Professor [Behe]: Design not creationism [Evolution trial, 18 October]

The York Dispatch ^ | 18 October 2005 | CHRISTINA KAUFFMAN

[MEGoody]

There is a fundamental difference between evolution and ID

As there always is between two 'competing' theories.

Evolution explains biodiversity by natural processes which can be studied and tested.

The basis of the theory of evolution is RANDOM mutation resulting in more diverse AND complex life forms.

It's no more permissable for ID to ignore questions about the designer than it would be for evolution to ignore questions about mutations and natural selection.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You claim that evolution can just skip over the origins part of the equation, while ID cannot.

If the 'validity' of ID requires that the theory address the designer (e.g. origin of life) then the requirement to address origins must be fulfilled by evolution in order for it to be 'valid'.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The basis of the theory of evolution is RANDOM mutation resulting in more diverse AND complex life forms."

The basis of the ToE is Natural Selection. The variation to be selected is random, but Natural Selection is the opposite of random.

"You claim that evolution can just skip over the origins part of the equation, while ID cannot."

Apples and oranges. Evolution by definition is not concerned with how life arose. All it needs is a self-replicating organism with imperfect duplication (variation). It matters not where they came from. ID on the other hand claims to describe the origins of the universe, life, and the evolution of said life on Earth. It's taking on not just evolution but cosmology and abiogenesis.

"If the 'validity' of ID requires that the theory address the designer (e.g. origin of life) then the requirement to address origins must be fulfilled by evolution in order for it to be 'valid'"

No, the two don't follow. For ID, the mechanism IS the Designer; ID proponent's failure to produce any attributes of this designer means they have no mechanism. There isn't any proposed way to ever test for one either.

[Chaguito]

Science will only look for alternatives when unremitting pressure is applied, especially in a charged atmosphere like today's. People are emotionally bound to their positions.

If NeoDarwinism has a touch of "phlogiston" in its structure, it will require some work to remove it. Somebody is simply looking for alternatives to difficult problems, and the name is ID.

[Chaguito]

That the ID proponents "expect" the intelligent designer to be supernatural may, or may not, be true. The book of ID essays, Uncommon Dissent, has everything from Christian to atheistic points of view, but all with ID viewpoint in common.

I think their point is that the relatively recent presupposition of naturalism is impeding the search for alternatives, because it eliminates out of hand anything not conforming to current ideas on what is "natural". In other words, they are not asking science to quit searching, they are asking science to drop constraints that were not part of the earliest advances of science.

[jennyp]

That the ID proponents "expect" the intelligent designer to be supernatural may, or may not, be true. The book of ID essays, Uncommon Dissent, has everything from Christian to atheistic points of view, but all with ID viewpoint in common.

But that certainly is what's motivating the Discovery Institute to spend millions of dollars over the last 9 years to get ID accepted as mainstream science. They are afraid that society will fall apart if too many people stop believing that their lives are controlled & judged by supernatural beings.

[WildTurkey]

would think that an 'unknown designer' would pretty much have to be supernatural. If evolutionists concede that the origin of life might have supernatural roots, there is no reason to doubt that ID or creation can have supernatural roots.

Why? You children believe in the magic of santa clause and the tooth fairy. No reason a non-supernatural could be keeping us. ID allows for that. ID allows for evolution and an old earth. I don't know why creationists side with such an organization.

[WildTurkey]

To go further and claim that all living organisms have descended from single cell organisms (universak common descent) is too far of a stretch, even given billions of years.

Then you can toss your Behe out on the street.

[MHalblaub]

"If the 'validity' of ID requires that the theory address the designer (e.g. origin of life) then the requirement to address origins must be fulfilled by evolution in order for it to be 'valid'."

Newton was a jerk and his theory of how the planets move around the sun is such a nonsense because he can't explain with his hypothesis why the sun is burning.

Darwin limited his theory to living things. ID didn't made that limitation. ID has to do either so design in progress or the designer himself.

IC, the incredible crude Lemma, is not capable of showing design by an unknown designer. IC can't exclude an evolutionary process to 100 % (See M. Behe's problems). So IC is worthless for ID.

[MEGoody]

Darwin limited his theory to living things.

True, Darwin limited his theory to living things, never addressing where those living things originated.

ID has to do either so design in progress or the designer himself.

Why? Give me some logical reason why you demand the theory of ID address origins but you do not for the same for evolution? Present some valid argument other than 'because I said so.'

IC can't exclude an evolutionary process to 100 %

No one said it did.

So IC is worthless for ID.

LOL Well, you are free to hold to whatever view you wish.

[MEGoody]

The basis of the ToE is Natural Selection.

'Natural selection' can only come about after some feature of a living creature has 'evolved' enough to cause an impact in their interaction with the environment. Prior to that, evolution demands a series of random mutations to develop the correct feature.

"The variation to be selected is random, but Natural Selection is the opposite of random."

As I have already shown natural selection cannot occur until after a series of random mutations has taken place.

Apples and oranges. Evolution by definition is not concerned with how life arose

And ID does not concern itself with that either. It simply shows, through science, that life is complex and thus, designed. It does not address who or what the designer might be.

ID on the other hand claims to describe the origins of the universe, life, and the evolution of said life on Earth. It's taking on not just evolution but cosmology and abiogenesis.

Agreed. Don't see how that is relevant to a claim by evolutionists that evidence of who or what the designer is must be provided.

For ID, the mechanism IS the Designer; ID proponent's failure to produce any attributes of this designer means they have no mechanism.

Oh? So if I can poke holes in your claim that natural selection is the primary driver in evolution, then that means evolution has no mechanism either.

Fine.

Tell me, step by step, how natural selection drove the ability of the first single celled life form to reproduce.

I'll be very surprised if I get a direct answer to my very direct question.

[MEGoody]

I must have missed it -- what *is* that alleged difference?

ID addresses the scientific evidence showing that life was designed rather than being a result of random events. It does not address who or what designed life. Creationism is all about the who.

[MEGoody]

He is examining the claims that ID *does* make about origins.

Specifically, what claims do you believe are being made by ID about origins? I'll be interested to see if you actually know.

Funny how the anti-evolution folks seem to have problems with basic reading comprehension.

My reading comprehension is just fine. I'll be interested to see if yours is good enough to answer the question I've asked.

[MEGoody]

who designed the designer?

One more time. ID does not address origins (who or what designed the universe), just as evolution does not address who or what caused the origin of life.

[MEGoody]

No, intelligent design has to demonstrate via evidence and falsifiability criteria that it better and more consistently explains observable phenomena than the Theory of Evolution

I agree, that is the scientific ideal. And it is fine to challenge the assertions of ID. For the most part, however, what I see on these threads isn't that at all.

That it does not, has not, and really as of this moment has no serious prospects of so doing makes it next to worthless as a scientific alternative to the TOE.

So you've written a paper on your research on the theory of ID, and your refutations of its claims? I'd love to see it.

[MEGoody]

ID says they are too complicated and therefore CANNOT be just random chance, but MUST require intervention of an intelligent designer.

And evolution claims they are the result of random mutations.

By suggesting a designer, ID explicitly offers an "origins" explanation.

ID states there is a designer, but does not address who or what that designer might be. Evolution states that life began purely by natural processes, but doesn't address what those natural processes were. If one 'must' address the origin, so must the other.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...evolution demands a series of random mutations to develop the correct feature.

No. Evolutionary theory only indicates that a series of muatations (random or not) will develop a feature. There is no concept of "correct" or "incorrect" feature.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"'Natural selection' can only come about after some feature of a living creature has 'evolved' enough to cause an impact in their interaction with the environment. Prior to that, evolution demands a series of random mutations to develop the correct feature."

All Natural Selection needs is heritable variation. Whether that comes from recombination or point mutation, is irrelevant. As soon as the genetic change affects the reproductive success of the organism, Natural Selection can work.

"As I have already shown natural selection cannot occur until after a series of random mutations has taken place."

That only means that the mutations or recombination are random, and that Natural Selection is not. Natural Selection is an anti-chance phenomena. If the genetic variation was nonrandom, Natural Selection would still operate the same way. Those organisms that are selected would still statistically be the best adapted to their specific environment.

"And ID does not concern itself with that either(the origin of life-CG). It simply shows, through science, that life is complex and thus, designed. It does not address who or what the designer might be."

ID has specifically taken on the task of trying to explain how life started. It says *The Intelligent Designer did it*. It is not just trying to say that life is complex and designed (which is an empty statement). You are correct, it doesn't name the designer, and that is it's biggest weakness. It says that some *Designer* did some inexplicable thing in inexplicable ways that can't be detected and we don't know anything about who or what this *Designer* is (or was, per Behe: He says the designer could be dead). Not going to cut it, sorry.


"ID on the other hand claims to describe the origins of the universe, life, and the evolution of said life on Earth. It's taking on not just evolution but cosmology and abiogenesis." (Me)

---

Agreed. (You)

Now you agree that ID DOES try to explain the origin of life. Which is it?

"Oh? So if I can poke holes in your claim that natural selection is the primary driver in evolution, then that means evolution has no mechanism either."

When you can actually do that; so far you haven't.

"Fine.

Tell me, step by step, how natural selection drove the ability of the first single celled life form to reproduce.

I'll be very surprised if I get a direct answer to my very direct question."

I am not a microbiologist or a biochemist. I do know that many pathways have been discovered in the last 10-20 years. Is there a lot more to know? Sure. That's why science is great, it actually looks at gaps in knowledge and says, "Let's fill those gaps!". ID looks at the same gaps and says, "We'll never figure that one out, let's say it was the *Designer* and wipe our hands of the whole subject". Your question is not a very honest one either. You know that we don't know all of the steps yet. So what? At least science is trying. If I asked YOU to describe how the *Designer* designed life or how they directed evolution, all you can hope to say is, "I can't ever know the mind of the Designer*.

ID is a gutless, fatalistic assertion. It's what you do when you get lazy and give up.

My direct answer to your trick question is we don't know yet. Evolutionists aren't as arrogant to presume to know all the answers. If only the other side was as humble.

[Joe Republc]

".. I could see such an approach were there competing scientific theories, but there aren't. The evidence all points in one direction. The theory is tested and supported, makes predictions that are verified and is falsifiable but continually not falsified. That's overwhelming evidence, but you're suggesting that we pretend it's not. "

For the record, I'm not pretending anything. I will make a point to read the case that evolution explains micro-biology, just as I've read the case that it does not.

-- Joe