must said that certain people clearly do not fully understand evolution which is a disheartening prospect in a debate of this kind. I would be very cautious to argue against something I didn't fully understand and as a result I wouldn't become involved in arguments where I have to define a theory that is opposed to it.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Rightt no one has answered this yet:


If someone answers this then I'll entertain this discussion further. Otherwise, there is really no point in any of the anti-ID guys debating with the pro ID guys as it's simply circle after square after triangle after Cross after Cirlce blah blah..

What ID guys? That was the bit eveyone on the anti-ID side was missing. There was no pro-ID guys, at least not in this thread.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

You appear not to be reading, or rather misinterpreting, your own links. Methinks you're suffering from a case of confirmation bias.

The wiki link on Irreducible Complexity states: "Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled."

ID allows for evolution, but argues that it is so statistically improbable as to be practically impossible for certain features to have evolved by natural selection alone. In other words, too complicated a watch for a blind watchmaker!

Again, to quote your own wiki link, ID is arguing that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." There is no implication as to whether the intelligent cause has utilised evolution or not.

Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system

ID does deny evolution for certain biological components. For one example they say evolution cannot explain the bacterial flagellum (complete rubbish) and that it was designed BECAUSE it could not have being evolved.

So for certain things they deny evolution.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I'm interested in whether ID turns out to be true or not, but I'm cool either way. It won't affect my faith and I've no vested interest in the outcome. The only reason I'm discussing it now is because a non-Christian wanted to start a thread about 'Intellegent (sic) Design' and failed to distinguish between a proposed scientific theory and articles of religious belief.

ID is no more a proposed scientific theory then if I said I created the world. Prove me wrong.

Please go and read the definition of theory in scientific terms before you state things like that.

ID doesn't come close to being scientific.

Black Swan

PDN wrote: »

ID asserts that certain features in certain organisms are best explained by proposing a designer...

Who designed the designer?

DeVore

PDN... I didnt ask the question out of the blue, prior to my question it was stated as fact that there are organs and organisms which could not have been evolved.

In fact on several occasions throughout this thread people have referred to things which could not have evolved, including yourself just above this post.


My simple request is for people to name them. I dont mean "I am so in wonder of this thing that I cant believe it wasnt created"... your belief or disbelief is of no concern here. You ability to understand or conceive of how it could have evolved is not the point. There are claims being made here that I am asking to have backed up.

They havent been.

DeV.

Black Swan

Ruling of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (Pennsylvania December 2005) seems to capture one side of this debate?

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Irreducible complexity means that if you remove one component of a mechanism then the other components serve no purpose or, even worse, would kill the organism in question.

Yes that is what it means. Although its complete rubbish that has been disputed and proven wrong for almost all examples ID proponents have given.

Therefore, while it is reasonable to assume that the various components each evolved, it is unreasonable to suppose that they evolved sequentially.

The only reasonable explanation is that the components of such a mechanism evolved simultaneously. It is called irreducibly complex because it requires all the components.

Yes ok.

This then leads to the argument that such simultaneous evolution is statistically impossible if explained by natural selection alone, leading to the conclusion that a designer triggered such simultaneous evolution.

That is NOT evolution by any 'real' definition and I'm very sure that even the Discovery Institute don't say that.

You might not agree with it. You may argue on scientiofic grounds that it is wrong. But please don't redefine it to mean what you want it to mean.

Now, if you are prepared to discuss ID and irreducible complexity as understood by Michael Behe (a proponent), by wikipedia (opponents), and myself (neutral) then we can have a discussion. If you choose to hold a unique Wicknightian definition of these terms then I've no interest in continuing. I've had enough experiences in the past where you do a Humpty Dumpty by redefining language to mean whatever you want it to mean and then other atheists jump in and accuse me of semantics because I insist on using words accurately. I've no interest in participating in that kind of zoo anymore.

PDN.

Regardless of ID's right or wrong as you said above, you don't seem to understand it.

This is one of its main arguments, against the evolution of bacterial flagella.

The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts. Behe asserts that the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function, and that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex as in his view if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

Evolution is simple form evolves to more complex, to more complex to more complex.

A -> B -> C

Behe's argument is that there was NO simple form at all. That there was no A or B, only C.

Behe's whole argument is that the flagellum did NOT evolve. His argument is that it simply FORMED itself with all components intact.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Therefore there are two ways that such irreducibly complex systems could develop via evolution:
..............
b) The various components could gradually evolve simultaneously. Of course the odds against this happening without a designer are so high statistically as to make the positing of a designer more reasonable.

PDN, what you are describing is not evolution. What you are inferring is that all the parts 'grew/formed' at the same time to make one useful mechanism.

This cannot be described as evolution because for it to be an evolution it must evolve from something. There must be a simpler state to evolve from.

Evolution is change. There is nothing changing, therefore it is not evolution.
Behe's whole point, the whole reason for the irreducibly complex notion is that it is NOT evolution. He's saying its a design.

They would not be 'created', but they would all gradually develop at the same time.

PDN I think you are confused over what evolution means. By very definition in a dictionary what you are saying cannot be called evolution.

All I'm doing is pointing out, from a philosophical and logical standpoint, that ID is perfectly compatible with a belief in guided evolution.

They believe that some parts of organisms, some organisms themselves are so complex that they couldn't have evolved. Taking the flagellan, they say the whole system was formed together. This is NOT evolution, unguided, guided by God/Space monkeys or anyone else because nothing changed. Why can't you understand that ?

No, I'm pointing out the Hitchensesque trick that you're trying to pull of refining terms to suit yourself. Michael Behe himself has said that he sees ID as being entirely consistent with evolution. Wikipedia, no friend of Behe and ID, does not portray ID as being inconsistent with a theory of theistic evolution.

Because he believes that a lot of stuff evolved but SOME stuff didn't because its too complex. He thinks that some designer guided some parts of evolution, some evolution happened naturally and some things were designed, not evolved.

You can read this on the discovery institutes website, you can see it in many pro-ID articles.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I'm out of this nonsensensical thread. You can keep arguing with your own misconceptions of what you think ID is, but you're probably better off doing it over on the A&A forum where you'll get a more sympathetic audience that shares your ideological presuppositions.

Good night.

I'll take that as a "I realized I was wrong but don't want to admit it".

monosharp

For PDN.

Michael Behe, p39 of his book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution wrote:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

The argument, the whole point of Irreducible complexity is that IC things CANNOT evolve.

1 - IC things cannot evolve
2 - If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

This is the cornerstone argument of IC.

He's not saying that there is no evolution for any system (he admits evolution for most things), just that IC systems couldn't have evolved, hence IC is not compatible with theistic or any other type of evolution because he says IC systems are designed, they don't evolve naturally or guided by a designer, because they don't evolve at all.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I'll take that as a "I realized I was wrong but don't want to admit it".

Well then, not for the first time, you choose to take me up wrong.

I am not a proponent of ID, I'm open-minded either way, so there's certainly nothing there for me to 'be wrong about'.

In my reading about ID, I lack the scientific knowledge and expertise to assess whether the arguments proposed are valid or not. I had hoped someone could point me in the direction of any authors who actually address the issue in a reasonably non-technical way that would make counter-arguments accessible to a layman like me, but unfortunately the opponents of ID seem to prefer to try to damn ID by conflating it with creationism.

I do understand enough to know what the basic claim of ID consists of - that certain features within living organisms are best explained by positing a designer due to the virtual impossibility of them evolving by non-guided evolution, or purely by natural selection. Unfortunately that appears to be impossible to debate due to those who persist in strawmanning and conflating ID with creationism. So, more by default than by anything else, I am left with the possibility that ID may or may not be valid - it certainly seems suspicious that no-one is willing to address ID itself instead of trying to turn everything into a creationism -v- evolution war. Such bluster usually is an attempt to hide a weakness - it reminds me of religious fundammentalists who are afraid to examine their beliefs but dismiss everything else as the work of Satan and a surrender to secular humanism.

I had asked about Dawkins' little story of a biochemist placing a hidden message in the DNA sequence of a virus, and how that would be considered science if ID is not to be considered science. Some well-meaning attempts were made to answer this, but I find them unsatisfactory. They centered on something being able to be replicated and also it being falsifiable. However, from a layman's stance, that sounds suspiciously like people attempting to define science in a way that suits themselves.

Let's use a little example, which, like most effective examples which demonstrate a point, is exaggerated and extreme in order to make a point in an unambiguous way. Imagine explorers in the rain forest suddenly discover a new species of okapi where each animal has markings on its coat that clearly make up letters in a known language. Furthermore, the letters clearly read, "Ha! You didn't expect to find this, did you?" Researchers are unable to replicate the feat of producing animals with writing on them, and they are unable to falsify the theory that the writing was somehow designed by an intelligent being. So, does that mean it is unscientific to argue that the sentence on the sides of the okapi must have been orchestrated by someone or something? A silly and far-fetched illustration, I know, but one that illustrates why limiting science to that which can be replicated or falsified doesn't really make sense to the rest of us.

Furthermore, it would seem to me that ID should indeed be falsifiable. ID, if we strip away the misrepresentations, simply argues that, Certain features in living organisms are practically inexplicable by natural selection alone, leaving influence by a designer as the only explanation. Now, logically, in order to falsify that, it is not necessary to prove that a designer does not exist. The beauty of refuting a 'God of the gaps' theory is that you don't need to disprove the god - you simply have to close the gap with something else (you see, I may not understand science too well but I do understand logic and philosophy). So, to falsify ID it is not necessary to prove the non-existence of a designer (a unfalsifiable faith proposition) it is only necessary to disprove the basic argument of ID by demonstrating plausible means by which the features referred to by ID proponents could have evolved by natural selection alone.

There are surely those who have the ability to explain scientific theories in non-technical language for laymen like me (Dawkins can do it for me when he sticks to what he knows about, so can Michael Behe and Jared Diamond). All I'm asking is that someone point me in the direction of such authors that do a similar thing in refuting ID's arguments such as the irreducible complexity of our blood clotting systems etc. If no such authors exist, then why not? Wouldn't that be much more effective than trying to conflate ID with creationism or telling me that it must be wrong because a US Court once ruled against it?

I would prefer it if someone could point me in the direction of reputable authors on this subject, rather than simply posters making statements that, as a layman, I am expected just to accept on face value. I've seen a good bit of that on the Creationism thread. The problem is that in the area where I am qualified to (theology and biblical studies) I have seen the same posters making numerous ill-informed and erroneous assertions and committing schoolboy howlers, so, rather understandably, they lack the credibility for me to accept much from them at face value.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

In my reading about ID, I lack the scientific knowledge and expertise to assess whether the arguments proposed are valid or not. I had hoped someone could point me in the direction of any authors who actually address the issue in a reasonably non-technical way that would make counter-arguments accessible to a layman like me, but unfortunately the opponents of ID seem to prefer to try to damn ID by conflating it with creationism.

Alright PDN.

And for the record I don't think I was confusing ID with creationism, I was simply pointing out that a major cornerstone of ID which is IC, is NOT compatible with evolution.

I do understand enough to know what the basic claim of ID consists of - that certain features within living organisms are best explained by positing a designer due to the virtual impossibility of them evolving by non-guided evolution, or purely by natural selection.

But IC is not talking about a designer 'guided' evolution, it is simply saying no evolution took place at all for this particular feature.

I am left with the possibility that ID may or may not be valid - it certainly seems suspicious that no-one is willing to address ID itself instead of trying to turn everything into a creationism -v- evolution war.

PDN. Can we agree on some things first ?

To be 'science', something must meet certain criteria. If it doesn't meet these criteria, it isn't science. ID does not meet that criteria because you cannot disprove a designer.

Even if ID is 100% right and there is a designer, it still is not science because we cannot test it. Ok ?

As for ID itself. You want arguments against it ?

Irreducible complexity has being proven to be completely false by Kenneth Miller and others.

Some of the main arguments for IC are the eye and the bacterial flagellam. Miller, Dawkins etc have shown that these structures are reducible and have given evidence to show this.

You said you wanted it in laymans terms, well heres a nice video by Miller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

You know Millers a Christian right ? Does that give him more credit with you then Dawkins ? Because he and many others completely agree with millers assessment.

I had asked about Dawkins' little story of a biochemist placing a hidden message in the DNA sequence of a virus, and how that would be considered science if ID is not to be considered science. Some well-meaning attempts were made to answer this, but I find them unsatisfactory. They centered on something being able to be replicated and also it being falsifiable. However, from a layman's stance, that sounds suspiciously like people attempting to define science in a way that suits themselves.

I think your working under the assumption that Science has definite truth. Whereas science only has the truth so much as we understand it by the available evidence.

Let me get this straight.

A bio-chemist put some code into a virus DNA which was then read by others ?

I'm not sure how this is related to ID. Are you asking, if we can design life does that prove we ourselves were designed ?

Imagine explorers in the rain forest suddenly discover a new species of okapi where each animal has markings on its coat that clearly make up letters in a known language. Furthermore, the letters clearly read, "Ha! You didn't expect to find this, did you?" Researchers are unable to replicate the feat of producing animals with writing on them, and they are unable to falsify the theory that the writing was somehow designed by an intelligent being. So, does that mean it is unscientific to argue that the sentence on the sides of the okapi must have been orchestrated by someone or something? A silly and far-fetched illustration, I know, but one that illustrates why limiting science to that which can be replicated or falsified doesn't really make sense to the rest of us.

Bit of your own straw man isn't it ?

It would be an 'unknown' and yes it would be unscientific to argue that it was orchestrated by an intelligent being.

This is why even if ID is 100% correct it still could not be called science because it isn't scientific.

This is why gravity is a bit of an issue. Is gravity the same everywhere in the universe ?

One could assume 'yes', science says 'we don't know'.

So, to falsify ID it is not necessary to prove the non-existence of a designer (a unfalsifiable faith proposition) it is only necessary to disprove the basic argument of ID by demonstrating plausible means by which the features referred to by ID proponents could have evolved by natural selection alone.

But PDN, I have given you links to the above . And we all know (I hope) that we don't need to dismiss a designer to prove ID is rubbish. Miller is a Christian and debunks ID very strongly.

Science has debunked ID's so called 'science facts' easily time and time again.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

And for the record I don't think I was confusing ID with creationism, I was simply pointing out that a major cornerstone of ID which is IC, is NOT compatible with evolution.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, since all it serves to do is to derail any profitable discussion. You think I'm misunderstanding the relationship between ID and evolution, and I think the same about you. Bearing that in mind perhaps we can discuss something more substantive.

But IC is not talking about a designer 'guided' evolution, it is simply saying no evolution took place at all for this particular feature.

Again, we'll agree to disagree about that.

PDN. Can we agree on some things first ?

To be 'science', something must meet certain criteria. If it doesn't meet these criteria, it isn't science. ID does not meet that criteria because you cannot disprove a designer.

Even if ID is 100% right and there is a designer, it still is not science because we cannot test it. Ok ?

Ok, maybe I just don't have a scientific bone in my body, but as I understand it there are a multitude of things in science that cannot be proved or disproved 100%. My understanding is that things such as the Big Bang may offer the best explanation for a phenomena, and that there may be evidence supporting that theory, but that outside of mathematics there is no such thing as absolute proof.

However, I'm no scientist so I'm quite happy to accept your definition if that is really the case.

ID is not science then. Neither, I guess, are many other things that I thought were science but cannot actually be proved. OK.

Irreducible complexity has being proven to be completely false by Kenneth Miller and others.

Some of the main arguments for IC are the eye and the bacterial flagellam. Miller, Dawkins etc have shown that these structures are reducible and have given evidence to show this.

You said you wanted it in laymans terms, well heres a nice video by Miller.

I don't do youtube as I live in an area with no broadband, using my mobile broadband it takes me 30 minutes to view a 5 minute video. So I'll do things the old fashioned way and find a book by Miller or a text file on the internet. Thanks.

You know Millers a Christian right ? Does that give him more credit with you then Dawkins ? Because he and many others completely agree with millers assessment.

No, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me whether he's a Christian or not. I think you're mixing me up with some of the atheists in the BCP thread. If someone is qualified to know what they're talking about, seem relatively trustworthy, and can support their case then it doesn't matter whether we're talking science, football or biblical studies - their personal faith is irrelevant to me.

Let me get this straight.

A bio-chemist put some code into a virus DNA which was then read by others ?

I'm not sure how this is related to ID. Are you asking, if we can design life does that prove we ourselves were designed ?

I suggest you read Dawkins' 'River Out of Eden' to get the full story. This is not something that has already happened. Dawkins tells a story that he claims will soon be possible at our current rate of scientific advancement. He tells of a kidnapped biochemist who inserts a sequence of prime numbers into the DNA of a strain of influenza so that other scientists, when examining the virus' DNA, will recognise the sequence of prime numbers as obviously 'designed' and not a product of natural selection.

I had thought Dawkins was speaking as a scientist when he floated this possibility. But I am happy to acknowledge my mistake since, unless it was proved that the prime numbers had not occurred through natural selection, any inference of a code would be unscientific.

I'm not sure how this is related to ID. Are you asking, if we can design life does that prove we ourselves were designed ?

No, nothing of the kind. I was asking, if it would be OK for the guys in Dawkins' story to draw an inference of design from an organism that appears to defy the odds of natural selection, then why is it wrong for us to do so in existing organisms? However, you've already answered that by demonstrating that what Dawkins was suggesting isn't really science at all - Dickie's quite a rascal isn't he?

Bit of your own straw man isn't it ?

It would be an 'unknown' and yes it would be unscientific to argue that it was orchestrated by an intelligent being.

No, I don't think it's a straw man at all. A strawman is when you deliberately misrepresent your opponent's position to make it easier to refute. I don't think I did that all.

Instead I suggested a rather outrageous hypothetical situation in order to establish the boundaries of what is science. You are telling me that, if we find an Okapi with "Ha! You didn't expect to find this, did you?" emblazoned on its hide then it is unscientific to assume that the writing did not occur through natural selection. Fair enough - but, as a layman, my respect for science and scientists has taken a bit of a nose dive.

Thanks for the reference to Miller anyway.

Morbert

To PDN:

Unfortunately, due to the nature of biochemsitry, a decent article will always be somewhat technical. Here is an article on IC that is primarily non-technical.

But first, I have to stress once again that the primary criticism against ID is perfectly understandable. The intelligent design movement has, to this day, not yet tendered a scientific theory of intelligent design. The closest anyone has come is a set of rules by William Dembski regarding "specified complexity" that cannot actually be applied to molecular biology. Simply trying to poke holes in evolution is not enough or ID to be considered scientific.

You mentioned the God of the Gaps theory, and philosophy as well. You should therefore also be aware of the inherent problems with the God of the Gaps theory: a) It is not scientific in the slightest, so regardless of its philosophical merits (it has none), it should not be taugh in science classes. b) How would we show that a designer is the only explanation? Evolutionary biology has shown us that complex mechanism can evolve without any direct input from intelligent designers. If it was shown that evolution cannot account for all the complexity, then how would we know life was designed by a designer, as opposed to some other undiscovered biological law?

As an aside, you have to understand that calling ID creationism is not a misrepresentation. The objections to ID are the exact same as the objections to creationism. There is no scientifically testable theory of ID, and the objections to evolution put forth by ID proponents have no scientific merit, as determined by the scientific community. Couple this with the religious history of the ID movement and it is an inescapable conclusion.

You mentioned the idea of finding messages in DNA or life as a possible indication of an intelligent designer. This might be a step in the right direction; however, ID proponents are claiming to be able to infer design from nothing more than biological complexity. I am pretty sure that nobody expects to find such explicit messages in nature, so that is not really an issue.

And you may not wish to take the our word for it as far as irreducible complexity is concerned (IC is entirely different to ID), but what about scientists themselves?

Here is a graph of evolutionary controversies, plotting the years since publication against the number of citations.


Notice how evolutionary controversies with genuine scientific merit are frequently discussed by the scientific community, while ideas put forward by IDers have barely been cited at all. This means that either a) ID objections to evolution have little to no scientific merit or b) There is a massive conspiracy with the biology community, which is a ridiculous claim. So even if you don't want to get bogged down in technical detail, you can at least appreciate the fact that those who devote their lives to such technical details have found little merit in ID arguments against evolution.

As for authors who have written on intelligent design. Dawkins's book "The Greatest show on Earth" will undoubtedly tackle the issue. Here is a good resource for articles written which criticise intelligent design. You can find references to a variety of IC examples like the blood clotting mechanism you mentioned.

Morbert

just adding this:

PDN wrote: »

However, I'm no scientist so I'm quite happy to accept your definition if that is really the case.

ID is not science then. Neither, I guess, are many other things that I thought were science but cannot actually be proved. OK.

A scientific theory must spawn hypotheses which can be tested and affirmed by rigorous investigation (but not proved in the mathematical sense). The Big Bang theory, for example, makes predictions about the relationship betweem galaxy distances and observed redshifting. Evolutionary biology makes predictions about the correspondence between the temporal fossil pattern, geographical fossil pattern, and genetic patterns (among many others).