Posted on 08/30/2005 9:31:31 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
Of course the IDers are reading this article as well and have come up with some responses, including this one :
August 30, 2005
http://www.idthefuture.com/
Is Darwinism the Cornerstone of Modern Biology? Essay in the Latest Issue of The Scientist Says No
Jonathan Witt
(Corrected) John Derbyshire is at NRO explaining why only the strengths of Darwninism should be taught to high school students, never the weaknesses.
His argument rests on this statement: "Darwinism is the essential foundation for all of modern biology and genomics, and offers a convincing explanation for all the phenomena we can observe in the life sciences."
The "convincing explanation" bit is, of course, question begging. As for the claim that Darwinism is the cornerstone for all of modern biology, National Academy of Sciences member Philip S. Skell investigated the claim, and reports his results in the latest issue of The Scientist. He writes:
My own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
This guy is plainly clueless. ID has an all-star lineup behind it and this guy obviously just hasn't kept up.
An all-star lineup, huh? Really? Would you care to elaborate? Don't try the "400 scientists" crap, because that's already been shown to be a fraud.
All-Star line-up? The last guy that tried to field that line-up found that many actually wore the uniforms of the evolutionists!
Dum Dum alert.
Can you provide a link.
Yeah! All-Star line up: The Flash, Green Lantern, Starman, Hourman, The Spectre, Sandman, Dr. Fate ...
Well, the whole point of Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, is that natural selection cannot produce biological systems that he labels as "irreducibly complex." From this he concludes such systems must have been directly designed by some intelligent agent.
Behe's book is probably the most influential one in the intelligent design movement. All the other major figures in it, Demski, Berlinski, Johnson, and Denton have all embraced Behe's argument. You can google them for yourself to find
If you want an actual quote from Behe, here's one I found on the net:
"Darwin's theory is completely barren when it comes to explaining the origin of the flagellum or any other complex biochemical system."
The source is here:
http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/behe.htm
I completely agree with you that God could have tweaked a mutation here or there in the process of guiding evolution, and modern science would not be able to detect it.
I would have problems with this view on theological grounds, but it is certainly cannot be ruled out (or ruled in) by science.
You are right that the intelligent design people are flying under false colors. They are, in effect, abusing the English language.
No, I think he's just proposing a way in which to reconcile religious knowledge and scientific knowledge.
I don't believe his method is philsophically or even theologically sound, but you can't say it's unscientific.
”You are proposing a system of knowledge based on the absense of evidence. “
Not at all. I don’t propose that science should back down on any evidence that is found. What I am proposing is a clear distinction between the scientific and the theological.
I think we have established that science cannot today speak to the question of whether any specific mutation must necessarily have been accidental. To make such a statement, the scientist must cross the line dividing the scientific from the theological. I have no problem with that per se (other than empirical knowledge that it is erroneous), but it seems to me that many are trying to subsume that theological opinion under the heading of science, while insisting that the opposite opinion on the same question rightfully belongs to the theological.
Now, if I say “p,” and you say “not p,” we are both expressing opinions regarding “p.” How can one of those opinions belong to the set of opinions regarding “p,” while the other belongs to the set of opinions regarding “q”? That could only be true if the factuality of “q” required “not p,” and that is not the case here. (Where “p” is the existence of God, “not p” is His non-existence, and “q” is all scientific knowledge)
“Not just evidence that hasn't yet been found, but evidence that cannot be found because the creator has hidden it so that it cannot be found.”
That too is a theological question. I don’t ask anyone to believe it on scientific grounds. However, I dispute that it is possible either to believe or disbelieve it on any grounds other than the theological.
People on these threads often complain that others are trying to inject the theological into the scientific; but the opposite is also happening. If I say “p,” that is theological; but if someone says “not p,” some insist that proposition is scientific—even though science has in no way established “not p.” From a scientific standpoint, establishing the possibility of “not p” does not necessarily rule out the possibility of “p.”
”In such a system, the rantings of a psychotic are as valid as anyone else's, because everything is equally likely or unlikely.”
Well, no, but perhaps that’s a debate for another day.
Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.
It's not going to be a debate with me. If you care to believe in something that has no evidence and is not required for a complete explanation, that's your choice.
"something that has no evidence"
Sorry to be contentious, but that is a factual error.
"Do not multiply entities beyond necessity."
Good old Occam. That's a good rule for science.
By the same token, surely science is silent on such issues rather than ruling them out without proper scientific vetting.
"I don't believe his method is philsophically or even theologically sound"
If you'd care to elaborate on that, I'd be interested in hearing your objections.
So nice of you to warn us all of your arrival to the thread. Welcome!
You've got the website. You do the research.
Theologically, the God we know from revelation and experience is one who generally prefers to work through the laws of nature and who only performs mircales on extremely rare occasions, and then generally only for the purpose of revealing himself to man. Therefore, it would seems more consistent with what we know about God that He would create man using a wholly natural process.
“Well, the whole point of Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, is that natural selection cannot produce biological systems that he labels as "irreducibly complex." From this he concludes such systems must have been directly designed by some intelligent agent.
I don’t see where that supports your original assertion. It looks to me like Behe is saying that evolution must have had a little help here and there.
I freely concede that this opinion is a theological one and not a scientific. However, so is the act of ruling out any intervention by an intelligence.
Could it have happened accidentally? I don’t think science has demonstrated that it could. Likewise, I don’t know that Behe has demonstrated scientifically that it couldn’t. Either opinion, therefore, rests on belief.
“I would have problems with this view on theological grounds, but it is certainly cannot be ruled out (or ruled in) by science.”
Perhaps we should go 1984 on the question and have huge banners everywhere reading, “Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.