Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Pandersen said:I have just started reading some of his stuff, but he is definitely pro-design.
Probably the best argument I've heard so far refuting the "we can't see macroevolution in action, therefore it doesn't happen" camp.Pandersen said: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 studiedin 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 structuresall are unobservables inferred from observable phenomena. Nevertheless, most are unambiguously the result of scientific inquiry.
He's also pro-evolution. Keep reading...Pandersen said:I have just started reading some of his stuff, but he is definitely pro-design.
Pandersen said: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
Liberalscience said:<font size="3"><font color="#2c3041">
Pandersen said: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.
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
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. ….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).
ConclusionsParallel 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
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.
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.Pandersen said:does not sound like he is destroying science
Pandersen said: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
does not sound like he is destroying science
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.
Pandersen said: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 said: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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?