Excellent Letter To School Board On Intellegent Design Teachings

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry but that's an awful close minded attitude to have!:mad:

You ignore some peoples opinion because they have other opinions on something else that are ill informed.
Right so,if I have a friend a doctor that complains to me that the cars in GTA IV don't blow up when you shoot the fuel tank should I ignore every piece of medical advice they give me???
Ignoring one's opinion on something misinformed is ok, but ignoring their opinion on Z because they have a misinformed opinion of A is downright disgraceful and ignorant!:mad:

How bout trying this approach...
Try to understand where the misconception or ill informed idea of car's blowing up has come from and try to rectify their understanding. As you may have picked up a similar misconception of something they understand well e.g CPR saves lives ALWAYS!

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's an awful close minded attitude to have!:mad:

You ignore some peoples opinion because they have other opinions on something else that are ill informed.
Right so,if I have a friend a doctor that complains to me that the cars in GTA IV don't blow up when you shoot the fuel tank should I ignore every piece of medical advice they give me???
Ignoring one's opinion on something misinformed is ok, but ignoring their opinion on Z because they have a misinformed opinion of A is downright disgraceful and ignorant!:mad:

How bout trying this approach...
Try to understand where the misconception or ill informed idea of car's blowing up has come from and try to rectify their understanding. As you may have picked up a similar misconception of something they understand well e.g CPR saves lives ALWAYS!

We all have wrong opinions on any number of subjects. What I am referring to is where posters boldly state things as fact and pretend that they do know what they are talking about. Not only that, but they keep doing this again and again even when corrected.

If your friend has a track record of making confident assertions on various subjects that are totally inaccurate, and is prepared to pretend to have experise and knowledge that he doesn't have, and to bend and twist facts to suit his argument, in order to persuade others oto accept his views, then I would certainly take his medical advice with a pinch of salt and, irrespective of his medical expertise, I would want to get a second opinion.

This would be particularly true if your friend had a known ideological bias for wanting you to accept a particular diagnosis. (For example, if he was a fanatical vegetarian and was ascribing all your bodily ailments to eating meat)

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

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.

Ok. But please take into account I have no problem with people believing there is a supreme being behind the universe/evolution etc. Because I cannot disprove it therefore its still possible.

Again, we'll agree to disagree about that.

PDN, in the video I sent you. Ken Miller,in the first 2-3 mins literally says that IC claims these systems are un-evolveable, that the bacterial flagallem could not have evolved.

This is IC's whole point, its whole argument, the sole reason for its existence.

These things are not 'evolved' they are 'designed'. Evolution means change, IC's point is that there was NO change because there was nothing to change from.

ID does not say there is no evolution, it says that IC things cannot evolve while RC (reducibly complex) things can. It is attacking evolution of IC systems themselves.

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%.

For something to be scientific it must be disprovable, nothing is really provable in science in terms of 100% this is the fact. A theory is something that can be disproven, not proven. A theory is supported by evidence, testing etc but this is not 'proof' in terms of yes, 100% right.

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.

correct.

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

To be scientific, something needs to be disprovable. Not provable.

The big bang theory has been changed countless times to account for new evidence and there are still barn sized gaps in it full of "We don't know's" but the theory itself is disprovable and the mountains of evidence discovered has supported (and sometimes changed) the theory.

ID can never be disproven and there is no evidence to support it, which is why its unscientific.

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.

I said nothing of the sort. I said it was unscientific to assume it was done by an intelligent designer. I said nothing of natural selection.

I said it would be an 'unknown'

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

We all have wrong opinions on any number of subjects. What I am referring to is where posters boldly state things as fact and pretend that they do know what they are talking about. Not only that, but they keep doing this again and again even when corrected.

If your friend has a track record of making confident assertions on various subjects that are totally inaccurate, and is prepared to pretend to have experise and knowledge that he doesn't have, and to bend and twist facts to suit his argument, in order to persuade others oto accept his views, then I would certainly take his medical advice with a pinch of salt and, irrespective of his medical expertise, I would want to get a second opinion.

This would be particularly true if your friend had a known ideological bias for wanting you to accept a particular diagnosis. (For example, if he was a fanatical vegetarian and was ascribing all your bodily ailments to eating meat)

Excellent point

So, I guess, then what you really need to do is read the accepted views of Christian scientists on the absurdity of ID.

Hopefully, I can make one thing clear though,

If I was to propose Malty's Theory of Relativity and leave it the exact same as Einstein's Relativity except include that a hypothesis that the universe was designed by a designer but give no means of testing it, then my theory wouldn't be a scientific theory and here's why :

As my theory does not include a means for testing its new hypothesis then I could just as easily include in that the hypothesis that the designer was PDN, how could you disprove me??
Furthermore,my theory is the EXACT same as Relativity so why should we replace relativity when relativity still predicts the same stuff anyways?
When Albert Einstein first proposed his theory of General Relativity he found he could use it to easily explain the perihelion precession of Mercury (basically if one used Newtonian Ideas Mercury showed up in the wrong place!). Unfortunately, science is so that explaining something new is all well and good as long as you can explain the old stuff too. Einstein's big problem was that his theory fitted so elegantly into Newton's theory that to test it on the everyday scale was impossible. So if Einstein had stopped there (where ID proponents did) his theory would be dead. However, Einstein himself, made PREDICTIONS of how GR should affect things DIFFERENTLY from the Newtonian view and in time these predictions were confirmed thus confirming GR to be scientifically verified to some extent.
What predictions (if Any) has ID made that would differ it from say Theistic Evolution?

I'm sorry that I can't give some analogy in the annals of biology but hopefully this illustrates what is necessary for a theory to be considered as being compatibilble with science.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Explain how an irreducibly complex system works in a simpler form when it has been reduced from its current state. :rolleyes:

What the heck do you guys think the word "irreducibly" means?

The example Behe himself uses is a mouse trap. A mouse trap cannot evolve (according to him) from any simpiler design because you require that all pieces exist in order for it to perform its function. It doesn't matter if I'm designing a mouse trap or not (ie intelligence or not), until I assemble all pieces in one go I do not have a functioning mouse trap. Until then I just have pieces that can't do anything. There is no reduced state for a mouse trap, therefore it is irreducible complex

IR is an argument against evolution, directed or otherwise. Irreducibly complex means that you cannot reduce the design in any way. It cannot evolve from a more simple state.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to you Wolfsbane :rolleyes:

I'll not prolong your agony (much), but it has been fine to watch evolutionists of different hues argue over ID.

Anyway, the Mousetrap. ID says the chance of the component parts originating, surviving and finally coming together to form the functioning whole are too great to be plausible.

It does not however say they could not have individually formed by a process that did not require a mousetrap end. The wood might have been cut from a block that could have served many purposes. The spring might be from a wire that served many purposes. The catch likewise. The mousetrap itself however, requires that all the components are brought together in the correct positions.

Moving to the biology that the mousetrap pictures, the component parts of an IC thing evolved under normal chance/natural selection processes. It was the bringing together of the genetic information they carried, each in its necessary position for the IC thing to form - that is statistically impossible. For it to happen, a Designer must 'fix the race'.

That's my non-scientist understanding of ID and IC.

But from the horse's mouth (bolding mine):
http://www.discovery.org/a/3718
Miller’s test of irreducible complexity is a straw test. The correct test would have stated:

“Dr. Behe's prediction is that an irreducibly complex system will go through some non-functional stage along any evolutionary pathway. Therefore, we ought to be able to take the bacterial flagellum, for example, remove a part, and discover that the system stops working.”
Miller’s testimony and Judge Jones’s conclusion is based upon a false test of irreducible complexity which focuses on the functionality of one-sub-part, not the functionality of the entire flagellar system.
........................................................................................................

Behe asserts that a system is irreducibly complex if the system stops functioning upon the removal of one part. This is the appropriate test of Darwin’s theory because it asks the question, “Is there a minimal level of complexity which is required for functionality of this system?” Clearly my car’s engine has a core set of parts necessary in order for it to function. The ability of an engine bolt to also serve as a lugnut does not refute the irreducibly complex arrangement of parts necessary to make the final engine-system functional. Behe never suggests that subsystems cannot play some other role in the cell—in fact he suggests the opposite. Rather, Behe simply argues that evolution requires that the total system must be built up in a slight, step-by-step fashion, where each step is functional.

Miller has mischaracterized irreducible complexity, and his test is a straw-test for refuting irreducible complexity. The test for irreducible complexity does not ask “can one small part of the macrosystem be used to do something else?” as Miller claims, but rather asks “can the system as a whole be built in a step-by-step fashion which does not require any ‘non-slight’ modifications to gain the final target function?” Any non-slight modifications of complexity required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of-the-final system, to the entire final functional system, represent the irreducible complexity of a system.

Even if Miller could find that every part of the flagellum existed somewhere else in bacteria (which he cannot—he only accounts for the basal body, which constitutes about 1/4 of the total flagellar proteins), Miller is no where close to providing a plausible account of the evolution of the flagellum until he has explained how all the flagellar parts might have come together to produce a functional bacterial flagellum. Only then that Miller claim that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
........................................................................................................

But Miller did none of this. Despite the inadequacy of Miller’s explanations, Judge Jones decided that Dr. Kenneth Miller's arguments and inaccurate characterizations of irreducible complexity were correct. This is ruling was made despite the fact that Dr. Scott Minnich, a pro-ID microbiologist and expert on the flagellum, testified extensively at the trial about how his own tests demonstrate the irreducibly complex nature of the flagellum Consider Minnich’s testimony which Jones completely ignored in the Kitzmiller decision:

"A. I work on the bacterial flagellum, understanding the function of the bacterial flagellum for example by exposing cells to mutagenic compounds or agents, and then scoring for cells that have attenuated or lost motility. This is our phenotype. The cells can swim or they can't. We mutagenize the cells, if we hit a gene that's involved in function of the flagellum, they can't swim, which is a scorable phenotype that we use. Reverse engineering is then employed to identify all these genes. We couple this with biochemistry to essentially rebuild the structure and understand what the function of each individual part is. Summary, it is the process more akin to design that propelled biology from a mere descriptive science to an experimental science in terms of employing these techniques." (Scott Minnich testimony, Day 20, pm session, pg. 105.)
Minnich explained how he mutated all of the flagellar genes and found that the flagellum loses function if even one gene is missing. Thus, the flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its gene compliment:

"One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect." (Scott Minnich Testimony, Day 20, pm session, pg. 107-108.)
........................................................................................................


Conclusion
Regardless of Judge Jones’ claim, the pro-ID arguments regarding irreducible complexity in the flagellum were never, as Jones said, "refuted." Miller provided the Judge with a false characterization of irreducible complexity and a straw-method of testing it. Unfortunately, this ruling, which canonized Miller's misrepresentation of irreducible complexity, will lead the scientific community and the general public to mistakenly assume that the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum can be explained. Incredibly, despite Minnich's testimony and the presentation of his experimental slides, Judge Jones still held that, "ID … has failed to ... engage in research and testing." (Kitzmiller ruling, pg. 89.)

Had the Judge not also accepted Miller’s fallacious claim that irreducible complexity is not a positive argument for design, but merely a negative argument against evolution, perhaps we might have seen some different findings in this case. Minnich and Meyer make this positive case for the design of the flagellum:

“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system. … That we have encountered systems that tax our own capacities as design engineers, justifiably lead us to question whether these systems are the product of undirected, un-purposed, chance and necessity. Indeed, in any other context we would immediately recognize such systems as the product of very intelligent engineering. Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation, given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes.” (Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, Genetic Analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic
bacteria, pg. 8, at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389)
........................................................................................................

In the final analysis, Judge Jones’s ruling on the origin of the flagellum should be disregarded as an example of partisan politics, not as objective or accurate scientific analysis.

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

ID does not say there is no evolution, it says that IC things cannot evolve while RC (reducibly complex) things can. It is attacking evolution of IC systems themselves.

Excellent observation.

If only the rest of you would grasp this. I believe this is what PDN has been saying.

For some of you that means ID is non-evolutionist. For the rest of us, it means ID can be evolutionist. It really depends on how one defines Evolution.

If one means materialistic evolution, obviously anything else is not evolution. Theistic evolution then is creationism.

But for the Creationist, any evolutionary process, directed by God or non-directed, is evolution. The present biosphere arising from non-life by millions of changes ( some of which may have been non-gradual) over millions of years, - Evolution.

It would be helpful if each gave a brief definition of evolution before advancing their argument.

Tim Robbins

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.

Two books you might like which both explain evolution and rubbish ID are:

Finding Darwin's God

and

It's only a theory

Both are written by Ken Miller who is a Roman Catholic. The books are intended for Christians who may not have a scientific background.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll not prolong your agony (much), but it has been fine to watch evolutionists of different hues argue over ID.

Anyway, the Mousetrap. ID says the chance of the component parts originating, surviving and finally coming together to form the functioning whole are too great to be plausible.

It does not however say they could not have individually formed by a process that did not require a mousetrap end. The wood might have been cut from a block that could have served many purposes. The spring might be from a wire that served many purposes. The catch likewise. The mousetrap itself however, requires that all the components are brought together in the correct positions.

Moving to the biology that the mousetrap pictures, the component parts of an IC thing evolved under normal chance/natural selection processes. It was the bringing together of the genetic information they carried, each in its necessary position for the IC thing to form - that is statistically impossible. For it to happen, a Designer must 'fix the race'.

That's my non-scientist understanding of ID and IC.

But from the horse's mouth (bolding mine):

<snip>

Mutations can repurpose systems for other functions, and combine components to form new systems. Look at the homologies found in bacterial type three secretory apparatus proteins as an example. IDers have not presented a way of deterimining whether something could not have evolved through function change. If you disagree, please point me to the scientific publications demonstrating otherwise.

Zombrex

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?

No, I want to go by what Behe said Irreducible Complexity is, an idea he introduced in a chapter of Pandas and People in 1993 and refined in 1996 that formed the corner stop of the Discovery Institutes Wedge movement and what they wanted to be put into science class rooms.

Like I said I've no interest in PDN's version of ID. If you have your own version of Intelligent Design (which seems to just be "God did it") I'm happy to discuss that but you have to define that yourself and stop pretending that what you think it is is what everyone well thinks it is.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anyway, the Mousetrap. ID says the chance of the component parts originating, surviving and finally coming together to form the functioning whole are too great to be plausible.

And it also says that until the parts have come together because the system cannot perform its primary function it won't survive.

If the system could be performing a different function it wouldn't matter.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It does not however say they could not have individually formed by a process that did not require a mousetrap end.

Yes actually it does. Otherwise it wouldn't be irreducibly complex (and as it turns out the examples aren't irreducibly complex precisely because of this reason)

Like PDN you have stumbled upon the biggest flaw in IC, that a system can have a different function to the one it eventually ends up having, and as such the idea of IC is no issue to Darwinian evolution. But lets not pretend that IC didn't say this in the first place. It did, it was silly, moving on.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It was the bringing together of the genetic information they carried, each in its necessary position for the IC thing to form - that is statistically impossible. For it to happen, a Designer must 'fix the race'.

that is what IC says, but that is not what you were saying above. So I think you are getting a bit muddled.

If all the components can have a different function and evolve along that function then it could simply be one mutation that causes a switch from one function to the newer function. Something could have all the components of a mouse trap but not be performing the function of a mouse trap and then a simple mutation causes it to start being a mouse trap instead. Natural selection says "Umm, this is good" and selects that function.

Clearly this is no issue to Darwinian evolution, so why would Behe think it would be? Because he didn't factor in the other functions that could be taking place in the first place. Behe thought IC blew evolution (natural or otherwise) out of the water because he only imagined the final function and couldn't see how anything could produce that other than instant creation because until all the pieces are doing the final job they aren't doing th ejobat all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

but rather asks “can the system as a whole be built in a step-by-step fashion which does not require any ‘non-slight’ modifications to gain the final target function?” Any non-slight modifications of complexity required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of-the-final system, to the entire final functional system, represent the irreducible complexity of a system.[/COLOR]

That is exactly the point. IC says that a system cannot evolve because proponents are only looking at the final function as a valid function of the system. All other functions and the system dies because it is not performing the final function

They ignore that it could be performing a different function and that slight changes could produce the new function. They only look at "non-slight" jumps because they cannot imagine the system performing a function other than the final one.

What is the point of quoting me back something that proves my point? :pac:

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

ID says the chance of the component parts originating, surviving and finally coming together to form the functioning whole are too great to be plausible.

IC not = ID

It does not however say they could not have individually formed by a process that did not require a mousetrap end. The wood might have been cut from a block that could have served many purposes. The spring might be from a wire that served many purposes. The catch likewise. The mousetrap itself however, requires that all the components are brought together in the correct positions.

Yes..

But from the horse's mouth (bolding mine):
http://www.discovery.org/a/3718
Miller’s test of irreducible complexity is a straw test. The correct test would have stated:

“Dr. Behe's prediction is that an irreducibly complex system will go through some non-functional stage along any evolutionary pathway. Therefore, we ought to be able to take the bacterial flagellum, for example, remove a part, and discover that the system stops working.”
Miller’s testimony and Judge Jones’s conclusion is based upon a false test of irreducible complexity which focuses on the functionality of one-sub-part, not the functionality of the entire flagellar system.
........................................................................................................

I'm trying to figure out is that just plain lies or did you not read Millers actual explanation just some pro-ID websites interpretation of it.

Links have been provided before, I gave a video presentation link which contains 5-6 examples so I can only guess you are ignoring them.

But just in case you missed it, let me say it again.

IC states that removing any part of an IC system will make that system non-functional. i.e > Performing no function.

wikipedia wrote:

The bacterial flagellum

An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system.

All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. It is also a possibility that the flagellum could have evolved from a currently undiscovered system with similar flagellar traits or a currently extinct organelle/organism.[citation needed] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system.

You take away some of the flagellams components and suddenly you have a secretion system used by viruses all over the world.

Ken Miller does this in great detail and he does NOT just talk about the individual parts performing functions, he talks about the whole system, minus some parts performing functions.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Actually Intelligent Design theory doesn't specify who the designer might be - it simply states that certain features in organism appear to require a designer. That would hold true equally if the Designer was the Judeo-Christian God, the FSM, or an alien called Billy-Bob from a UFO.

So it isn't really an excellent letter at all. It is somebody trying to be smart and instead producing an epic fail - which is entirely consistent with most of the people I met on my last visit to Kansas.

Wedge document says otherwise. It's Yaweh or the highway.

stesh

PDN wrote: »

Of course. I would be very happy to see proof that ID is wrong. That would be very welcome and much better than ad hominem attacks that think you can discredit a theory by using the word 'creationism' enough times.

BTW, I do not advocate teaching ID in the classroom. I think that it should be assessed scientifically (not ideologically) and should only make it into the classroom if there is sufficient support from the scientific community. In other words, if ID is bad science then junk it, but make sure the junking is done on scientific grounds alone.

So yes, if ID is proven wrong I will accept it as so - even though some, in their eagerness to rubbish it, claim it is non-testable and non-falsifiable.

Why is it that you object to it being taught in schools due to its lack of scientific basis, yet you require scientific proof in order to dismiss it yourself?

ID HAS been junked on scientific grounds. The scientific community has shunned it outright because there is no evidence to support it. Nothing in science is assumed to be true unless it is backed up by such evidence.

We would get nowhere by assuming that things are true until they are proven false. I could come up with an infinite number of hypotheses to explain why diversity of life exists on earth. The only way to prove a single one of those (including ID or evolution) would be to disprove every other remaining hypothesis, which would, obviously, take an infinite amount of time.

The reason scientists are so 'hung up' on evolution and not ID is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that evolution is the right explanation. They aren't just holding on to it blindly (like you are for ID) hoping that it won't be disproven.

PDN

stesh wrote: »

The reason scientists are so 'hung up' on evolution and not ID is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that evolution is the right explanation. They aren't just holding on to it blindly (like you are for ID) hoping that it won't be disproven.

Eh? Actually I've already stated in this thread that I'm not a proponent of ID. I've read some stuff on it and I said I would like to see it addressed by someone who actually understands it and can address any weaknesses from an objective scientific standpoint that is understandable to a layman rather than ad hominem attacks and attempting to conflate it with creationism.

So, I'm not quite sure what anyone's holding on to blindly (except your false assumptions about me).

stesh

PDN wrote: »

Eh? Actually I've already stated in this thread that I'm not a proponent of ID. I've read some stuff on it and I said I would like to see it addressed by someone who actually understands it and can address any weaknesses from an objective scientific standpoint that is understandable to a layman rather than ad hominem attacks and attempting to conflate it with creationism.

So, I'm not quite sure what anyone's holding on to blindly (except your false assumptions about me).

You said 'if ID is proven wrong I will accept it as so'. Thus, you are holding onto ID blindly, as the principle of science is to treat it as false until evidence suggests otherwise, rather than assuming it as true until it is specifically disproven.

PDN

stesh wrote: »

You said 'if ID is proven wrong I will accept it as so'. Thus, you are holding onto ID blindly, as the principle of science is to treat it as false until evidence suggests otherwise, rather than assuming it as true until it is specifically disproven.

Bit of a leap of logic there.

I'm keeping an open mind on it until I see evidence that it is valid or invalid. I'm sorry if that offends the sensibilities of those who think I should be dead set against something while I am not familiar with evidence against it. :cool:

stesh

PDN wrote: »

Bit of a leap of logic there.

I'm keeping an open mind on it until I see evidence that it is valid or invalid. I'm sorry if that offends the sensibilities of those who think I should be dead set against something while I am not familiar with evidence against it. :cool:

How is it a leap of logic? You're the one being illogical if you're 'keeping an open mind on it until [you] see evidence that it is valid or invalid'.

Suppose I suggest to you that the universe was created by a giant multi-coloured, chinese-speaking, ten-legged octopus. Are you going to keep an open mind on that? You haven't seen any evidence to disprove it after all.

PDN

stesh wrote: »

How is it a leap of logic? You're the one being illogical if you're 'keeping an open mind on it until [you] see evidence that it is valid or invalid'.

Suppose I suggest to you that the universe was created by a giant multi-coloured, chinese-speaking, ten-legged octopus. Are you going to keep an open mind on that? You haven't seen any evidence to disprove it after all.

And suppose someone tells me I evolved from a simpler life form. I haven't seen any evidence to prove it, but I'm happy enough to keep an open mind on it, and even think it's quite possible, until I can examine the evidence.

You really don't like the idea of someone being open-minded, do you?

stesh

PDN wrote: »

And suppose someone tells me I evolved from a simpler life form. I haven't seen any evidence to prove it, but I'm happy enough to keep an open mind on it, and even think it's quite possible, until I can examine the evidence.

You really don't like the idea of someone being open-minded, do you?

The point is that there is no evidence to support my octopus hypothesis. Thus, it has little or no value scientifically.

I don't like people being 'open-minded' when it involves blatantly ignoring and denying scientific evidence and the principles it supports (evolution, for example) to bolster their personal beliefs. Feel free to be open-minded, but since you're apparently open to anything, even the ridiculous octopus idea, you have to concede that you're not going to get any closer to figuring out how the world came into existence.

Here's another: The world came into existence two months ago when a green-coloured man with twenty fingers moulded it out of a huge ball of play-doh. Open-minded?

PDN

stesh wrote: »

The point is that there is no evidence to support my octopus hypothesis. Thus, it has little or no value scientifically.

I don't like people being 'open-minded' when it involves blatantly ignoring and denying scientific evidence and the principles it supports (evolution, for example) to bolster their personal beliefs. Feel free to be open-minded, but since you're apparently open to anything, even the ridiculous octopus idea, you have to concede that you're not going to get any closer to figuring out how the world came into existence.

Here's another: The world came into existence two months ago when a green-coloured man with twenty fingers moulded it out of a huge ball of play-doh. Open-minded?

If I see the possibility that an idea has merit then I usuallly keep an open mind on it until evidence one way or the other leads me to a firm opinion.

Your inability to tolerate this is, I must say, quite disturbing. Please don't ever follow a career in education or politics.

stesh

PDN wrote: »

If I see the possibility that an idea has merit then I usuallly keep an open mind on it until evidence one way or the other leads me to a firm opinion.

Your inability to tolerate this is, I must say, quite disturbing. Please don't ever follow a career in education or politics.

Why does my wholehearted acceptance of the scientific method disturb you? It's not like I have some militant objection to ID in particular. Supposing some day in the future science discovers that ID is indeed the correct way to explain the diversity of life. I will immediately dismiss evolution, and embrace ID at that moment.

There is a possibility that every idea under the sun has merit. That's the problem. As I keep saying science wouldn't get anywhere without a guiding principle, which is to be sceptical of everything unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. I do not apologize for my 'inability to tolerate' any other supposed method of finding knowledge.

As for your 'education' remark, you'll find that the vast majority of science teachers hold this position. If I happen upon somebody who doesn't understand the scientific method, it's not like I'm going to be arrogant or condescending to them. As I have done here, I will simply explain why its basic guiding principles are so important. What baffles me is that people are happy to consciously reject objective evidence and use pseudo-scientific arguments to support their beliefs.

Also, why are you talking about politics? Science doesn't care about your feelings. It cares about a search for truth. In any case you'll find that my political leanings are a lot more tolerant and liberal than most.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Bit of a leap of logic there.

I'm keeping an open mind on it until I see evidence that it is valid or invalid. I'm sorry if that offends the sensibilities of those who think I should be dead set against something while I am not familiar with evidence against it. :cool:

You can't disprove ID (at least that there is a designer behind it all) Irreducible complexity etc are so easily proven false its a disgrace anyone would claim they still have some merit.

And the fact you can't disprove it is exactly WHY its not science. That and the complete lack of evidence or even a reasonable hypothesis behind it.

PDN, If I told you that the Earth was populated by DNA from Martians 5000 years ago and they designed human life to be their slaves.

Would you keep an 'open mind' on that even though I presented no evidence (or easily disproven lies) ?

You can't (yet) disprove my hypothesis, should it be taught in Science class ?

This is exactly the same rubbish as ID. Its greatest weapon is that it cannot be disproven, which is also why it is not science.

Its backers cite 'free speech' etc. ID has no scientific merit whatsoever. You might as well say we should teach Scientologists 'theory' of creation in Science class. There is as much evidence to support it and its just as scientific as ID

stesh

monosharp wrote: »

You can't disprove ID (at least that there is a designer behind it all) Irreducible complexity etc are so easily proven false its a disgrace anyone would claim they still have some merit.

And the fact you can't disprove it is exactly WHY its not science. That and the complete lack of evidence or even a reasonable hypothesis behind it.

PDN, If I told you that the Earth was populated by DNA from Martians 5000 years ago and they designed human life to be their slaves.

Would you keep an 'open mind' on that even though I presented no evidence (or easily disproven lies) ?

You can't (yet) disprove my hypothesis, should it be taught in Science class ?

This is exactly the same rubbish as ID. Its greatest weapon is that it cannot be disproven, which is also why it is not science.

Its backers cite 'free speech' etc. ID has no scientific merit whatsoever. You might as well say we should teach Scientologists 'theory' of creation in Science class. There is as much evidence to support it and its just as scientific as ID

There is no free speech in science without evidence.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I'm not a proponent of ID. I've read some stuff on it and I said I would like to see it addressed by someone who actually understands it and can address any weaknesses from an objective scientific standpoint that is understandable to a layman

If you're looking for something on biology and ID, but which is not written by a professional biologist, then I suggest you read Judge John Jones judgment in the Dover trial. This is available as a PDF download from here.

It contains a clear and simple explanation of why ID and Creationism are the same thing, and it provides a clear and simple destruction of the scientific pretensions of the ID movement which, on closer examination, turned out to be nothing but pure wind.

If you don't have time to read the full 139 pages -- though I certainly suggest you do, since it's a well-written and thoughtful piece which examines the background to the case as well -- then just read the conclusion on pages 136-139, and page 32 which explains why ID and Creationism are identical.

Behe, unfortunately for his movement, incriminated himself quite elegantly.

AtomicHorror

The main problem with ID, aside from the fact that it is just re-branded Christian creationism, is that its core arguments are not specific enough to be testable/falsifiable. There is no hypothesis to speak of, and so there is no scientific foundation. If there are any specific questions about the scientific assertions made by ID proponents I'd be quite happy, as a biologist, to respond.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Like PDN you have stumbled upon the biggest flaw in IC, that a system can have a different function to the one it eventually ends up having, and as such the idea of IC is no issue to Darwinian evolution. But lets not pretend that IC didn't say this in the first place. It did, it was silly, moving on...

If all the components can have a different function and evolve along that function then it could simply be one mutation that causes a switch from one function to the newer function. Something could have all the components of a mouse trap but not be performing the function of a mouse trap and then a simple mutation causes it to start being a mouse trap instead. Natural selection says "Umm, this is good" and selects that function.

Clearly this is no issue to Darwinian evolution, so why would Behe think it would be? Because he didn't factor in the other functions that could be taking place in the first place. Behe thought IC blew evolution (natural or otherwise) out of the water because he only imagined the final function and couldn't see how anything could produce that other than instant creation because until all the pieces are doing the final job they aren't doing th ejobat all...


but rather asks “can the system as a whole be built in a step-by-step fashion which does not require any ‘non-slight’ modifications to gain the final target function?” Any non-slight modifications of complexity required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of-the-final system, to the entire final functional system, represent the irreducible complexity of a system.

That is exactly the point. IC says that a system cannot evolve because proponents are only looking at the final function as a valid function of the system. All other functions and the system dies because it is not performing the final function

They ignore that it could be performing a different function and that slight changes could produce the new function. They only look at "non-slight" jumps because they cannot imagine the system performing a function other than the final one.

What is the point of quoting me back something that proves my point? :pac:

Because you miss my point. Sure, one mutational change may be statistically possible, but for the 'mousetrap' to work all the bits have to be brought together at the same time and in the right place.

That is what the IDers say is beyond reasonable possibility. That is what requires a Designer to intervene. That is what causes macro-evolution.

As a Creationist, I don't go for any of that junk. But I want to make clear what IDers actually teach. If I'm wrong, please point it out.

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

IC not = ID



Yes..



I'm trying to figure out is that just plain lies or did you not read Millers actual explanation just some pro-ID websites interpretation of it.

Links have been provided before, I gave a video presentation link which contains 5-6 examples so I can only guess you are ignoring them.

But just in case you missed it, let me say it again.

IC states that removing any part of an IC system will make that system non-functional. i.e > Performing no function.



You take away some of the flagellams components and suddenly you have a secretion system used by viruses all over the world.

Ken Miller does this in great detail and he does NOT just talk about the individual parts performing functions, he talks about the whole system, minus some parts performing functions.

IC states that removing any part of an IC system will make that system non-functional. i.e > Performing no function.

Two points.

1. Can you show me where ID teaches an IC system will have no function if a part is removed?

2. Can the missing part be 'found' by minor changes, or does it require a 'non-slight' modification of complexity?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because you miss my point. Sure, one mutational change may be statistically possible, but for the 'mousetrap' to work all the bits have to be brought together at the same time and in the right place.

Yes but that is only a problem if until that happens the system can't be doing anything.

If the system can be doing something else with 99% of the pieces and then one or two mutational change causes it to start doing something else then there is no issue.

That is the point of the mouse trap analogy. The mouse trap, according to Behe (and he was wrong, but sure go figure), cannot do anything other than be a mouse trap. If it is missing a piece it does nothing. Not something else. Nothing.

The whole point of irreducibly complex systems is that they are "irreducible", if you reduce them they are supposed to stop working all together. They don't simply start doing something other than what they were doing. If that was the case there would be no issue. They are supposed to stop doing anything.

And this was of course the very first thing that biologists pointed out to Behe, that organic systems can be doing something else and then a mutation causes them to start doing something other than that instead. There is no requirement for them to slowly build up pieces towards a finial end goal while not actually performing any function, that is not how evolution works. The system is always functioning doing something, but that something need not be the thing it will be doing a few generations from now.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

IC states that removing any part of an IC system will make that system non-functional. i.e > Performing no function.

I'm sorry I'm confused, are you stating that or asking me if that's the definition ?

Two points.

1. Can you show me where ID teaches an IC system will have no function if a part is removed?

I'm confused again, what you've asked is the very definition of IC itself.

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the argument of irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "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"

This is the whole definition of IC. If the system had a function (which it does) missing a part then it isn't IC.

Am I misunderstanding your question ?

Irreducible 'means' it cannot be reduced, it cannot have a function if a part is removed. Thats ID's and IC's whole argument.

Its also completely false but you asked what they are trying to teach.

2. Can the missing part be 'found' by minor changes, or does it require a 'non-slight' modification of complexity?

No idea what your asking here.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but that is only a problem if until that happens the system can't be doing anything.

If the system can be doing something else with 99% of the pieces and then one or two mutational change causes it to start doing something else then there is no issue.

That is the point of the mouse trap analogy. The mouse trap, according to Behe (and he was wrong, but sure go figure), cannot do anything other than be a mouse trap. If it is missing a piece it does nothing. Not something else. Nothing.

The whole point of irreducibly complex systems is that they are "irreducible", if you reduce them they are supposed to stop working all together. They don't simply start doing something other than what they were doing. If that was the case there would be no issue. They are supposed to stop doing anything.

And this was of course the very first thing that biologists pointed out to Behe, that organic systems can be doing something else and then a mutation causes them to start doing something other than that instead. There is no requirement for them to slowly build up pieces towards a finial end goal while not actually performing any function, that is not how evolution works. The system is always functioning doing something, but that something need not be the thing it will be doing a few generations from now.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough, so I'll let the IDers speak for themselves (emphases mine):
(B) Behe’s Clear Responses to Evolutionary Appeals to Exaptation:
Secondly, refuting both Judge Jones's claim that Behe "attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat" and also Miller's statement that "Behe's prediction is that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function," consider these passages from Darwin’s Black Box in which Behe presents the problems of exaptational arguments when discussing the evolution of the cilium:

"Because the cilium is irreducibly complex, no direct gradual route leads to its production. So an evolutionary story for the cilium must envision a circuitous route, perhaps adapting parts that were originally used for other purposes." (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 65-66.)

"For example, suppose you wanted to make a mousetrap. In your garage you might have a piece of wood from an old Popsicle stick (for the platform), a spring from an old wind-up clock, a piece of metal (for the hammer) in the form of a crowbar, a darning needle for the holding bar, and a bottle cap that you fancy to use as a catch. But these pieces couldn't form a functioning mousetrap without extensive modification, and while the modification was going on, they would be unable to work as a mousetrap. Their previous functions make them ill- suited for virtually any new role as part of a complex system. In the case of the cilium, there are analogous problems. The mutated protein that accidentally stuck to microtubules would block their function as "highways" of transport. A protein that indiscriminately bound microtubules together would disrupt the cell's shape--just as a building's shape would be disrupted by an erroneously placed cable that accidentally pulled together girders supporting the building. A linker that strengthened microtubule bundles for structural supports would tend to make them inflexible, unlike the flexible linker nexin. An unregulated motor protein, freshly binding to microtubules, would push apart micrutubules that should be close together. The incipient cilium would not be at the cell surface. If it were not at the cell surface, then internal beating could disrupt the cell; but even if it were at the cell surface, the number of motor proteins would probably not be enough to move the cilium. And even if the cilium moved, an awkward stroke would not necessarily move the cell. And if the cell did move, it would be an unregulated motion using energy and not corresponding to any need of the cell.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 66-67.)
Previously Behe had also explained evolution does not always necessarily proceed in such a direct route:

“Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 40.)
Thus contrary to both the Judge's and Miller’s claims, Behe addresses the possibility that parts can be "co-opted" from other systems and does not shy away from this objection at all. (Indeed, even the basic and introductory pro-ID video entitled “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” deals with the co-option objection.) Behe explains that simply having all of the parts for a system is not enough: one must also have the proper assembly instructions for those parts. Thus, it should be clear that Miller has misrepresented Behe’s argument both by ignoring Behe’s refutation of the co-option theory and by falsely suggesting that Behe holds, “that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function [outside of the total irreducibly complex system].”

(C) Miller’s Incorrect Characterization of Irreducible Complexity
To repeat Miller’s assertion, he testified that irreducible complexity is refuted if one sub-system can perform some other function in the cell:

“Dr. Behe's prediction is that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function. Therefore, we ought to be able to take the bacterial flagellum, for example, break its parts down, and discover that none of the parts are good for anything except when we're all assembled in a flagellum.” (Dr. Kenneth Miller Testimony, Day 1, PM Session, page 16.)
The question becomes, “how is Behe’s argument different from that of Ken Miller?” Behe actually formulates irreducible complexity as a test of building an entire system. IC operates on a collection of parts, not each individual part. Even if a separate function could be found for a sub-system, the latter would not refute the irreducible complexity and the unevolvability of the system as a whole. To repeat Behe’s definition, Behe writes:

“In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

'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.'
A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity 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.” (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 39 (Free Press, 1996).)
Thus, according to Darwin, evolution requires that a system, or its sub-parts, be functional along each small step of their evolution to the final system. Yet one could find a sub-part that could be useful outside of the final system, and yet the total system would still face many points along an "evolutionary pathway" where it could not remain functional along "numerous, successive, slight modifications" that would be necessary for its gradual evolution. (With regards to the flagellum at least 2/3 of the parts are not known to be shared with any other structure therefore might not be even a sub-part of another system at all.)

Thus, Miller mischaracterizes Behe's argument as one which focuses on the non-functionality of sub-parts, when in fact, Behe’s argument actually focuses on the ability of the entire system to assemble, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system.

A Car Example for Illustration
To understand how Miller's test fails to accurately apply to Behe's formulation of irreducible complexity, consider the example of a car engine and a bolt. Car engines use various kinds of bolts, and a bolt could be seen as a small “sub-part” or “sub-system” of a car engine. Under Miller's logic, if a vital bolt in my car's engine might also to perform some other function—perhaps as a lugnut--then it follows that my car's whole engine system is not irreducibly complex. Such an argument is obviously fallacious.

In assessing whether an engine is irreducibly complex, one must focus on the function of the engine itself, not on the possible function of some sub-part that may operate elsewhere. Of course a bolt out of my engine could serve some other purpose in my car. However this observation does not explain how many complex parts such as pistons, cylinders, the camshaft, valves, the crankshaft, sparkplugs, the distributor cap, and wiring came together in the appropriate configuration to make a functional car engine. Even if all of these parts could perform some other function in the car (which is doubtful), how were these parts assembled properly to construct a functional engine? The answer requires intelligent design.

Behe asserts that a system is irreducibly complex if the system stops functioning upon the removal of one part. This is the appropriate test of Darwin’s theory because it asks the question, “Is there a minimal level of complexity which is required for functionality of this system?” Clearly my car’s engine has a core set of parts necessary in order for it to function. The ability of an engine bolt to also serve as a lugnut does not refute the irreducibly complex arrangement of parts necessary to make the final engine-system functional. Behe never suggests that subsystems cannot play some other role in the cell—in fact he suggests the opposite. Rather, Behe simply argues that evolution requires that the total system must be built up in a slight, step-by-step fashion, where each step is functional.

Miller has mischaracterized irreducible complexity, and his test is a straw-test for refuting irreducible complexity. The test for irreducible complexity does not ask “can one small part of the macrosystem be used to do something else?” as Miller claims, but rather asks “can the system as a whole be built in a step-by-step fashion which does not require any ‘non-slight’ modifications to gain the final target function?” Any non-slight modifications of complexity required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of-the-final system, to the entire final functional system, represent the irreducible complexity of a system.

Even if Miller could find that every part of the flagellum existed somewhere else in bacteria (which he cannot—he only accounts for the basal body, which constitutes about 1/4 of the total flagellar proteins), Miller is no where close to providing a plausible account of the evolution of the flagellum until he has explained how all the flagellar parts might have come together to produce a functional bacterial flagellum. Only then that Miller claim that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.