Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 1:55 AM
20 online now:
Dredge, dwise1, PaulK, RAZD (4 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,629 Year: 3,666/19,786 Month: 661/1,087 Week: 30/221 Day: 1/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   How do Intelligent Design People act?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 46 of 55 (503268)
03-17-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
03-17-2009 5:44 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
Peg writes:

if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion.

Behe is a tenured professor and research microbiologist at Lehigh University, though his research has tailed off considerably in the last decade.

so why is his study & research not considered science?

He's never published nor even submitted any ID research to any scientific journals. His scientific papers are all in the field of microbiology, but none on ID, and I suspect that while he's thought and written a great deal on ID, he hasn't actually done any research on it. He has written a couple popular press books, Darwin's Black Box and more recently The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.

But I'd be hard pressed to describe how Behe might do ID research. Taking his example of the bacterial flagellum, after he's decided it couldn't possibly have evolved naturally, what next? Are there ways he could ferret out how the designer designed? What methods and tools he might have used to create/modify genes or build the first flagellum? Human designers conduct scores and scores of experiments and build a number of prototypes before hitting upon a final design - should Behe look for experimental predecessors to the bacterial flagellum?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and neither would most legitimate scientists, because there seems no legitimate way to conduct research when the conclusion is decided before any of the questions have been answered, or even asked.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 03-17-2009 5:44 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 03-17-2009 12:58 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 47 of 55 (503280)
03-17-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
03-17-2009 5:44 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
quote:

if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion

But not very much.

Behe's argument essentially adds up to:

1. Systems that only work when completely assembled cannot evolve by the simple addition of parts. (purely theoretical)

2. These systems do not work is part is removed (from other people's research).

3. It is unlikely that they would evolve in any other manner. (pure opinion - and not supported by any research - or even a solid understanding of evolution)

4. There is no current explanation of how this system evolved. (At best looking through other people's research).

5. Therefore it did not evolve.

Because point 3 is weak (and very likely false - decades earlier Mueller, taking a more realistic view of evolution predicted that evolution SHOULD produce "irreducibly complex systems") it cannot be considered a solid scientific argument.

quote:

so why is his study & research not considered science?

Aside from deficiencies in his research (which includes very little original research of his own) it's because the whole argument rests on an unsupported personal opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 03-17-2009 5:44 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Fallen, posted 03-27-2009 4:13 PM PaulK has responded

    
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 402
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 48 of 55 (503298)
03-17-2009 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
03-17-2009 5:44 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion

Absolutely not. Why would you conclude that? When someone who has the tools and opportunity to publish their research (he is a university professor) chooses to announce a conclusion without publishing, it strongly suggests that objective research was not done. He is making a philosophical argument (argument from ignorance) and has been unable to even describe how actual research into a designer would work.

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 03-17-2009 5:44 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2174 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 49 of 55 (503299)
03-17-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Percy
03-17-2009 6:20 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
I think it is clear that Behe's recent articles, i.e. Behe and Snoke, are intended to be relevant to ID. Whether they are and whether they are actually supportive of ID is a question open to debate. Its only theoretical research based on simulations, but it is real research.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 03-17-2009 6:20 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 50 of 55 (503354)
03-18-2009 3:12 AM


Another example
Having repeatedly misrepresented Dawkins Weasel program (itself a toy intended only to illustrate cumulative selection) - and having this fact pointed out to him more than once, what does Dembski do when he discovers more evidence that he was wrong ?

He still insists that he was right.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/dembski-weasels.html

Apparently the way to work out how the program works isn't to look at the description of the program, but instead to look at the "edited highlights" of the output presented in the book and jump to the conclusion that Dembski was right. The possibility that Dembski could be wrong is not to be considered.


Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Son, posted 03-18-2009 4:51 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Son
Member (Idle past 1909 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 51 of 55 (503358)
03-18-2009 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
03-18-2009 3:12 AM


Re: Another example
Lol. I didn't expect much from ID "research" but this is even worse than i thought. It makes me wonder what they are really doing while they are supposed to do research.

That they can spend days of research to "disprove" an almost 30 years old toy program is quite amazing...

In any case,he should fire his chief programmer because he seems quite incompetent.

Edited by Son, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2009 3:12 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 52 of 55 (503359)
03-18-2009 5:17 AM


2006 as a sample
I made a summary of ID over the course of 2006 which might be of interest to posters here

A year in ID (2006)

It includes the beginning of acceptance of common descent from the ID group, premature claims of the destruction of the neo-synthesis of evolution, accusations of Darwinian fascism as a reason no research is being carried out (as well as claims to the 'fact' that they had spent $4,000,000 on research!?).

And lets not forget making an animation of Judge Jones with fart noises. That was important ID work.


  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 1952 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 53 of 55 (504356)
03-27-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
03-17-2009 8:35 AM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
quote:
Because point 3 is weak (and very likely false - decades earlier Mueller, taking a more realistic view of evolution predicted that evolution SHOULD produce "irreducibly complex systems") it cannot be considered a solid scientific argument.

Oh? On what basis did he make that prediction?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 03-17-2009 8:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 03-27-2009 6:19 PM Fallen has not yet responded
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2009 7:32 PM Fallen has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 54 of 55 (504369)
03-27-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Fallen
03-27-2009 4:13 PM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
PaulK meant to refer to Hermann Müller (not Mueller). Müller used the term interlocking complexity instead of irreducible complexity, but they are the same thing. TalkOrigins has an article about it:

Irreducible Complexity as an Evolutionary Prediction

The article explains Behe's problem as caused by a mistaken view of evolution "as working by the gradual addition of parts," while Müller viewed it as the "gradual modifications of parts."

Of course, neither view is completely correct. Evolution is not just one or the other. Both play a role. Nonetheless, viewing evolution as the "gradual modifications of parts" apparently was sufficient to lead Müller to conclude that evolution would inevitably lead to irreducible complexity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Fallen, posted 03-27-2009 4:13 PM Fallen has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 55 of 55 (504381)
03-27-2009 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Fallen
03-27-2009 4:13 PM


Re: An easy trap to fall into
To add to Percy's reply "Mueller" is an alternative spelling the "e" stands in for the umlaut.

Müller's view of evolution is more realistic because Behe's argument completely ignores the idea that the parts can (and do) change.

Evolution goes with what works now. If a change makes a useful part essential it may spread just through drift - that change isn't detrimental in itself. If the change also has beneficial effects it will spread by natural selection. There is simply no good reason for assuming that the system won't change in ways that make it irreducibly complex.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Fallen, posted 03-27-2009 4:13 PM Fallen has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019