Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The design inference
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 121 (6703)
03-12-2002 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
03-12-2002 4:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Unraveling the DNA Myth - http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/DNA-Myth-CommonerFeb02.htm
This phrase caught my eye: "DNA did not create life; life created DNA".
Time is not on your side joz. The more we are finding out the more obvious it becomes that life is the direct result of an act of intelligence- ie ID.
quote:
JP,
This isn't really very controversial, the phrase "DNA did not create life; life created DNA" would not be argued by any evolutionist. DNA by itself is a highly complex molecule requiring a battery of enzymes to work efficiently. No evolutionist believes the original self replicating molecule was as complex as DNA, indeed, RNA is able to self catalyse for instance, & is thought to be an intermediary molecule. What came before is much more tentative.
That DNA isn't solely responsible for inheritance I find puzzling, the enzymes & other molecules required for alternative splicing etc. are a product of DNA, so that inheritance is still DIRECTLY linked to DNA. There are other parts to the machine, to be sure, but ALL are one way or another a product of DNA.
This article in no way presents any evidence of a designer. It merely shows that more than one protein can arise from one gene, which, as the article itself points out, has been known since the 1970s. Complexity = Design is an assumption. You can't even claim that there is no mechanism for adding new information, & therefore more complexity, since your cite gives you an example :
"Alternative splicing thus has a devastating impact on Crick's theory: it breaks open the hypothesized isolation of the molecular system that transfers genetic information from a single gene to a single protein. By rearranging the single gene's nucleotide sequence into a multiplicity of new messenger RNA sequences, each of them different from the unspliced original, alternative splicing can be said to generate new genetic information."
Nucleotide sequence addition, deletion, substitution (any point mutations that cause the "splice" point to move), anything that can cause an increase in proteins coded for. A smaller amount of information is MORE if it means a new protein has been synthesised.
And ID just moves the question back a step. Who designed the designer? Unless you are assuming the designer isn't complex?
That Cricks Dogma is shown to be at least partly false is simply the march of good science, more power to their collective elbows!
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 03-12-2002 4:53 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Robert1
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 121 (6708)
03-12-2002 9:59 PM


Um, may I also point out JP that RNA DOES have the ability to self-reproduce. Yup, thats right, it doesn't need anything else to replicate. How do you ask? Well the RNA itself serves as its own polymerase, and can provide all the functions of "specialized" enzymes. True, it is much MUCH slower than if it uses its enzymes, but the fact remains that RNA is capable of replicating itself. So the argument that "DNA did not create life; life created DNA" is incorrect. RNA created life which once specialized enough created DNA. *Sorry about the formatting of my reply, but I can't use HTML for the life of me.*

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by John Paul, posted 03-15-2002 6:34 PM Robert1 has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 121 (6739)
03-13-2002 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
03-12-2002 4:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
1)Yes us joz. As in the people that actually read your tripe, myself included.
2)Are you saying DNA is an indisputable example of CSI originating via purely natural processes? If you really think so, perhaps it's time you read this:
Unraveling the DNA Myth
3)This phrase caught my eye: "DNA did not create life; life created DNA".
4)Time is not on your side joz. The more we are finding out the more obvious it becomes that life is the direct result of an act of intelligence- ie ID.
5)What flaw? That never has anyone observed CSI arising via purely natural processes? Sorry, that's part of life. Bring us an indisputable example of CSI arising via purely natural processes and you will have exposed a flaw. But remeber, it it still the design INFERENCE. What criteria do you use for determining a purposely designed object to a naturallydesigned one?
6)If the implications of the article I linked to are any indication, that is all but a foregone conclusion.
7)What is really amazing is that of all the people who have tried to refute Behe's premise, not one has brought up Muller to do so. Go figure.
8)Apparently he did more than Muller was capable of.

1)Look up this thread JP everyother poster (apart from Ludvan who said he didn`t see what the fuss was about) is critical of ID and IC which means that "we" should have been "I" (unless you are schizophrenic or royalty)....
2)Hey your disputing it so its obviously not (indisputably so), the discussion has now moved on to your method of assessing whether it was designed or not....
Mark seems to have beaten me to it but did you bother to read that article JP? It suggests that Cricks "central dogma" has been shown to be false.
Somehow you seem to have warped that to DNA was designed, How? Where in that article does it even mention design?
What do you think the fact that genes code for more than one protein does to any claims that DNA is specified? Remember if it isn`t specified it can`t be CSI and thus ain`t designed under the EF....
3)Your "DNA did not create life; life created DNA" is hardly unexpected given that we think that RNA or PNA arose before DNA, it also doesn`t say "DNA did not create life; An IDer designed DNA" and thus really doesn`t support your point at all....
4)Really guess we`ll have to wait untill Behe follows his own advice to "publish or perish" to find out....
Whats it been 6 years now?
5)Wow not only is the EF flawed but so is your logic...
Look up to post 5 on this board, there you will find my explanation of why I see the EF as flawed...
You keep asking for an example (which you will never accept) of naturaly occuring CSI, your method of verifying if it occured naturaly or not? Run it through the EF which doesn`t permit the possibility of naturaly occuring CSI...
This isn`t even circular reasoning JP, its not that elegant, its merely the equivalent of deciding that CSI must be designed and putting your brain on standby and screaming DESIGN, DESIGN at the top of your lungs....
6)The only foregone conclusion I got from reading that article JP was that you hadn`t...
7)H. Allen Orr:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html
I posted this on page 8 of the study of ID debate thread to you, have you not been reading again JP?
8)Yeah thats why one of them has a Nobel prize and the other has acquired a reputation as a crank...
Lets see Muller comes across IC and works out how evolution can produce it, Behe comes across IC and gives up goes home early and writes a popular press book claiming Goddidit....
Honestly now who do you think achieved more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 03-12-2002 4:53 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-13-2002 10:10 PM joz has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 19 of 121 (6747)
03-13-2002 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
03-12-2002 4:53 PM


[b] [QUOTE]What flaw? That never has anyone observed CSI arising via purely natural processes? Sorry, that's part of life. Bring us an indisputable example of CSI arising via purely natural processes and you will have exposed a flaw.[/b][/QUOTE]
Here's an interesting one - lets see what you make of it.
I refer to the miracle tomato of Huddersfield and the Bolton Aubergine. http://www.einterface.net/gamini/miracleislam.html
In these cases fruit was cut open and the patterns in the seeds and fibres spelled out quotations concerning Allah and His Prophet. The information was complex (unlikely to occur by chance), and specified (tractable information was there which could be easily read).
Let's look at the probabilities involved to make sure the information is complex: first there is the probability of the fibres and seeds spelling out an Arabic phrase, presumably vanishingly small. Second, there are the probabilities that these phrases would refer to the Creator and His Prophet, presumably even smaller. Thirdly, the probabilities that these fruits would be bought my Arabic readers who could read the message. The probabilities are now surely enough to pass through the filter.
Of course, there is the problem of whether the information is specified. It was certainly tractable - hundreds read the messages easily. The messages were certainly more tractable than the information in DNA. And, of course, the message had meaning and was significant.
There are three potential outcomes to putting this through the filter:
1: It is rejected by the filter because it is not complex. But it's difficult to see how these messages could occur with high probability. Even if the patterns naturally occuring in tomatoes and aubergines resemble Arabic writing we have to consider the probability of that occuring.
2: It is rejected by the filter because it is not specified. For example you might say that the faitful only "imagined" they saw a message. But that doesn't wash, does it, because the entire point of the filter is to be able to distinguish "apparent" design from "real" design - not to give false positives. But the information in the tomato is clearly specified in Dembski's terms.
3: The tomato and aubergine pass the filter. We have good reason to assume the messages proclaiming Allah and His Prophet are designed to be in the tomato.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 03-12-2002 4:53 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 121 (6766)
03-13-2002 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by joz
03-13-2002 9:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:

Lets see Muller comes across IC and works out how evolution can produce it, Behe comes across IC and gives up goes home early and writes a popular press book claiming Goddidit....
Honestly now who do you think achieved more?

Behe claimed "Goddidit?" Please refer me to the page in his book where he says anything of the sort. He said life was the result of intelligent design- it's not his fault that he believes in God. Your criticism here seems quite shallow. A designer does not have to be God, and you know this.
And Behe "goes home early?" Behe's a quitter, I'm sure his mother would be upset. You may not like it very much, but Behe provided evidence for a theory that is *gasp* NOT Darwinian. I am not sure what could possibly drive you to claim that Behe is essentially a quitter. Perhaps if you commited yourself to earning a degree in biochemistry and then writing a 300-page book, you would be in a better position to argue that Behe is essentially a quitter.
I did not read Muller's article, but I did read the link you posted. From what I gather, Muller just claimed that little by little, slight advantages could be added but not taken away. That's nifty and all, but that does not explain irreducibly complex systems. You can't just throw around terms like "gene duplication!" or "Exaptation!" and then claim that Irreducibly Complex systems are explained.
The article you linked was also filled with unfair and misleading statements:
"Behe's work may well represent the most sophisticated-and the most seductive-creationist attack on evolution in a quarter century."
Hmmmm... except that Behe has totally seperated himself from creationists.
"But Behe, it turns out, differs from his less-sophisticated brethren in an important way: he does not wholly deny evolution. He has no problem with stories of moths evolving dark coloration so as to hide on polluted trees or of streptococci outwitting antibiotics."
Well, from this statment (had I no outside knowledge) I would assume that creationists don't believe in changing colors of peppered moths or antibiotic resistance. Of course, that assumption is completely WRONG in every way. Perhaps this statement is a straw man?
I just can't seem to figure out why Orr would want to fit in a bunch of unfair potshots on Creationists. Seems to me that Behe's work is NOT creationist (although it can be used as an argument for creationism). Perhaps Orr should have made a seperate article to bash creationists in, rather than distort the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 03-13-2002 9:34 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by joz, posted 03-13-2002 11:27 PM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 24 by joz, posted 03-14-2002 12:37 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 03-14-2002 1:03 PM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 45 by nator, posted 03-15-2002 6:02 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 121 (6769)
03-13-2002 10:40 PM


By the way, Behe has responded to Orr's article.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe06.asp

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by joz, posted 03-13-2002 11:05 PM Cobra_snake has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 121 (6776)
03-13-2002 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cobra_snake
03-13-2002 10:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
By the way, Behe has responded to Orr's article.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe06.asp

And Orr has replied to Behe`s response:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/orr.html
I like the bit that reads...
"So how does Behe respond to this criticism? Well, he doesn't. He eagerly talks about everything else--what evolutionists versus biochemists have achieved, who's the podiatrist and who's the brain surgeon--but when it comes to telling us why the Darwinian explanation of irreducible complexity is wrong, he's astonishingly silent. The closest he gets is to trot out his favorite fancy object, the mousetrap, for our renewed consideration. Parodying my description of Darwinism--we start with some part A that does some job; a part B then gets added on that helps A; A then changes in a way that makes B essential--he writes, "Some part does some job? Which part of the mousetrap is [Orr] talking about? A mouse has nothing to fear from a `trap' that consists of just an attaching holding bar, or spring, or platform, with no other parts." This is the sum total of his response to my chief criticism of his book.
But it's just substantive enough to betray Behe's colossal misunderstanding of Darwinism. For under the Darwinian scenario, all the parts can change through time and there's no reason to think we started with anything like a holding bar, spring, or platform. Indeed this is the whole point of the scenario: no single current part can do the job, so none could possibly represent the ancestral system. Instead most or all of the parts likely changed through time, growing, in the process, more interdependent. Behe's failure to get this point represents a fundamental--and fatal--error which likely explains his refusal to buy evolutionary accounts of biochemistry. We may well see here the source of Behe's whole misguided campaign against Darwinism.
Our argument does not, of course, show that complex objects are never designed (the mousetrap was); it just shows that design is not the sole and so necessary explanation of irreducible complexity. But if design isn't necessary, is it at least plausible? Behe thinks so, assuring us that design "is both natural and obvious." His argument is straightforward: "Just as in the everyday world we immediately conclude design when we see a complex, interactive system such as a mousetrap, there is no reason to withhold the same conclusion from interactive molecular systems," even though such a hypothesis might have "theological implications." I hate to be a party-pooper, but it seems to me there's a pretty good reason why the design hypothesis is a bit more "natural and obvious" when considering a mousetrap than a cell: We know that there are people who make things like mousetraps. (I'm not being facetious here--I'm utterly serious.) When choosing between the design and Darwinian hypotheses, we find design plausible for mousetraps only because we have independent knowledge that there are creatures called humans who construct all variety of mechanical contraptions; if we didn't, the existence of mousetraps would pose a legitimate scientific problem. Needless to say, we have considerably less independent evidence for a Tinkerer who spends His days soldering cells. As it stands, then, mousetraps and cells are far from analogous and the hypothesis of intelligent design of cells remains distinctly supernatural and unobvious."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-13-2002 10:40 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-14-2002 8:10 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 121 (6779)
03-13-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cobra_snake
03-13-2002 10:10 PM


First up unless you think abiogenesis spawned a non complex intelegence that designed all other life Goddidit is the only possible solution to ID...
Second by claiming an unobserved supernatural designer before rigorously eliminating the possibility of a natural origin Behe did the scientific equivalent of hitting the showers early...
The components can also evolve however....
e.g A component A does a process X (just not very well) a component B evolves and together A and B do a better job, A then mutates to A` which requires the prescence of B, together A` and B do a pretty good job, B then mutates to B` which requires A` to work and together they do a very good job and are *gasp* IC.....
Those comments don`t look at all out of place to me Behe says Goddidit ergo God created life ergo he is in some sense of the word a creationist...
Oh and why would he want to say such terrible things about creationists... Possibly because they have been denigrating his and many other scientists work for many a year from a position of ignorance in any popular media they can get to listen.... Just a thought...
Haven`t you lot got a saying as you sow so shall ye reap?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-13-2002 10:10 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-14-2002 7:43 PM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 121 (6817)
03-14-2002 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cobra_snake
03-13-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
And Behe "goes home early?" Behe's a quitter, I'm sure his mother would be upset. You may not like it very much, but Behe provided evidence for a theory that is *gasp* NOT Darwinian. I am not sure what could possibly drive you to claim that Behe is essentially a quitter. Perhaps if you commited yourself to earning a degree in biochemistry and then writing a 300-page book, you would be in a better position to argue that Behe is essentially a quitter.
So you`d put credence in a Biochemist saying the same thing? Look here...
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe_bios.html
I really like this bit...
(the two examples were of things that Behe claimed were IC in his book BTW....)
quote:
These two examples are merely a small sample of the literally THOUSANDS of articles that have been published about the details of molecular evolution in the past two years. It is important to bring up these examples, because this shows a real weakness in the logic that says "we don't know how this happened, so God must have done it!". What happens when someone calls your bluff and actually DOES provide a step-by-step mechanism for the gradual evolution of the immune system?
As for the the fact that his theory is non darwinian so what this excerpt from the original review by Orr answers that very nicely...
quote:
So when the Christian Right tries to tell you that evolutionists instinctively circle the wagons whenever anyone dares question the Darwinian status quo, you should ask yourself why Wright and Kimura got through, but Behe not. The answer is, I think, straightforward: Wright and Kimura knew what they were talking about.
On the subject of being qualified to critisize a theory does that only apply to non creationists or should I just tell TC to shut up and get educated every time he posts?
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-13-2002 10:10 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 25 of 121 (6820)
03-14-2002 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cobra_snake
03-13-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Behe claimed "Goddidit?" Please refer me to the page in his book where he says anything of the sort. He said life was the result of intelligent design- it's not his fault that he believes in God. Your criticism here seems quite shallow. A designer does not have to be God, and you know this.
And Behe "goes home early?" Behe's a quitter, I'm sure his mother would be upset. You may not like it very much, but Behe provided evidence for a theory that is *gasp* NOT Darwinian.

Cobra,
If you’re subscribing to both ID & IC, then the ID is a supernatural being, ie a God.
An ID doesn’t HAVE to be God, it could be alien life, but then that alien life is IC, they couldn’t arise naturally, so who made them if it wasn’t God? So, ULTIMATELY, if IC is true, then all life in the universe can be traced back to a supernatural-always-existed being.
Behe provided no evidence for anything. All he did was try to show that evolution couldn’t happen because of IC. IC by itself is an assumption that, because of any evidence to the contrary, certain mechanisms/processes cannot evolve. Despite Behes claims that evolution of IC structures couldn’t happen, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY DIDN’T. This reduces Behes claims to another God of the gaps proposition.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-13-2002 10:10 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-14-2002 7:30 PM mark24 has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 121 (6839)
03-14-2002 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mark24
03-14-2002 1:03 PM


"If you’re subscribing to both ID & IC, then the ID is a supernatural being, ie a God."
I will be the first to admit that I don't know what IC means. Could you please explain?
"An ID doesn’t HAVE to be God, it could be alien life, but then that alien life is IC, they couldn’t arise naturally, so who made them if it wasn’t God? So, ULTIMATELY, if IC is true, then all life in the universe can be traced back to a supernatural-always-existed being."
Like I said, I don't know what IC means. However, isn't it possible that aliens are completely different than life on earth, and therefore could of arised by natural processes? (By the way, how do you know that this inevitable God you are referring to is "a supernatural-always-existed being." The thing is, you have no idea what this God must be like.)
"Despite Behes claims that evolution of IC structures couldn’t happen, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY DIDN’T. This reduces Behes claims to another God of the gaps proposition."
Uhh... it's not God of the gaps. Intelligent design doesn't require God. If you wish, you can continue to assume that God HAS to be the designer, but I would appreciate it if you could show the basis for this claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 03-14-2002 1:03 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-14-2002 7:44 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 03-14-2002 7:49 PM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 58 by nator, posted 03-16-2002 6:30 PM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 121 (6840)
03-14-2002 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by joz
03-13-2002 11:27 PM


"First up unless you think abiogenesis spawned a non complex intelegence that designed all other life Goddidit is the only possible solution to ID..."
Not it's not. Aliens could of been the intelligent designer. You are simply trying to shrug off ID as "god of the gaps." This is unfair and illogical.
"Second by claiming an unobserved supernatural designer before rigorously eliminating the possibility of a natural origin Behe did the scientific equivalent of hitting the showers early..."
Who said the designer had to be supernatural? Let's assume for a moment that Behe is correct, and an intelligent designer is the cause of life as we know it. In this case, Behe came to the correct conclusion, instead of wasting his time trying to find evolutionary pathways. Just because Behe provided what he thinks is evidence against your favorite theory is no reason to call him a quitter.
"e.g A component A does a process X (just not very well) a component B evolves and together A and B do a better job, A then mutates to A` which requires the prescence of B, together A` and B do a pretty good job, B then mutates to B` which requires A` to work and together they do a very good job and are *gasp* IC....."
That's all real nifty. How exactly am I going to falsify it? Seems like evolution can explain everything by throwing around words like exaptation and gene duplication.
"Those comments don`t look at all out of place to me Behe says Goddidit ergo God created life ergo he is in some sense of the word a creationist..."
Actually, Behe saying that Goddidit was his theological/faith based opinion. Behe has every right to think that God created life, and he also has every right to try to provide evidence against Neo-Darwinian evolution.
"Oh and why would he want to say such terrible things about creationists... Possibly because they have been denigrating his and many other scientists work for many a year from a position of ignorance in any popular media they can get to listen.... Just a thought..."
My question was why did he have to insult creationists in an article that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with creationism? The only answer I can come up with is immaturity/irresponsibility. Even if Orr could prove that creationists were all inbred heathen, it would do NOTHING to show that ID is false. If Orr wants to insult creationists, that is his right. However, I don't see any reason why he had to do it in an article not related to Creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by joz, posted 03-13-2002 11:27 PM joz has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 28 of 121 (6841)
03-14-2002 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cobra_snake
03-14-2002 7:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I will be the first to admit that I don't know what IC means. Could you please explain?
IC = Irreducible COmplexity. This is the idea that something may have a number of parts which make it work, but if any one of these is not present it cannot function. Behe's argument is (very very roughly) that such structures are typical of designed solutions and some of them could not have evolved but must have been created as "working modules" from the beginning.[b] [QUOTE]isn't it possible that aliens are completely different than life on earth, and therefore could of arised by natural processes?[/b][/QUOTE]
So if it is possible to imagine the designer's life arising from natural causes, why can't we imagine our life similarly arising?
The point made in the post is simple enough - if life is designed, a designer is implied. (Actually Dembski tries to avoid this conclusion, but not at all convincingly.) But all we are left with is who designed the designer?
Your position is akin to asking "Who or what wrote Shakespeare's plays?" and accepting the answer "A pen."
That's hardly the answer to life, the universe and everything, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-14-2002 7:30 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 29 of 121 (6843)
03-14-2002 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cobra_snake
03-14-2002 7:30 PM


Cobra,
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Uhh... it's not God of the gaps. Intelligent design doesn't require God. If you wish, you can continue to assume that God HAS to be the designer, but I would appreciate it if you could show the basis for this claim.

IC = Irreducible complexity, a la Behe
ID = Intelligent designer
My basis for the claim that an ID has to be the designer is explained in my previous post, namely, "An ID doesn’t HAVE to be God, it could be alien life, but then that alien life is IC, they couldn’t arise naturally, so who made them if it wasn’t God? So, ULTIMATELY, if IC is true, then all life in the universe can be traced back to a supernatural-always-existed being."
I've shown the basis of my claim, now, can you show me how an IC ID can't be the result of God/Supernatural being?
It's YOU who are championing Behe & therefore his concept of IC, & at the same time are championing the idea of an ID, not me.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-14-2002 7:30 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-14-2002 8:17 PM mark24 has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 121 (6848)
03-14-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by joz
03-13-2002 11:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
And Orr has replied to Behe`s response:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/orr.html

Once again, I found a few of Orr's statements rather interesting. The first paragraph consists of an insult of the creationist position, as well as a claim that Behe is basically a creationist. Not off to a good start.
"We may well see here the source of Behe's whole misguided campaign against Darwinism."
Interesting choice of words. "Crusade against Darwinism." It's not as though disagreeing with Darwinism is blasphemy. Besides, Behe is arguing for his theory, which seems perfectly acceptable to me.
"When choosing between the design and Darwinian hypotheses, we find design plausible for mousetraps only because we have independent knowledge that there are creatures called humans who construct all variety of mechanical contraptions; if we didn't, the existence of mousetraps would pose a legitimate scientific problem. Needless to say, we have considerably less independent evidence for a Tinkerer who spends His days soldering cells. As it stands, then, mousetraps and cells are far from analogous and the hypothesis of intelligent design of cells remains distinctly supernatural and unobvious. "
I suppose those people up at SETI should give up then.....
"Behe plainly admits that some cellular processes could have evolved by natural selection. If all those other cases didn't cause Behe to surrender his pet theory, why should one more?"
His "pet" theory" Seems to me professor Orr is a bit frustrated. This statement is completely false. Behe admits that some cellular processes could have evolved because they don't display irreducible complexity, which is the main argument of his book.
Of course, the real substance of Orr's criticisms are found here:
"Parodying my description of Darwinism--we start with some part A that does some job; a part B then gets added on that helps A; A then changes in a way that makes B essential."
Actually, Behe considers this potential argument in his book on page 66. He explains the problems with glossing over the difficulty with the argument Orr uses. So it is definitely not true that Behe fails to grasp this potential argument (perhaps he was more informed of Muller's work than you thought?) Basically, the problem is that the parts would eventually have to modify themselves to work together, and while doing this, could not serve a useful purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by joz, posted 03-13-2002 11:05 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-14-2002 9:34 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 44 by joz, posted 03-15-2002 11:13 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024