Creationism will only destroy science

[PETE_]

I have just started reading some of his stuff, but he is definitely pro-design.

 

[random_guy]

I have just started reading some of his stuff, but he is definitely pro-design.

Of course he's pro-ID, however, he's also pro common ancestory. He is a molecular biologist. It would be extremely hard to find any biologist doing scientific work that does not accept common ancestory. Not only that, he's also old Earth, and I'm definitely sure he does not accept a global flood.

 

[Mallon]

observability and testability are not both necessary to scientific status, because observability at least is not necessary to scientific status, as theoretical physics has abundantly demonstrated. Many entities and events cannot be directly observed or studied—in practice or in principle. The postulation of such entities is no less the product of scientific inquiry for that. Many sciences are in fact directly charged with the job of inferring the unobservable from the observable. Forces, fields, atoms, quarks, past events, mental states, subsurface geological features, molecular biological structures—all are unobservables inferred from observable phenomena. Nevertheless, most are unambiguously the result of scientific inquiry.

Probably the best argument I've heard so far refuting the "we can't see macroevolution in action, therefore it doesn't happen" camp.

And for what it's worth, while hypotheses do indeed evolve to become theories if they are supported well enough by the data, theories do not ever become fact. Science does not allow this. Even gravity is still "just a theory." Any philosophy of science class or book will teach you this.

 

[Mallon]

I have just started reading some of his stuff, but he is definitely pro-design.

He's also pro-evolution. Keep reading...

 

[PETE_]

been reading

Darwinian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of dark- to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection in action. But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated

nor will it be demonstrated in much less then the time period it takes for major changes to be done so incrementally.

perhaps radiation or chemical mutagenics will speed up the mutation process, perhaps laboratory conditions can mimic natural niches and speed up the process some.

but if the process that allowed mankind to arise from the LCA with the chimps took 5-7million years, even a 10fold increase means 500,000 years.


but even with this, the YECist call to see demonstrated very different creatures is a moving goalpost. Even the extraordinary diversity of Drosophila melanogaster with the amazing discovery of the hox genes and their continuity in all animal life isn't enough to demonstrate different genus only speciation events.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[notto]

been reading

Darwinian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of dark- to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection in action. But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated

It has not been demonstrated directly but independent lines of evidence in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetics leads us to a conclusion of common ancestry with mutation and natural selection playing part.

We have never seen a star go through its lifecycle completely but that doesn't suggest that we can't piece together evidence of that lifecycle and propose observable mechanisms as the cause.

You've brought up something that we would not expect to be able to observe directly. The theory of evolution never proposes anything except small changes from generation to generation.

The use of the term 'Darwinian' theory is interesting. Why not just call it the theory of Evolution which is what it is referred to in the scientific context? It is no longer 'Darwinian' theory, it is the comprehensive theory that holds biology and genetics together.

 

[PETE_]

more from bebe

Although many details of the biochemistry of vision have not been cited here, the overview just seen is meant to demonstrate that, ultimately, this is what it means to 'explain' vision. This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an 'evolutionary explanation' of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton's theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

 

[RightWingGirl]

<font size="3"><font color="#2c3041">

 

[random_guy]

more from bebe

Although many details of the biochemistry of vision have not been cited here, the overview just seen is meant to demonstrate that, ultimately, this is what it means to 'explain' vision. This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an 'evolutionary explanation' of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton's theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

Behe doesn't have a problem with common descent or old Earth. He's very clear on that:

Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutinoary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." ~ Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, (New
York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 7

So you still think spouting off this scientist as support for your belief still a good idea? Even though his evidence against evolution has never actually been published in a scientific journal? Even though he still hasn't run any positive experiments for ID?

He accepts evolution. His problem is he thinks that evolution can't explain molecular biology and he's entitled to that opinion. However, it won't be scientific until he backs it up. The weird thing is to see so many Creationists continue to use someone that doesn't even support their own views. Like I said, good luck finding any biologist active in scientific research that doesn't accept common descent.

 

[PETE_]

I'd agree with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger that 'the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error...they point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intellegence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before.' Bebe

Does not sound like anti-Creator.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything just showing that the facts so often given are not facts. That does go for both sides. As to the subject of the OP

It's official. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity (IC) has found itself in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Ironically, it was introduced by two critics of ID attempting to formulate non-teleological mechanisms for spawning IC. The article is: Thornhill, R.H., Ussery, D.W. 2000. "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution." J. Theor. Bio. 203: 111-116.
First of all, this article shows that Behe's work has indeed contributed to science. Thornhill and Ussery (T&U) write:
"However, the more theoretical question about the accessibility by Darwinian evolution of irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components, if such exist, has not been thoroughly examined. &#8230;.One factor hampering examination of the accessibility of biological structures by Darwinian evolution is the absence of a classification of possible routes. A suggested classification is presented here."
Although one can argue about it, this can be viewed as a fundamental confirmation of Behe's thesis that the origin of these IC structures has not been explained by science. However, what should be clear is that Behe's skepticism has served as an impetus for these scientists to develop a classification that did not exist before. Therefore, Behe has indeed contributed in an indirect way by serving as the stimulus for the creation of such a classification.

Here again we get to see the contribution of Behe as the authors then note, "Although it can generate complicated structures, it cannot generate irreducibly complex structures."
So we can see that IC helps to rule out certain evolutionary pathways. This is also very significant in that the most persuasive examples of random mutation and natural selection (RM&NS) entail serial direct Darwinian evolution. The traditional examples of Darwin's finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, darkening wings in moths are all examples of serial direct Darwinian evolution. Thus, this means that evidence for this type of evolution is not evidence that IC can/did evolve via the blind watchmaker mechanism (BWM).

Parallel direct Darwinian evolution can generate irreducibly complex structures, but not irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components, and this is the valid conclusion to draw from Behe's thesis.
Thus, once again, we can see that when we are dealing with IC molecular machines (which are composed of functionally indivisible parts), the various examples of Darwinian evolution cited by Dawkins et al. are irrelevant. None of it amounts to evidence that Behe's IC examples evolved by the BWM.
Thus, before we go on, let's consider that despite all the expressed incredulity that is so common among Behe's critics, he has indeed contributed to science by forcing scientists to classify routes of evolution and by showing that 50% of the possible routes can't generate IC machines. This is progress. Without Behe, for example, many would probably still think that classic evidence of RM&NS allows us to think that the bacterial flagellum evolved by the same mechanism

Conclusions

Behe's notion of IC has found itself into the scientific literature and is being taken seriously by scientists. Behe has contributed to science by forcing non-teleologists to once-and-for-all lay the various Darwinian pathways on the table. This is progress as we can now look to the data to determine if there is any evidence that these pathways apply to an particular IC system in question.
Behe's notion of IC does indeed help us to effectively rule out some of the Darwinian pathways, as admitted by T&U. What is most relevant is that the pathways ruled out by IC are also those best supported by example/evidence and those that are most persuasive in explaining apparent design. The traditional examples of Darwin's finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, antibiotic resistance, and the darkening wings in moths give us no reason to think IC systems were generated by the RM&NS. The remaining explanations for IC are indeed possible, but without evidence to support them, there is no reason to seriously embrace them. Neither explanation constitutes a better general solution to IC than intelligent design. What's more, both explanations seriously weaken the overall appeal of the standard non-teleological explanations, as they resurrect a prominent role for pure chance in the origin of apparent design and/or rely on complicated initial states that may lend themselves more readily to a teleological cause.
Without realizing it, T&U have made a significant contribution to ID.

does not sound like he is destroying science

 

[Mallon]

does not sound like he is destroying science

I don't think anyone here feels Behe is destroying science, though he is certainly misapplying it. Your quoted text does little to help Behe's case, however. It seems his claims of IC have done more to help evolutionary theory (via pruning the bad bits) than discredit it.

 

[random_guy]

I'd agree with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger that 'the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error...they point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intellegence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before.' Bebe

Does not sound like anti-Creator.

Of course Behe is not anti-Creator. He's also not completely anti evolution (he believes evolution can't account for molecular biology). However, he's also pro common descent, pro old Earth.

My question is, are you going to switch your views to be more similar to his since you keep toting him as an awesome scientist?

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything just showing that the facts so often given are not facts. That does go for both sides. As to the subject of the OP

Except one problem, Behe has done no scientific research in ID. He has published no scientific papers nor has he done any scientific experiments supporting ID. All his works has been published in books and newspapers, which is not even remotely comparable to peer review.

does not sound like he is destroying science

Actually, he does want to destroy science, even if it's not on purpose.

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

If ID is scientific, then so would astrology be. I'm pretty sure the second we start allowing supernatural explanations, it's no longer science. You can feel free to contest it, but so far, Creationists haven't done a good job explaining why we need supernatural explanations or how we can test for the supernatural.

Finally, I'm still confused why you keep toting Behe when he has completely different views such as common ancestory and old Earth. ID also doesn't mean evolution isn't correct (again ignoring the fact that ID isn't scientific).

 

[PETE_]

If the evidence points to design as he suggests, how is it good for science to excluded it as a possiblity? Science should seek the truth, even if it points to design, (or away from it)

 

[laptoppop]

But it seems that Science only seeks the truth if it is repeatable and testable. Other explanations are excluded by design. Since God is alive and we do not control His actions, he is beyond the realm of what Science can be involved in. Unfortunately, this means that Science has severe limits when it comes to evaluating history. Unless one accepts that God could not possibly have acted in the past, one is not investigating in a scientific manner.

For the YEC, like me, this translates into an ongoing dilemma. As much as possible, I'd like to understand and appreciate God's creation and the forces and ways it works. But anytime we step into the supernatural -- for example God gathering the animals into the ark, or God having Noah build an ark to save all life - others will cry foul, that I'm not being scientific. Of course I'd rather be right than be scientific, if I have to exclude God acting in history in order to be seen as scientific.

 

[theFijian]

My understanding was that there clearly was design in nature, the nature of the designer though was what couldn't be scientifically verified. I mean the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland looks designed but we know it was designed by natural causes, same with biological design, all those supposed 'Icons of ID' were blown apart at the Dover trial weren't they?

 

[random_guy]

If the evidence points to design as he suggests, how is it good for science to excluded it as a possiblity? Science should seek the truth, even if it points to design, (or away from it)

Here's the problem. He states that evidence points to design, but yet he doesn't present any evidence for his position. He attempts to present negative evidence for evolution, but falsifying evolution doesn't make ID correct.

I ask again, where are the scientific papers, journals, or experiments that have been done in support of ID? Is it okay to say that if ID is scientific, so is astrology? Should science allow supernatural explanations even though there is no need for it?

 

[random_guy]

But it seems that Science only seeks the truth if it is repeatable and testable. Other explanations are excluded by design. Since God is alive and we do not control His actions, he is beyond the realm of what Science can be involved in. Unfortunately, this means that Science has severe limits when it comes to evaluating history. Unless one accepts that God could not possibly have acted in the past, one is not investigating in a scientific manner.

For the YEC, like me, this translates into an ongoing dilemma. As much as possible, I'd like to understand and appreciate God's creation and the forces and ways it works. But anytime we step into the supernatural -- for example God gathering the animals into the ark, or God having Noah build an ark to save all life - others will cry foul, that I'm not being scientific. Of course I'd rather be right than be scientific, if I have to exclude God acting in history in order to be seen as scientific.

Feel free to use God as the explanation of how animals got on the Ark. Also use God as the explanation of how animals got back to where they lived. However, this also means that God somehow made it so no animals died migrating back from whence they came (no kola or kangaroo fossils in the Middle East), travelling groves of [SIZE=-1]eucalypt trees travelled with the kolas so they had a supply of food, God made it so all animals do not show a sign of genetic bottle neck after the flood, and so on. It's just an invokation of "God did it" to every scientific problem of how did xxx happen. You may think this is a better explanation than a Global Flood didn't happen, and it's your right. I, however, feel that all these acts seem more like deception because there is no scientific evidence of a Global Flood ever occuring.[/SIZE]

 

[artybloke]

But it seems that Science only seeks the truth if it is repeatable and testable.

Science doesn't "seek the truth." It's not philosophy or theology. It merely explains how the world works, how the world came about and such things. It's not concerned with questions of meaning, any more than I'd expect my plumber to be an expert on the philosophy of Kierkegaard.

 

[PETE_]

Science doesn't "seek the truth." It's not philosophy or theology. It merely explains how the world works, how the world came about and such things. It's not concerned with questions of meaning, any more than I'd expect my plumber to be an expert on the philosophy of Kierkegaard.

If God created the universe as we contend, you are not seeking to find out how it came about because you have excluded it as a possibility.