Behe on organismal evolution

How well is ID and Irreducible Complexity accepted amoung Islamic academics?Personally, I think it would be of great benefit to have academics from non-Christian backgrounds and even agnostic or atheistic backgrounds, if it were possible, supporting ID and IC. Then it would make it harder for the theory's detractors to write it off as creationism is disguise.BTW, I ALSO think it would be of great benefit if it turned out Behe wasn't a religious man, for the reason I listed above. But, even though looking back on it now I can't remember him ever expressing precise religious affiliation, I've never even questioned Behe's theistic beliefs. He seems to make it very clear from context that he believes in God.

Ken Miller is a Catholic, Catholics are Christians>>Supposedly.....

You are completely correct. His argument is the same, we don't know therefore God (ie Designer) did it. Behe jumps into the same creationist pool by inserting God into a gap in our knowledge. One of Behe's catch phrases is "one fell swoop" which describes how IC systems arise in organisms. This sounds VERY VERY similar to "species appear in the fossil record fully formed". Same argument, same camp.>>His argument isn't that we don't know, therefore God did it......his argument is that we CAN'T know, therefore God did it. Does it take any more faith to say "we don't know, it is unknowable" than it does to say "we don't know, therefore we will certainly find out later"?

This is not what Behe is saying. He is saying that he DOES know, he is saying that these IC systems DID come about in one fell swoop.It is an argument from ignorance.>>IMO, arguing that everything will be discovered to have a naturalistic cause eventually is more of an argument from ignorance than asserting that something couldn't have had a naturalistic cause.In order to disprove Behe's assertion that a system is irreducibly complex, all an Evolutionist has to do is come up with a detailed, step by step theory of how it could have evolved. On the other hand, the assertion of the Evolutionist of "we just don't know yet" is impossible to disprove.........which is exactly why the Evolutionists use it.

2) The ID crowd can always pick out another system. ID can't be falsified unless and until we have fully explained the evolution of practically everything.>>This is true. However, I think most fair-minded people would be satisfied if the evolutionary processes of just a few of the more complex system were theoretically demonstrated in detail. And this hasn't been done.Irreducibly complex systems can evolve. Behe says so. He admitted as much in Darwin's Black Box. The only ARGUMENT from IC is that in Behe's opinion it is very unlikely that IC systems would evolve. Perhaps one day we'll see a rigourous argument to that effect. But right now any argument from IC rests on Behe's intuition which is far from an adequate basis.>>I've heard Behe reference teams of mathematicians who have done studies which show that IC systems evolving would be mathematically highly improbable.........however, these references are obviously very vague. I would also like to hear more specific math done of these IC systems (and if anyone has any specific examples of of the numbers being broken down, I'd be very interested).However, I think ANY fair-minded person's intuition would tell you that IC systems evolving would be extremely unlikely.<<1) The ID crowd can always demand more detail. This is precisely the tack taken by Dembski on the flagellum. But why is DETAIL needed ? It is not as if ID offers any detail. Surely all we need to do is refute objections to the possibility of the evolution of a flagellum.>>When proposing metaphysics as a cause, supplying more detail would not only be superfluous, but absurd. However, when proposing naturalistic function as a cause.......This message has been edited by JasonChin, 10-08-2004 10:05 AM

How do you know that we don't have evolutionary explanations for just a few complex systems ? Wouldn't the Krebs cycle count, for instance ?>>The vast majority of IC systems haven't been explained in detail. Explain just a substantial minority or them, and you'll have won the argument.<>

​

It hasn't been proven that evolution can do anything on a large scale.

​

<>

​

Even if you assume that the seperate mechanisms for an IC system just HAPPEN to also serve another, independant selection function and just HAPPEN to evolve side by side, you still can't explain how they come to work together like they should. For instance, if you stuck the engine of one kind of car in the body of another, would you expect to have a functioning automobile. No, because, even though they have the POTENTIAL to be an automobile, they weren't DESIGNED to work together.......therefore, without modification, they won't.

​

<>

​

Crap, how are you supposed to explain "God did it"?

Needless to say, that was a bit much to read, but this particular pre-suppostion leaps out at me:"(4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components."So, in order to believe that the flagellum evolved, you have to believe that each of its components just happened to evolve independantly and side by side, AND that every time one component of the system combined with another component it coincidentally created yet another subsystem with selection effects all its own.Seems alot to assume.

For the last sentence, if ID's explanation is "God did it" with no further explanation then ID is not science - it's theology and not very good theology at that.>>The same could be said about the "evolution did it" stance.

Evolutionary science has never stopped with "evolution did it".>>And ID never just says "God did it". It says "evolution most likely didn't do it, so God did it".

BTW, if natural selection was so capable of making these incredible IC systems, then why couldn't it produce anything more complex than a jelly fish for about 3.5 billion years, up until the Cambrian Explosion?

It is the degree to which the evidence for a theory holds up to rational scrutiny which determines the validity of a theory, not the personal philosophy of the scientist.>>In theory, yes.........in practice, it's quite a different story.So, when you see scientists of one particular religious bent putting forth an idea which is not supported by the rest of the scientific community, your pseudoscience alarm should be ringing loudly.>>Isn't it possible that the religious bent of these scientists is the RESULT of scientific discovery?

1) Scientific theories are not supported by "intuition", but by evidence.>>There's as much evidence for ID as for evolution.2) How can you calculate the odds of IC systems evolving or not?>>I dunno........there probably isn't a way, which is why neither side tries to use it as a trump card.The problem with the idea that IC systems cannot evolve is that it is based upon the false premise that evolution proceeds in a step by step fashion, with one component added at a time.>>It's impossible for evolution to work faster than one step at a time.........if it does so, it is entirely by coincidence and not by selection effect. Therefore, I don't see how anyone can whole heartedly support the idea that certain components of an IC system just HAPPENED to evolve side by side.Take a stone arch.They are IC. Take away one stone or brick and the entire arch collapses. Are stone arches therefore a great mystery and must it be determined that the supernatural must be invoked to explain them?Stone arches are constructed using support systems to hold the stones or bricks in place as they are laid or fitted. Once they are in place, the support structures are removed.>>That's a terrible analogy, because stone archs are the product of intelligent design........This message has been edited by JasonChin, 10-10-2004 04:25 AM