.jpg)
Posted on 01/19/2006 3:35:07 AM PST by Mr170IQ
Fantastic article. I kept reading and thinking "yes, this guy gets it, I wonder who he is?" How cool who it ended up being.
It's a tricky situation. I agree with most of this article. Examining these complex structures and trying to understand how they could have come to be using mechanisms that we've seen evidence for (like separate structures with totally different functions coming together to do yet a third thing) is valuable. Hence, if some of Behe's results were actually verified, that simple genetic mutations can't account for certain structures, that's valuable, because it shows that these complex combinations of structures must occur at a useful level in natural selection, which is, well, pretty cool, in my opinion. It's sad that people keep trying to "use" these results in various ways to advance particular agendas.
That's kind of what I took away from this article, but then I've been guilty of reading what I want to read sometimes...
That reminds me, there's another point that Card forgot:
8. Even if one could find an unassailable example of "irreducible complexity", it would not necessarily require an intelligent designer, nor even preclude a purely Darwinian explanation. (true)
There are two ways in which this assertion is true. The first you're probably familiar with: that variation works by subtraction as well as addition, and while a simple structure may not be buildable through a stepwise addition of the parts, it might be buildable through a stepwise addition of parts to a more complex structure (perhaps with a completely different purpose), followed by a subtraction of some parts.
But let's suppose there's an example of a structure where even that can be ruled out. Again, that does not necessarily preclude Darwinism. Remember: Darwinism does not specify the mechanism of variation. We are used to thinking of it in terms of uncoordinated, simple mutations of individual genes, but that's simply our modern prejudice. Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. He just knew that traits change, somehow.
In his book The Wisdom of the Genes, Christopher Wills describes the evolution of wing patterns on butterflies. They can change from generation to generation, but the changes involve the coordinated edits of several genes at once. No intelligence is involved, however: there exists a sort of "genetic toolkit" in the butterfly's cells that performs these complicated changes. Wills's argument is that the ability to evolve, itself evolves. He believes that more and more of these genetic toolkits will be discovered, and that they may be the dominant mechanism of producing inheritable variation.
So if a truly "unassemblable" structure is found in biology (either within the genome or not), it will remain to be seen whether some sort of (material, non-intelligent, evolved) toolkit was responsible. It's not purely speculation, as examples of such toolkits exist.
Yes, very valuable. But how do you show that? So far, Behe's examples have all been failures:
Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fatally flawed. Ichneumon's post 35.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified. Major debunking of ID.
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.
However, if there were something like, for example, an animal with one limb that had a functional M-16 built into it, and there were absolutely nothing remotely related to that in the fossil record, then we'd have to agree that it would certainly have the appearance of design. But nothing comparable is ever discovered.
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Yep! It's just about science. How could anyone think it isn't?
So, if they want to replace science as it is currently practiced with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions," what has to go? Here's a short list:
Really? You read the article differently than I did, then. What I took away was:
- The complexity arguments put forth were interesting and need to be explained.
- ID isn't a scientific answer of any kind, and is in fact a religious concept.
- ID shouldn't be taught in science classes.
I kind of agree with most of that.
You sound like a great parent.
Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.
Where in the Bible is Geocentric Cosmology asserted?
I've read through the book several times but I sincerely don't remember seeing the passage(s) referring to "The Heavens revolving around the Earth" or anything else strongly inferring such.
I am genuinely curious -- and NOT trying to start a flame contest, Physicist.
Here are a few geocentric passages in scripture, King James version. The first two, from Ecclesiastes and Joshua, were definitely used in Galileo's heresy trial. (Source: The Galileo Affair, by Maurice A. Finocchiaro, University of California Press, 1989.) I'm not certain of the other verses, but they speak for themselves:
Ecclesiastes:
1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [Clear, unambiguous description of the sun's orbit around the earth.]Joshua:
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.1st Chronicles:
16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.Psalms:
93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.
Which quote shows the identity of aims and philosophy between the Creationist-ID camp and the postmoderndeconstructionists. They both want to eliminate scientific inquiry as a means of obtaining knowledge and replace it with the supernatural. They may disagree about which supernatural they want to use.
Typical. The article ignores Behe's belief that evolution actually happens and then jumps right to strawmen.
Best to check with the geocentrists themselves...
The real problem is that Darwinism is not just being used to teach elements of biology to children - it's being used as a foundation to "disprove" the existence of a Creator to generations of students.
What's your evidence for this assertion?
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if scientists discovered real proof that life on earth originated on another planet, maybe even another solar system.
Would that make fundy-type creationists calling themselves ID'ers happier or madder? My guess is madder.
But a real science-type ID'er would be happy.
It's "true" by definition. "Darwinism" is a political term, encompassing not only the actual work of Charles Darwin on evolution by natural selection, but also a non-spiritual explanation for the origins of the universe and a non-spiritual explanation for the origins of life on earth.
Lumping all this together under the term "Darwinism" is a misnomer. Leads to muddled thinking.
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.