Designed by chance?

[Northern Christian]

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/michaelb.htm

How can something be designed by "chance?"

 

[Bushido216]

Page not found.

 

[Northern Christian]

Fixed.

 

[Bushido216]

A few comments.

What systems are irreducibely complex?

This guy is misquoting Behe, which is really funny, when you think abou ***.

"Now, in natural selection, specific circumstances in the environment allow a particular individual to survive and reproduce" - incorrect. Specific circumstances in the individual allow that individual a better chance to survive as determined by the environment.

The conclusion to this article is the telling piece. I'll paraphrase: In my brand of theistic evolution, it doesn't mesh. Good thing that's not the only brand, eh?

 

[ThePhoenix]

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/michaelb.htm

How can something be designed by "chance?"

When one considers the possibility of the general theory of evolution, there are two things that must be in place. There must have been abiogenesis; life must come from non-life, and it must do so without any help from God. This gets the ball rolling. It's the kick-off that gets us into the evolutionary game.

What garbage. Evolution says NEITHER of these things.

No, God "used" the wind like a carpenter would use a hammer, as a tool to design a very specific result. This use of nature is not consistent with Darwinism.

WHAT?!? GARBAGE! This borders on intentional misleading. Did God intend humans? I believe yes.

Now, in natural selection, specific circumstances in the environment allow a particular individual to survive and reproduce, passing its mutated genes on to the next generation. Serendipitous conditions in nature make the choice, not God. And--watch this, friends--if nature is selecting, then God is not selecting.

Classic. Nature means God was not involved. No wonder conservatives think they have the right to destroy the earth, God hates it because it doesn't involve him at all. It's not like he created nature or anything

Let me illustrate it this way. Suppose I wanted a straight flush for a hand of poker. I could either pull the cards out of the deck individually and design the hand, or I could shuffle the cards randomly and see if the flush is dealt to me. But it wouldn't make any sense to design the hand by shuffling the deck and dealing, would it?

Yes, it would. If you set up a mechanims that discards any hands without flushes (lets call it natural selection) and a shuffling mechanism (lets call it mutation) you'll get exactly the result you want. Why couldn't God do this?

Creation is teleological. It has a purpose, a goal, and an end, just like the birdhouse. Evolution is an accident, like a straight flush dealt to a poker rookie. Those are the only two options.

The hindus have a different opinion. Evidence against evolution is as likely to prove that the world came out of a flower in a God's bellybutton as creationism. Both are FALSIFIED.

 

[lucaspa]

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/michaelb.htm

How can something be designed by "chance?"

It's not. Natural selection is not chance.

Koukl's website is really funny. The number of strawmen constitute a real fire hazzard.

"Evolution really has two parts to it. You need to be clear on the distinction between these two parts when you talk about this issue. The two parts are the general theory of evolution and the special theory of evolution. The general theory is also called macro-evolution because it's a theory about the big picture. The special theory is often called micro-evolution because it focuses on smaller changes. "

Now, in the 3 evolutionary biology textbooks I have read, none of them have used this terminology. Koukl is building a strawman. But that's OK, Behe built a strawman of Darwinian selection for his book. I guess if you misstate a position often enough, people will believe you. Goebbels would be so proud.

"When one considers the possibility of the general theory of evolution, there are two things that must be in place. There must have been abiogenesis; life must come from non-life, and it must do so without any help from God. This gets the ball rolling. It's the kick-off that gets us into the evolutionary game."

Whenever anyone introduces abiogenesis as part of evolution, you know they are not really talking about evolution, but are arguing the theism vs atheism debate and trying to use abiogenesis as a "gap" for god-of-the-gaps theology. See http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

"Behe observes that life is incredibly complex even at its simplest level. In fact, upon examination one discovers a level of what he calls "irreducible complexity." If living systems are indeed irreducibly complex, it seems hard to explain their existence through gradual development, with each stage being moved forward through natural selection.
Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustration. "

Notice that "if". Behe also has another "if" here:
Irreducibly complex systems can't arise by chance. However, Behe himself refutes that one:
"Let me inject a note of caution: some systems require several pieces but not ones that need to be closely matched. For example, suppose you were walking in the woods and came across an old log, where the wind had blown a tree branch onto it, and the branch was perpendicular to the log. Here you have an irreducibly complex system -- a lever and a fulcrum. If there were a boulder nearby, you possibly could use the lever and fulcrum to move it. So some systems require several parts but not closely matched ones." Michael Behe, Intelligent design theory as a tool for analyzing biochemical systems in Mere Creation, Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design edited by William A. Dembski, 1998, page 179

Obviously, once the IC system forms by chance, even Behe's strawman of natural selection can make it very complex.

However, it turns out that none of Behe's so-called IC systems are really IC. The mousetrap isn't. Ken Miller illustrated that very well (and one of the routes of natural selection Behe forgot to consider) by removing two parts of the mousetrap and showing that the mousetrap does indeed have a function -- as a tiepin.

This paper will show you how Behe's whole challenge to evolution falls apart. All complex structures can be accessed by one or a combination of two or more routes of Darwinian evolution. Behe had a nice hypothesis. It has been falsified by the data.
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/articles/jtb.pdf