The design inference

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
[B]"Cobra,IC = Irreducible complexity, a la Behe
ID = Intelligent designer"Ahhh.. ok. Thanks alot Mark and Pamboli. I feel like a real idiot. I know what Irreducible Complexity means, it's just that I couldn't make the connection of what IC stood for. Thanks for clearing that up."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 can understand where you are coming from now, but might I pose a different situation? If aliens did NOT feauture irreducible complexity, they could of potentially (at least in Behe's mind) evolved by natural processes. IC probably is true, but that doesn't mean that all potential living things MUST have IC."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?"I have pointed out that I believe the basis for your claim is a bit incorrect, because you assume all other life forms must have IC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Cobra,

​

IC = Irreducible complexity, a la Behe
ID = Intelligent designer"

​

Ahhh.. ok. Thanks alot Mark and Pamboli. I feel like a real idiot. I know what Irreducible Complexity means, it's just that I couldn't make the connection of what IC stood for. Thanks for clearing that up.

​

"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 can understand where you are coming from now, but might I pose a different situation? If aliens did NOT feauture irreducible complexity, they could of potentially (at least in Behe's mind) evolved by natural processes. IC probably is true, but that doesn't mean that all potential living things MUST have IC.

​

"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?"

​

I have pointed out that I believe the basis for your claim is a bit incorrect, because you assume all other life forms must have IC.

---

Cobra,Don’t sweat the IC, ID thang, I’ve asked for similar "obvious" clarifications myself, when I got the answer.. , as Homer said, D’oh !!!!Back to the question in hand..If IC ISN’T true of ALL life, then it COULD have evolved. This is the admission asked of by agnostic/atheist evolutionists. Ergo, no need for God.Life on earth MAY be the result of alien design, but who designed them? If it's feasible that aliens evolved, why not us?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Life on earth MAY be the result of alien design, but who designed them? If it's feasible that aliens evolved, why not us?

​

---

Well, I'm sure the answer from Behe would be that WE have IC. (I also, being a creationist, have other reasons for doubting evolution on this planet, but that sort of discussion should not take place here.)"If IC ISN’T true of ALL life, then it COULD have evolved. This is the admission asked of by agnostic/atheist evolutionists. Ergo, no need for God."Belief in God is faith-based. I have my reasons for believing in God, and I'm sure you have your reasons for not believing in God. You are just as entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

Yes, but what of the ID'er? If not god who? http://www.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/id.htmCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Yes, but what of the ID'er? If not god who?

---

First of all, I must ask whether or not it really matters? ID should stand or fall on its scientific merits, not theological ponderings."The notion of a perfect God must be rejected since not all designs are perfect. The knee or the lower back for example, could have been better designed by a 2nd year ME student."How do you know that a perfect God would not make imperfect structures. How do you know the nature of God at all?"The last point I wish to make is that neocreationism (in the form of ID) is simply a clumsy new device try and reintroduce religion into the public science classroom."I must ask you where you get the basis for this comment. The following comment is a quote from Orr that states that most ID scientists have widely varying views. I don't see how Orr's quote supports your notion. I also don't see how you could come to this conclusion when you admit that one of ID's chief promoters does not believe in God. Your next line follows:"The characteristics of the designer are seldom stated outright, but one need not look far to find clues as to who the designer might be."This statement is also not supportive of your notion that ID is a new attempt to introduce religion into schools. I find it relatively obvious that WHO or WHAT the individual IDer thinks is the designer is faith-based. One can make their own conclusion based on the implication of Intelligent Design Theory. The mere fact that most IDers believe God is the designer is not relevant at all to ID's scientific implications. Therefore, it is of no harm to introduce students to the concept of Intelligent Design.Perhaps aliens (who themselves evolved naturally without having IC)are bombarding our planet with invisible and undectable rays of energy that allow Irreducibly Complex Structures to form in living things. This scenario may not seem very likely on a theological level, but that does not matter. The point is that it is possible to infer Intelligent Design without implying God. Any notion to the contrary, I believe, is a result either of ignorance or of wishful thinking.By the way, your site is pretty nifty. I liked the Bacterial Flagellum graphic you have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well, I'm sure the answer from Behe would be that WE have IC. (I also, being a creationist, have other reasons for doubting evolution on this planet, but that sort of discussion should not take place here.)

​

"If IC ISN’T true of ALL life, then it COULD have evolved. This is the admission asked of by agnostic/atheist evolutionists. Ergo, no need for God."

​

Belief in God is faith-based. I have my reasons for believing in God, and I'm sure you have your reasons for not believing in God. You are just as entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

---

Cobra,That's not the point. ID is often touted by the same people who tout IC. These same people also (commonly) say, as you have done, that ID doesn't mean God. But it ULTIMATELY DOES!!! If you weren't an adherent of IC, then you COULD say aliens were ultimately the IDers of life on earth, because you could accept their abiogenesis/evolution. If you accept IC, then aliens aren't ultimately responsible for life, because they are as IC as us, they exhibit as much specified complexity as us (if not more), & therefore can't be a result of natural processes. If you CAN accept aliens as not being IC, why not life on earth?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"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. "

---

Hey Cobra - you don't normally trip up quite as quickly as that! Campaign in one sentence becomes crusade in another, though he doens't use the word crusade, and then you criticise the word that you introduced! Just how carefully did you read the article?

quote:

---

I suppose those people up at SETI should give up then.....

---

Why? How does this follow?

quote:

---

"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?"
...
This statement is completely false.

---

In what way is this statement false? There is only one statement in the quoted passage - that Behe admits some cellular processes could have evolved. This is completely true - Behe does say this. (I know this because it was politely pointed out to me when I goofed over his current position on haemoglobin in another topic.)

quote:

---

Behe admits that some cellular processes could have evolved because they don't display irreducible complexity, which is the main argument of his book.

---

So, Orr's point is why does Behe think some are irreducibly complex and merely complex? The answer seems to be that where we have shown evolutionary pathways, Behe accepts them and it follows that the process cannot be irreducibly complex, but when we cannot show pathways Behe declares them to be irreducably complex. What he doesn't show is any a priori reasoning as to why some should be IC and others not, or any reasoning as to why IC structures should exist at all without an evolutionary pathway, or any means of deciding whether something is IC excpet only that we don't know the pathway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b] First of all, I must ask whether or not it really matters? ID should stand or fall on its scientific merits, not theological ponderings.[/QUOTE]

​

JM: Agreed, but it has no scientific merits and the theological ponderings are what seem to drive the majority of the arguments.

​

quote:

---

"The notion of a perfect God must be rejected since not all designs are perfect. The knee or the lower back for example, could have been better designed by a 2nd year ME student."

​

How do you know that a perfect God would not make imperfect structures. How do you know the nature of God at all?

---

​

JM: I don't nor do I claim to. I am merely repeating the claims of fundamentalist christians who claim HIS perfection.

​

quote:

---

"The last point I wish to make is that neocreationism (in the form of ID) is simply a clumsy new device try and reintroduce religion into the public science classroom."

​

I must ask you where you get the basis for this comment. The following comment is a quote from Orr that states that most ID scientists have widely varying views. I don't see how Orr's quote supports your notion. I also don't see how you could come to this conclusion when you admit that one of ID's chief promoters does not believe in God. Your next line follows:

---

​

JM: I refer you to the most recent case of ID in Ohio. Do a search and you shall see. While ONE ID theorist also claims to be an atheist is of little consequence. The majority are clear on both the nature and the identity of the ID'er.

​

quote:

---

"The characteristics of the designer are seldom stated outright, but one need not look far to find clues as to who the designer might be."

​

This statement is also not supportive of your notion that ID is a new attempt to introduce religion into schools.

---

​

JM: See Ohio's recent battle.

​

quote:

---

I find it relatively obvious that WHO or WHAT the individual IDer thinks is the designer is faith-based. One can make their own conclusion based on the implication of Intelligent Design Theory. The mere fact that most IDers believe God is the designer is not relevant at all to ID's scientific implications. Therefore, it is of no harm to introduce students to the concept of Intelligent Design.

---

​

JMf course not. ID is part and parcel of human endeavors. That does not necessarily mean it is part and parcel of everthing. ID is taught all the time. It simply has no relevance to biological systems.

​

quote:

---

Perhaps aliens (who themselves evolved naturally without having IC)are bombarding our planet with invisible and undectable rays of energy that allow Irreducibly Complex Structures to form in living things. This scenario may not seem very likely on a theological level, but that does not matter. The point is that it is possible to infer Intelligent Design without implying God. Any notion to the contrary, I believe, is a result either of ignorance or of wishful thinking.

---

​

JM: Sure and pink elephants coulda done it. How does such a conclusion (as yours or mine) aid in the understanding of biology? Evolution explains the historical observations, it is predictive, retrodictive and testable. What does ID offer that is superior to evolution?

​

[QUOTE]By the way, your site is pretty nifty. I liked the Bacterial Flagellum graphic you have.[/b]

---

JM: ThanksCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

If you accept IC, then aliens aren't ultimately responsible for life, because they are as IC as us, they exhibit as much specified complexity as us (if not more), & therefore can't be a result of natural processes.

---

I don't understand why the recognition of IC on earth means that life on another planet ABSOLUTELY HAS to display IC as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't understand why the recognition of IC on earth means that life on another planet ABSOLUTELY HAS to display IC as well.

---

Cobra,IC HASN'T been recognised on earth, it has been postulated.If you can postulate a "non-IC" equivalent of Krebbs cycle, then fire away. Perhaps a "non-IC" self replicating molecule that contains information for all the processes & mechanisms for said alien life, fire away..........Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Cobra,

​

IC HASN'T been recognised on earth, it has been postulated.

​

If you can postulate a "non-IC" equivalent of Krebbs cycle, then fire away. Perhaps a "non-IC" self replicating molecule that contains information for all the processes & mechanisms for said alien life, fire away..........

​

Mark

​

---

I'm not going to pretend that I can come up with a totally different system for life, but I don't think you should pretend that there is not a possibility out there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I'm not going to pretend that I can come up with a totally different system for life, but I don't think you should pretend that there is not a possibility out there.

---

Cobra,All I ask is that you accept the possibility that nothing is IC down here.What I mean by alien IC is what Behe & creationists would recognise as IC. Alien life, that's life as we know it (Jim) would require metabolic systems, methods of reproduction etc. that are going to be IC, as Behe would see it. Now, you are right in that there is the "possibility" that aliens aren't IC (as Behe would see it), but given the specified complexity required for an organism, let alone for an organism to reach a complexity that enables it to create life, the possibility of non IC aliens is probably as low as getting DNA to spontaneously form in a Miller-Urey experiment.Just to push the idea a little further, if an ID WAS the result of abiogenesis, & subsequent evolution allowed those aliens the intellect to create life on earth, you have argued yourself into the position that God isn't required at all anyway, & the entire argument becomes self defeating from a creationist point of view.Also, if those aliens evolved, as they surely must of if God wasn't involved, then the mechanism to create Behes IC exists. That is to say, A+B=C, a mutation in B causes a catalyst D which aids the reaction. So the process is now A+B+D=C. In fact the new catalyst is so good it has made A redundant, which atrophies in the genome. The process is now B+D=C. Behe comes along & says this process is IC & couldn't possiby be natural because it couldn't evolve without losing functionality. A is absent & isn't taken into consideration.So why WOULDN'T aliens demonstrate this sort of IC if they evolved?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)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.

​

2)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.

​

3)I suppose those people up at SETI should give up then.....

​

4)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.

​

5)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.

---

1)Behe believes that certain structures are IC and must have an origin of design (i.e certain building blocks at least were created). Ergo while not being a ye creationist he is a creationist at some level....2)And yet Orr has no problem with Wright and Kimura both of whom proposed non Darwinian theories...Orr (et al) takes issue with the fact that saying we don`t know how it arose naturaly is not evidence that it didn`t arise naturaly....3)Not at all we have pretty compelling evidence that there exsists intellegant life in this universe (us humans), given the size of the universe it is a fair assumption that life may exsist elsewhere and that this life may be intelligent...4)Yes pet project, given that it is not adopted by any significant proportion of scientists and he attempts to validate it at every opportunity it is indeed a pet theory...5)Strange I thought Behe failed to accept that components can adapt over time....Hence the words :"have to be there from the beginning" (in reference to the components that make up an IC object)....And why could they not serve a useful purpose?What stops some object A that does a job X in parralel with B from adapting to become A` which relies on the presence of B but performs X in a better fashion?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-15-2002]

quote:

---

You may not like it very much, but Behe provided evidence for a theory that is *gasp* NOT Darwinian.

---

No, he didn't do anything of the sort.First of all, ID isn't a scientific theory. It does not propose any hypothese, it does not provide any positive evidence, and it does not list any potential falsifications.At best, it's a philosophical position.Second, Behe didn't provide any evidence, he pointed out gaps in our knowledge.A lack of evidence for one theory does not constitute positive evidence for anything.

quote:

---

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.

---

If Behe had a real scientific theory of ID and positive evidence to support it, he would have:a) published it in a professional journal, and
b) accepted his Pulitzer prize

quote:

---

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.

---

The point is, how do you tell the difference between an IC system and one which we haven't figured out yet?Also, look at a complex system this way...Let's say an organism evolved a system in which A had to happen before B could happen for adequate functioning for the current environmental conditions. Then a C stage was added because different environmental pressures caused another change. Then, a while down the road, still later developments may make the "B" stage obsolete, and so it drops out, leaving what some perceive as a "gap" that can't be explained.ID is an argument that relies upon the idea that evolution can only happen in a simple, linear fashion. There is no reason at all that evolution has to happen this way, and in fact there is much evidence that it often doesn't work that way. Features are added and dropped from existing systems all the time, and can be explained by natural means very well.The article you linked was also filled with unfair and misleading statements:

quote:

---

"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?

---

It isn't completely wrong, as I have had several discussions about the peppered moth with Creationists over the years.If you deny that evolution happens, you are, by definition, denying that antibiotic resistance is possible.

Just out of curiosity, why would Behe get a pulitzer for ID? Best fictional work?