Charles Krauthammer, my favorite columnist over all, strikes again at the peculiar theory called “intelligent design,” which is neither very intelligent or much of a design. In fact, as I have said before, it’s kind of an insult to theists – something that Krauthammer hints at from another direction by pointing out that Newton and Einstein were believers. On ID theory, the columnist is devastating:
Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological “theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God. It is a “theory” that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, “I think I’ll make me a lemur today.” A “theory” that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science — that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution — or behind the motion of the tides or the “strong force” that holds the atom together?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
56 Comments
1. Derek Scruggs:Hallelujah! ID is BS.
Nov 19, 2005 - 3:27 pm 2. TheRealSwede:I am not knowledgable about the theory of Intelligent Design, but as a concept, I don’t know why it and the science of Evolution have to be mutually exlusive. If you accept Evolution as fact (and I do), who’s to say that the process itself couldn’t have been initiated by a super-intelligence, a supreme being, i.e. God.
Nov 19, 2005 - 3:40 pm 3. jonathan riley:: I don’t know why it and the science of Evolution have to be mutually exlusive.
they, don’t; but the one thing that musn’t be allowed is for them to be regarded as the same thing. religion is not a branch of science.
Nov 19, 2005 - 4:29 pm 4. Shochu John:You’re certainly correct, Swede. Once you leave the realm of what exists in the natural universe, you’re free to posit whatever you wish without worry of condradicting well established scientific theories. At that point, there could be a God that created the universe with forethought and plannning, or perhaps the universe is just a dream of a giant supernatural dog. Whatever. Go nuts. As long as we keep the religious theories out of science class, we should all get along fine, right? And does anybody actually deny that I.D. is just creationism cleverly fitted with a lab coat?
Nov 19, 2005 - 4:30 pm 5. Sissy Willis:Don’t confuse some people with the facts. They’d rather get it wrong from the start and run with it if it furthers their agenda. Were I dead, I should be rolling over in my grave. Darwin surely is:
There is a grandeur in this view of life”
Nov 19, 2005 - 4:37 pm 6. Syl:Someone, a commenter maybe, somewhere else put it something like this: it’s not wise to put God in the gaps because as the gaps are filled, you lose your God.
I have no trouble with evolution going all the way from the simplest organism to the most complex. I do perceive a gap, however, in getting from the ‘primordial soup’ to RNA.
But even that gap may be filled in someday.
But who made the laws of physics? we’re all on our own there. But who made them is irrelevant in a science class.
Nov 19, 2005 - 5:15 pm 7. Terrye:I usually agree with Charles Krauthammer, but not always. I did not agree with him on Harriet Miers and I did not agree with his over reaction to Gibson’s movie about the death of Jesus.
And like Tammy Bruce I do not agree with him on this issue.
Like many others I fail to understand why ID and Evolution can not exist in the same universe. After all the Deists contended that God created the laws of nature and allowed them to take their course.
Nov 19, 2005 - 5:15 pm 8. Richard Nieporent:Charles Krauthammer got it exactly right. ID is not science. Science requires that not only does one come up with a theory to explain some physical, chemical or biological process, but that the theory is capable of being tested by a series of experiments. Without this ability to test a theory we have no science. All ID does is to attempt to cast doubt on the theory of evolution; it does not provide an alternative theory that can be tested and therefore it does not belong in a science class.
Nov 19, 2005 - 5:23 pm 9. heather:I’m not at all confident about opining about Intelligent Design VERSUS “Science.” It seems to me that they are 2 modes of thought about this world – and our lives – that can, indeed, coexist (as they did in the minds of Newton and Einstein.)
The implication one could draw from Krauthammer’s essay is that – somehow – “Science” is based on true fact, and is therefore, when it has been tested in the real world, beyond discussion (until another topos comes along.)
However, I have come to the conclusion that some of “Science” is balderdash (ie, in our own time, ‘global warning.’) and even leads to Evil – such as social Darwinism (and in modern Holland, euthenasia). Social Darwinism has no standing in respectable circles NOW, but well into the 1930s and beyond, it was believed by such people as Oliver Wendall Holmes and Churchill, let alone Margaret Sanger, and many thoroughly ugly acts followed – such as letting children with Downs Syndrome die of neglect; and concentrating efforts of birth control in the poor and therefore subhuman parts of England and the US… The FACT of the Holocaust brought a lot of this to a screeching halt.
On the other hand, if one leans towards “Intelligent Design”, God comes into the equation, A God who can – and will – punish the Evil and reward the Good. And then we must consider Evil and Good… I mean, whether or not one smokes cigarettes, or beats up on small children, or leads a life dedicated to selfishness…
Nov 19, 2005 - 5:50 pm 10. Terrye:Some people say that science has become a sort of relgion in itself.
I do think people are making too big deal out of this.
Nov 19, 2005 - 6:14 pm 11. leejudt:“they, don’t; but the one thing that musn’t be allowed is for them to be regarded as the same thing. religion is not a branch of science”
I agree with both “sweede” and Riley, that the evolutionary theory are not in priciple mutually exclusive.
The real issue, though, is as Riley hinted keeping the science and theology apart in their respective realms. “Religion is not a branch of science,” and neither is science a branch of religion. As Kant said: faith within the bounds of reason and not reason within the bounds of faith.
I have enough to imagine a rational deity, though not faith enough to know why human beings can be so irrational.
About Kant’s view, here is a link:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/
Nov 19, 2005 - 6:58 pm 12. Baggi:One of the problems with this debate is the way it is framed. People would do well to visit http://www.idthefuture.com in order to get a basic understanding of the debate.
For example, Charles K. makes this into an argument between evolution and intelligent design. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Intelligent Design Theory is an alternative to Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism and is an evolutionary theory.
Another confusion in the debate is one between science and philosophy. In philosophy you can argue if something is Natural or Supernatural. So when science begins to talk about something being Natural, what is the alternative? Most people think that the alternative is Supernatural but they are wrong. The alternative is intelligence.
For example, in forensic science you have to determine if someone died of natural causes or intelligent (IE: Murder) causes. Or in historical sciences one has to determine if they just found a rock or an arrowhead. So people assume that when intelligent design theorists claim that their science demonstrates an intelligence, our assumptions lead us to believe that they are delving into philosophy rather than science.
The fact is that Darwin and neo-darwinists like Francisco Ayala, Richard Dawkins and Richard Lewontin have all acknowledged that biological organisms appear to have been designed. Through scientific means they conclude that, “the appearance of design in biology does not result from actual design.”
However, if the above statement is a scientific statement, then it must also be a scientific statement to say, “the appearance of design in biology does result from actual design.”
Why that is so difficult for the Charles K’s of the world to understand is beyond me.
Nov 19, 2005 - 7:09 pm 13. Baggi:Oh, another thing…
Mr. Simon, for you to say that Charles column is devastating to Intelligent Design theory shows that you really havn’t looked into it. This line is revealing…
“It is a self-enclosed, tautological “theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God.”
I’m not sure where Charles K is getting his information from (Or you for that matter) but Intelligent Design has nothing say about God. This sort of talk is really beneath Mr. Krauthammer and you. Maybe there is some religious website out there that is misrepresenting Intelligent Design theory and that is where you two are getting your information from?
Look deeper into it and I promise you will find that it is indeed scientific.
Unless you are of the sort that believes all historical sciences are non-scientific.
Again, this is a debate between ID and Darwinism. Not between ID and Evolution. Intelligent Design theorists believe whole heartedly in evolution, just not Darwin’s version or his predecessors.
Nov 19, 2005 - 7:21 pm 14. timmah!:Baggi–since you’re an expert, in one sentence, what is the intelligent design theory of evolution?
Nov 19, 2005 - 8:24 pm 15. jonathan riley:baggi,
in your two preceeding posts a number of interesting wordcounts crop up:
(conjugate/decline as you will)
argue – appears twice,
debate – appears four times,
“the alternative” – appears three times (cluster)
evidence – ah yes, never.
just saying…..
Nov 19, 2005 - 8:27 pm 16. jonathan riley:oh, and how could i forget:
“Look deeper into it…..”
who do you think you’re able to kid with this sort of talk?
Nov 19, 2005 - 8:30 pm 17. LarryD:… the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science — that it be empirically disprovable.
Ok, how could ‘Evolution’ be empirically disproven?
If you can’t come up with a good answer for that question, then Evolution isn’t science either.
Given some people’s emotional reaction to any questioning of, let alone any challange to, Evolution; it’s clear that some people regard Evolution as dogma, not science. Reason enough to either not teach it in school at all, or else to teach that there are alteratives.
Evolution has problems on the macro level, it can explain the development of the gliding membranes of flying squirrels, but wings and eyes are a lot harder to account for. Remember, Evolution posits only small changes, incremental in nature, that are subjected to selection. which means that all the intermediate steps not be detrimental.
Nov 19, 2005 - 9:36 pm 18. Baggi:Actually, i’m far from being an expert.
The theory is called Intelligent Design. The hypothesis that make up the theory are irreducible complexity (behe) and specified complexity (dembski). Those are the two popular ones that i’m able to reduce down to short explanations (two words).
I’m not exactly sure what jonathan riley’s point is though. I’m not trying to kid anyone. Is there something wrong with the suggestion to look deeper into something?
But if you are looking for evidence feel free to read the peer reviewed material on the subject.
Here is a start:
Stephen Meyer, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2004):213-239.
L?g, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
Jonathan Wells, Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Michael Behe, Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).
Those should be a good start. Unfortunately a lot of it is very boring and scientific, so unless you are into that sort of thing, don’t expect it to be easy reading. If you want more i’m happy to list more, there’s lots of it.
Nov 19, 2005 - 9:37 pm 19. Richard Nieporent:So according to you Baggi, the opposite of natural is intelligence. If you really believe that, then you didn’t do very well on your SATs.
Intelligent Design has nothing say about God
No actually, ID has nothing to say about science. If you think it does then you do not understand what science is all about. Science is simply a methodology that is used to study nature. The major assumption in science is that results are reproducible. If I do an experiment multiple times I will get the same result within experimental error. Science provides a systematic means to determine the laws of nature, no more no less. It says nothing about what if anything created the universe in the first place. That is the province of religion.
Nov 19, 2005 - 9:40 pm 20. Pixy Misa:Terrye -
Like many others I fail to understand why ID and Evolution can not exist in the same universe. After all the Deists contended that God created the laws of nature and allowed them to take their course.
Deistic Evolution is that exact idea applied to evolution. It is perfectly compatible with Evolutionary Theory.
ID, on the other hand, is the claim that God regularly interferes with the evolutionary process. That is profoundly incompatible with Evolutionary Theory and indeed with every other branch of science.
ID’s proponents present what they call “Irreducible Complexity” as evidence for their claims. However, every specific claim they have made has been soundly refuted. Indeed examples have been shown of “irreducibly complex” systems where we know, down to the exact gene and the exact mode of mutation how that system arose.
ID is not science because it is intrinsically an appeal to the supernatural. It is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, makes no specific predictions, and does not explain anything. It is bunk because there is no evidence at all to support its claims. It is a deliberate attack on science because its supporters, knowing all this, continue to present it as science. (Behe has said in court that he considers astrology to be science.)
ID is creationism. Some of the words have been changed – and as the recent trial in Dover, PA, has shown, not many of them. The current proponents of ID simply took existing creationist arguments, long since refuted, dusted them off and started again under a new name – all the while proclaiming that ID has nothing to do with creationism. (The Dover trial proved this by comparing revisions of Creationist and ID texts.) And that makes it fraud.
Nov 19, 2005 - 9:44 pm 21. Baggi:“It says nothing about what if anything created the universe in the first place. That is the province of religion.”
We agree on that, and so do Intelligent Design Theorists.
“So according to you Baggi, the opposite of natural is intelligence.”
I’m not so sure I would have put it that way. Perhaps an example will help in the understanding department.
A police officer walks into a house and finds a dead body on the ground. He sees no evidence of foul play. The police officer assumes that the person died of natural causes (Heart attack or stroke). The coroner does an autopsy (Using science, not religion) and determines that the person was poisoned. This means the person did not die of natural causes but intelligent causes.
If that doesn’t help you to understand the dynamic, then how about this one….
A geologist finds a big catch of nice round black rocks. They appear to be flat and smooth on one side and pointy and sharp on the other side. He’s not certain if they are just rocks, shaped naturally by wind, rain, and other weather effects, or if they were shapped as arrow heads by intelligent agents. He uses science to make that determination.
It is not a matter of natural vs supernatural, but a matter of nature vs intelligence agents.
We do it all the time in the world.
Wouldn’t you agree with me that science can help us determine if something happened by natural causes as opposed to an intellegent agent?
Nov 19, 2005 - 9:48 pm 22. leejudt:“Ok, how could ‘Evolution’ be empirically disproven?”
By showing that all species are completely unrelated and that one species could not have evolved from another.
Evolution is merely a theory about species differentiation. We tend to forget that.
This is why the problem isn’t with religion per se, but with those who want to believe that the biblical account is literally true and that all species were created by God and are different in kind as well as in form.
Nov 19, 2005 - 10:01 pm 23. jonathan riley:: Is there something wrong with the suggestion to look deeper into something?
when you’re trying to pass superstition off as science, it helps not to use the language of the occult. when was the last time you heard a chemist enjoin his/her students to “look deeply” into their subject? never? and when was the last time you came across a religious nutter doing the same? well?
Nov 19, 2005 - 10:08 pm 24. Pixy Misa:Ok, how could ‘Evolution’ be empirically disproven?
By finding fossil evidence of a species with no possible predecessor. The canonical example is the pre-Cambrian rabbit (which I cann anomalobunnis antecambriensis). No such thing has ever been found.
By showing that species believed to be closely related by comparative anatomy and the fossil record are not closely related at all genetically. For example, if you showed that horses were more closely related to horse chestnuts than to, say, cows. No such thing has ever been observed.
By showing that species believed to be closely related (as above) had different genetic codes. Needless to say, no such thing has ever been observed.
By showing multiple, radical mutations taking effect in a species in a single generation. No such thing has ever been observed.
That list is not exhaustive, either.
On the other hand, there is no way, even in principle, for Intelligent Design to be falsified.
Nov 19, 2005 - 10:13 pm 25. Pixy Misa:Argh. (which I call anomalobunnis antecambriensis).
Nov 19, 2005 - 10:15 pm 26. Pixy Misa:Look deeper into it and I promise you will find that it is indeed scientific.
I’ve looked. It ain’t. It is fundamentally and irredeemably non-scientific.
Nov 19, 2005 - 10:23 pm 27. Richard Nieporent:Okay Baggi, this time I will not pull any punches. Your examples are pure sophistry. Just because you use the words natural and intelligent in your examples does not make one the opposite of the other. When you repeat these simple-minded examples that you found on the ID website you are insulting our intelligence. You clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to science.
Nov 19, 2005 - 10:30 pm 28. Pixy Misa:This article, wherein Behe torpedoes his own claims, is rather amusing. It’s just a transcript of the Dover trial.
Basically, in one of his papers Behe showed that (given certain assumptions) it would take 20,000 years for a certain simple mutation to arise (in single-celled animals). However, the population he used for his calculations was one billion, which represents the number of microbes in the dirt under your fingernails when you come in from the garden. Taking a more realistic population size – say, the number of microbes in the dirt in your garden – it might take a day.
Nov 19, 2005 - 10:44 pm 29. Pixy Misa:Another great counter to ID is the story of how a bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon. We know exactly when, where and how it happened. We know the gene affected, and we know the mechanism for the mutation itself.
Such a thing is, of course, “Irreducibly Complex” as the IDists would have it, which shows that the notion of Irreducible Complexity is entirely without value.
Nov 19, 2005 - 10:48 pm 30. Baggi:jonathan riley wrote;
“when was the last time you heard a chemist enjoin his/her students to “look deeply” into their subject? never? and when was the last time you came across a religious nutter doing the same? well?”
Hmmmm…
Poor choice of words on my part. How about, look into it for yourself. Or how about, don’t take my word for it, research it yourself.
Hope that helps.
Pixy Misa wrote;
“ID’s proponents present what they call “Irreducible Complexity” as evidence for their claims. However, every specific claim they have made has been soundly refuted. Indeed examples have been shown of “irreducibly complex” systems where we know, down to the exact gene and the exact mode of mutation how that system arose.”
Pixy Misa also wrote;
“On the other hand, there is no way, even in principle, for Intelligent Design to be falsified.”
Make up your mind. You cannot claim that Intelligent Design cannot be falsified and then claim that one of the main components of Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, has been falsified.
Pixy Misa wrote;
“ID, on the other hand, is the claim that God regularly interferes with the evolutionary process. That is profoundly incompatible with Evolutionary Theory and indeed with every other branch of science.”
Your first statement is false but i’m willing to see your evidence for it. Can you show me a statement made by an Intelligent Design Theorist that even closely reflects that first statement? Your second sentence is true.
Pixy Misa wrote;
“(Behe has said in court that he considers astrology to be science.)”
Not exactly, what Behe really said it court was rather a long exchange and too much to reprint here. You can go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html and look deeper into it (Just kidding Jonathan) and look further into it. If you’re too lazy to do that, here is the gist of it…
“Q And I asked you, “Is astrology a theory under that definition?” And you answered, “Is astrology? It could be, yes.” Right?
A That’s correct.
Q Not, it used to be, right?
A Well, that’s what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I’m not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.”
Behe also said…
“Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that’s what it says there?
A Yes.”
If you read the testimony it is pretty clear that Behe believes Astronomy, or the archaic idea of Astrology, could be considered a scientific theory.
Richard wrote;
“Just because you use the words natural and intelligent in your examples does not make one the opposite of the other.”
This is true. Saying something doesn’t make it true. That’s why I gave examples. Science works differently than philosophy.
Surely you would agree with me that the opposite of natural in philosophy is supernatural, right? Or maybe not the opposite but the other.
Well, what is the opposite of natural in science? It cannot be supernatural. And we know that scientists must sometimes look for other than natural causes, right? If it would make you happy I could say non-natural, but then you’d say I was being coy, or deceptive and saying the same exact thing another way.
The point remains the same. Science can determine if something is natural or not. If it isn’t a natural cause, what else could it be but an intelligent cause?
Finally, Pixy Misa wrote;
“every specific claim they have made has been soundly refuted.”
Not true. The bacterial flagellum is an example of one specific claim that has not been refuted. Indeed, an attempt was made and then found to be in error.
Pixy Misa further wrote;
“Indeed examples have been shown of “irreducibly complex” systems where we know, down to the exact gene and the exact mode of mutation how that system arose.”
Yes, this is indeed true. Some (not all) of the systems claimed to be irreducibly complex have been shown to not be irreducibly complex. In other words, they have been falsified. This is what makes it such good science. Not every system is irreducibly complex and because some of the systems have been falsified, it demonstrates that the hypothesis is not a tautology.
Nov 19, 2005 - 11:57 pm 31. Baggi:Sorry, I can’t help myself. One more response to Pixy Misa….
“Another great counter to ID is the story of how a bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon. We know exactly when, where and how it happened. We know the gene affected, and we know the mechanism for the mutation itself.
Such a thing is, of course, “Irreducibly Complex” as the IDists would have it, which shows that the notion of Irreducible Complexity is entirely without value.”
I like your certainty but unfortunately you are far off the mark. Actually, the reverse is true. For those who like to read up on such stuff, go to this http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp and give it a read. In case you don’t want to go there and read for yourself the conclusion:
“P. aeruginosa was first named by Schroeter in 1872.10 It still has the same features that identify it as such. So, in spite of being so ubiquitous, so prolific and so rapidly adaptable, this bacterium has not evolved into a different type of bacterium. Note that the number of bacterial generations possible in over 130 years is hugeóequivalent to tens of millions of years of human generations, encompassing the origin of the putative common ancestor of ape and man, according to the evolutionary story, indeed perhaps even all primates. And yet the bacterium shows no evidence of directional changeóstasis rules, not progressive evolution. This alone should cast doubt on the evolutionary paradigm. Flavobacterium was first named in 1889 and it likewise still has the same characteristics as originally described.”
Nov 20, 2005 - 12:11 am 32. Pixy Misa:You cannot claim that Intelligent Design cannot be falsified and then claim that one of the main components of Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, has been falsified.
Sure I can. I just did.
Intelligent Design is deliberately structured to be unfalisifiable. So is Irreducible Complexity. We know that both are utter nonsense, but this does not falsify either one, because thet cannot be falsified.
Specific claimed examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted, indeed, all specific claimed examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted. However, they could produce another ten claims tomorrow and we’d have to start all over again.
That’s why it’s not science. No matter how many times you show their specific statements to be wrong, they can just come up with something else.
Your first statement is false but i’m willing to see your evidence for it. Can you show me a statement made by an Intelligent Design Theorist that even closely reflects that first statement?
Well, you could read any of the works you just cited to start with.
That’s what Intelligent Design means: God interfering with the evolutionary process. And for those who claim it’s not about God, the textual analysis during the recent Dover trial destroyed that pretense forever.
As for the nylon-crunching bacteria: This ability is Irreducibly Complex. Take out any part of it and it stops working. Yet it evolved, and we know exactly how it evolved.
How it didn’t evolve is through the change of a single gene. It was, rather, an transposition mutation. Irreducible Complexity deliberately ignores these and other mutation mechanisms because they readily allow “irreducibly complex” systems to evolve. Because it ignores the actual biology involved for the sake of influencing public opinion, Irreducible Complexity is without value.
As for astrology: It is not now, nor ever was, a science. It involved the study of the stars, and then applying that knowledge to the advancement of complete nonsense. Just as it does today.
There’s no question as to what Behe is saying here. He is saying that superstitious twaddle dressed up as science is science.
Nov 20, 2005 - 12:39 am 33. Pixy Misa:To expand slightly:
Irreducible Complexity is the notion that if there are some biological systems – blood clotting and the bacterial flagellum are some tha are regularly trotted out – where if you take away any part of the system, the whole will fail to work, and therefore they could not possibly have evolved.
This notion fails on several grounds. First is that the examples presented are often false; in the case of blood clotting, species have been in fact been found with the clotting mechanism missing supposedly essential features but still working. Despite Baggi’s protestations, there are perfectly workable evolutionary paths for the flagellum, though we don’t know precisely what path was actually taken.
More damning, though, is the fact that evolution is in no way restricted to change by adding features one at a time. Features can also change or be removed. So even a truly irreducibly complex system can evolve naturally.
That is why the entire idea of Irreducible Complexity is worthless.
Nov 20, 2005 - 12:52 am 34. Godzilla:God did create us, and I have proof. Actually, many gods created us. Archaic men, those geniuses of Einstenian proportions, who learned to track the stars before writing was invented, and pass that knowledge down through the ages by way of stories which we now call myths, called those stars gods.
Thales, then Anaximander, led the transition from astronomy via myth to a scientific method that began to leave gods out of it. But it was the stars as gods that started men off to the path that has led to us.
Okay, not proof, of course, just a personally satisfying idea.
Still, after 2600 years, Anixmander has not been proven wrong. His one sentence, the only fully extant one in his writings, still holds:
The ultimate tragedy, regarding cosmology, is that every discovery merely leads to another question. The problem might have something to do with mathematical infinity…which wrecks havac in string theory, and which ultimately means that there is no finite boundary, small or large.
Cosmologists now are getting to be close to laughing stocks. The recent Scientific American mag (which I subscribe to), had an article by a leading cosmologist that hypothesized that the universe was like a hologram. In fact, when it comes to cosmology, reading Scientific American is getting as incredulous as National Enquirer used to be in their wilder days.
Nov 20, 2005 - 2:13 am 35. Baggi:Pixy Misa, I really don’t know what to say. You sound as though we should just believe you because you say it is so.
“Well, you could read any of the works you just cited to start with.
That’s what Intelligent Design means: God interfering with the evolutionary process. And for those who claim it’s not about God, the textual analysis during the recent Dover trial destroyed that pretense forever.”
While it is convenient for you to set up a straw man to knock down, it really does not further the conversation. I submit that Intelligent Design means what the advocates say it means and not what its opponents say it means.
Pixy Misa wrote:
“He is saying that superstitious twaddle dressed up as science is science.”
It is expedient for you to see it that way, thus the reason I posted more of the text for people to make up their own mind.
Pixy Misa wrote;
“Specific claimed examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted, indeed, all specific claimed examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted.”
I must believe here that you are being dupped, want to be dupped, or are purposefully being deceptive, as this is not even close to being true.
While it is true that not all things claimed as IC are IC, that doesn’t make the statements, “All things IC are proved not IC.” true.
As a matter of fact, Irreducible Comlexity does a great service to science. Darwin wrote, “”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species, New York: New American
Library, 1958 p. 171]
Irreducible Complexity is a shorter way of saying what Darwin wrote in the 19th century. The BF is a perfect example of this. Poor Darwin thought that things turned to jello as they got smaller, things got less complex (Instead of more). His theory was based on his lack of knowledge.
Now, neo-Darwinists are making claims that are like darts to a dart board, they are all over the place.
Not only is Intelligent Design not falsifiable, but it has been falsified
“[i]You cannot claim that Intelligent Design cannot be falsified and then claim that one of the main components of Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, has been falsified.[/i]
Sure I can. I just did.”
Further, Darwinian evolution is both falsifiable “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
and not falsifiable
“More damning, though, is the fact that evolution is in no way restricted to change by adding features one at a time. Features can also change or be removed. So even a truly irreducibly complex system can evolve naturally”
So you get to have your cake and eat it too.
Really, I believe that those poeple who are not emotionally tied in some way to this debate should take their time, skip over the rhetoric, and carefully read both sides before coming to any conclusion. Both sides have their wing nut radicals and both sides have thier level headed, intelligent proponents.
[as an aside, i'm not really familiar with the format of these types of boards. How does one italicize, or bold, etc?]
Nov 20, 2005 - 3:02 am 36. mythusmage:Observation: It isn’t evolution that gives creationists et al problems, it’s the fact that, from all we know, God isn’t necessary. Evolution works just fine without God sticking his fingers in.
To make this simple, creationists of any stripe are frightened of the possibility they face the world on their own, and that they are responsible for their own actions. For the good and the bad that results from those actions. A creationist is a person who’s afraid of growing up.
Besides, God can’t be behind evolution, He would’ve done a better job.
Nov 20, 2005 - 3:05 am 37. Baggi:Sorry about this, I hate making a post one after the other and Ive done it twice in this thread!! Egads!
I had to point this out.
Pixy Mixa, if you can believe it, wrote both of these statements:
“Specific claimed examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted, indeed, all specific claimed examples of Irreducible Complexity have been refuted.”
and
“As for the nylon-crunching bacteria: This ability is Irreducibly Complex. Take out any part of it and it stops working. Yet it evolved, and we know exactly how it evolved.”
Nov 20, 2005 - 3:08 am 38. Buddy Larsen:I like Spinoza’s thought that the G*d we need is the G*d whose existence is proven by our very thoughts of G*d. This takes a while to sink in. And sometimes it just sounds like the tautology of which many complain. But then again, the thought of a G*d is so counterintuitive and yet universal thru time & space, maybe it IS a good base. Anyway, like ID it can’t be disproven, so in the end it ain’t science–unless we want to broaden the definition of science, and then have to invent a new word for the academic discipline.
Nov 20, 2005 - 6:29 am 39. Buddy Larsen:Baggi, re italics, bolding, etcetera, just google “HTML” and there’s oodles of articles, including some on the version typekey uses.
Nov 20, 2005 - 6:35 am 40. Pixy Misa:Baggi:
I’ll grant you that my wording could have been clearer, but my meaning is still obvious to anyone who wants to understand.
All examples of biological systems claimed by ID proponents to be irreducibly complex and therefore not possible to evolve naturally have been shown to be perfectly possible to evolve naturally. The claims made are always that the system is irreducibly complex and therefore proof of Intelligent Design. No such claim has stood up to examination.
The nylon-digesting system in the bacterium I mentioned is indeed irreducibly complex, but as I note, it evolved naturally, and we know exactly how. This does not falsify Irreducible Complexity, and I never claimed it did. Rather, it points out that the entire concept of Irreducible Complexity is of no scientific value whatsoever.
Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
I never claimed that the Theory of Evolution was not falsifiable, in fact I pointed out specific examples of ways to falsify it. I showed that Irreducible Complexity is incapable of falsifying Evolution it because it makes assumptions about biology that are false-to-fact. Again: It assumes that the only possible changes are additive. This is not the case. Changes can be subtractive, and changes can just be changes. Which means that Irreducibly Complex systems can evolve naturally.
I submit that Intelligent Design means what the advocates say it means and not what its opponents say it means.
Sorry, the Dover trial transcripts prove that the advocates of Intelligent Design are lying on this matter. Their own writings show that they consider Intelligent Design to be merely an updated version of Creationism. So no, I reject your submission.
Nov 20, 2005 - 6:52 am 41. Pixy Misa:To explain still further:
We have a system made up of three components, A, B and C. If we take away any one of these components, the system does nothing useful, or may even be harmful to the organism.
Irreducible Complexity claims that this means that the system could not have evolved naturally.
However, the way mutations actually work, this could have evolved from a system with A, B, C and D, where D was removed by a mutation. The ABCD system might have evolved when C was added to an earlier ABD system, or some other way.
Or it could have evolved from an ABE system, where the mutation changed E into C. Depending on the system in question, this may or may not be possible. However, evolving a simpler system from a more complex one is always possible. There are systems where if you take away any component, it will break. There are no naturally-occuring systems where if you add any component it will fail, because such a system would be so fragile that the organism would not survive.
Darwin speaks of successive modifications; Irreducible Complexity speaks only of successive additions, and therefore cannot answer Darwin’s point.
Nov 20, 2005 - 7:13 am 42. timmah!:“I submit that Intelligent Design means what the advocates say it means and not what its opponents say it means.”
The problem, Baggi, is that you, a de facto advocate of ID, won’t say what it means. “Examples” that confuse the meaning of the words “intelligence” and “intentional” don’t help: they only confirm my fear–yes, fear–that ID is code for “abandon empirical science and replace it with gibberish.”
You’ve said that ID theory wants to replace or augment the neo-Darwinian synthesis as an explanation of evolution–is that a fair assessment? But you will not give a simple summary of how ID proposes to do this. This is a bit rude, though I do appreciate your willingness to engage in the conversation and doubt you meant it so.
Here’s an example of what I have never seen ID proponents say:
“The Darwinian theory of evolution proposes that species evolve due to natural selection acting on random genetic mutations”.
It’s not self contained or perfect, but it’s a start in a rational conversation: we can question that proposal, refine some terms, and begin to talk to each other instead of past each other. So in the interests of further conversation, can you fill in the blank:
The intelligent design theory of evolution proposes that species evolve due to _______ .
Nov 20, 2005 - 7:21 am 43. timmah!:“Given some people’s emotional reaction to any questioning of, let alone any challange to, Evolution; it’s clear that some people regard Evolution as dogma, not science. Reason enough to either not teach it in school at all, or else to teach that there are alteratives.”
LarryD, I agree with the first sentence. I find it disgusting that some scientists try to turn their work into a bludgeon to go after people’s faith. This is an abuse of science, and in general you can immediately ignore any one who insists that evolution is proven–empirical theories cannot be proven, and to state otherwise is to abandon scientific discipline.
However, your second sentence is a total non sequitur. Why should we let the actions of a few nuts one way or the other determine our curricula? The ancient Pythagoreans believed that mathematics had mystical properties, perhaps even religious. Should we therefore outlaw geometry?
BTW, I also regard trying to displace empirical science with religion as a perversion of religion. It risks insisting that God must abide within our limitations as creatures.
Nov 20, 2005 - 7:33 am 44. syn:I’m still waiting for Science to actually prove Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, until such time it is just blind faith gibberish that Darwin’s Theory is scientifically proven.
Vaclav Haval points out the problem with Science and Modern Civilization “the relationship to the world that the modern sicence fostered and shaped now appears to have exhausted its potential. It is increasingly clear that, strangely, the relationship is missing something. It fails to connect with the most intrinsic nature of reality and with natural human experience. It is now more a source of disintegration and doubt than a source of integration and meaning. It produces what amounts to a state of schizophrenia: Man as an observer is becoming completely alienated from himself as a being.”
In other Havel words “As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it.”
By constantly defining Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as the measure of all meaningful things we basically have turned this mere mortal human being into a God who must be worshipped by the believers as the definitive answer to all things determined life. It’s a state of schizophrenia in our scientific community and its blind faith prevents them from seeing outside it’s own human state for fear they will lose control of everything they have measured to be scientifically reasoned.
Nov 20, 2005 - 7:56 am 45. syn:By the way, ID has never been studied as a science only presented as a philosophy, so how do we know it is not worthly of scientific study?
Nov 20, 2005 - 8:05 am 46. timmah!:“I’m still waiting for Science to actually prove Darwin’s Theory of Evolution…”
Empirical theories cannot be proven. They can only be disproven.
“…until such time it is just blind faith gibberish that Darwin’s Theory is scientifically proven.”
Agreed. “Scientifically proven” is an oxymoron. Scientific theories are never right; at best they are not yet wrong. This is their strength.
Nov 20, 2005 - 8:06 am 47. mrsizer:Baggi, granting your binary choices, Natural or Intelligent, from whence comes the intelligence?
The only recognized intelligence on earth is man (intelligence/sentience may be a continuum not a binary characteristic and dolphins, monkeys, etc… may fit somewhere – not important here). Man cannot be responsible for his own evolution. Therefore the intelligence is not human.
That leaves three choices: Natural (i.e. Aliens), Supernatural (i.e. God), or The-Universe-itself-is-intelligent (I forget the word for that idea). I would submit that most ID proponents do not believe that aliens are influencing evolution on earth or that a self-intelligent universe is guiding its own evolution.
Nov 20, 2005 - 8:14 am 48. mrsizer:Irreducible Complexity is a theory itself: One that is very difficult to disprove. As mentioned above, it’s pretty simple (if one has the resources – including some very, very smart genetists and expensive high-tech equipment with nothing better to do – such as research that improves our lives instead of figuring out how the flagellum came into being) to disprove any specific example; but disproving the concept is difficult.
The problem for the proponents of Irreducible Complexity is that it depends on our current state of knowledge. What appears irreducible now, may not, in fact, be irreducible. As knowledge advances, something’s irreducible status may change. This is the God of the Gaps problem, also mentioned above.
The opponents are also operating on faith – the difference is they believe it’s merely our ignorance, which may be overcome, that makes things appear irreducible.
Given the number of gaps that have been closed over the past couple of centuries, my FAITH is with the “we just don’t know, yet” crowd.
I recommend that any proponent of Irreducible Complexity read some books on Hierarchy Theory. An anthill is more than a collection of ants. A cell is more than a collection of chemical reactions. A person is more than a collection of cells. One of my favorites: Traffic patterns are more than the sum of individual drivers (it’s really very interesting). This is all perfectly natural and explainable, but very counter-intuitive (at least for reductionists).
Nov 20, 2005 - 8:29 am 49. Michael_B:“Devastating”? Not even close. Not even remotely close.
One might well applaud the idea that science should be kept separate from theology and philosophy, and in general they should. (There will inevitably be areas for discussion in terms of the ontology and perhaps even metaphysics where practitioners can voice mutually interested views. But in terms of the methodological materialism which undergirds a genuine and rigorously applied science, there is virtually no room for importing ideas which lack rigor.)
However, it’s of equal importance that science take much better care to distinguish itself from scientism as an ideological adumbration to a more rigorous science, both in terms of applied and theoretical science. It’s interesting, after so many posts, that this flip-side of the coin hasn’t been mentioned a single time by enthusiasts who celebrate the notion of separateness. One specific and critical example is that when Darwinian evolutionary theory** is either overtly or more subtly leveraged to additionally forward pure materialist philosophical views, these same enthusiasts are decidedly mute and choose to demure for much enthusiasm and advocacy for this idea of separatenes. That is one of the junctures, and one only, where a more genuine and substantial scientific rigor is left behind.
If enthusiasts and advocates would apply equal levels of enthusiasm to keeping various forms of scientism and philosophy out of science, and would better articulate the epistemological limitations of a methodological materialism, among other subjects, the debate would acquire much more depth and breadth than is reflected in Krauthammer’s less than probative review.
Nov 20, 2005 - 12:09 pm 50. Baggi:Timmah wrote;
“”The Darwinian theory of evolution proposes that species evolve due to natural selection acting on random genetic mutations”.
It’s not self contained or perfect, but it’s a start in a rational conversation: we can question that proposal, refine some terms, and begin to talk to each other instead of past each other. So in the interests of further conversation, can you fill in the blank:
The intelligent design theory of evolution proposes that species evolve due to _______ .”
I would reword the above to read, “Then intelligent design theory of evolution holds that the evolution of species is best explained by an intelligent agent.”
Timmah also wrote:
“The Darwinian theory of evolution proposes that species evolve due to natural selection acting on random genetic mutations”
Let’s assume that the Dariwnian theory of evolution is a new theory and therefore is standing up to some intense scrutiny. A scientist may wish to attempt to falsify natural selection to see if it stands up to tests.
What is the possible outcome of his tests? What I mean to ask is, if he agrees that evolution is indeed a process but he isn’t sure how things evolve, what are his choices other than natural selection? Those people who are claiming that Intelligent Design is not even an option in science are trying to say that natural selection is the only option, any alternative is religious. This is why Pixy can say that everything proves Darwins theory. Even though Darwin himself said in effect that if things were demonstrated as irreducibly complex his theory would be in ruins, now neo-Darwinists say that even if irreducible complexity is true, it too proves Darwin’s theory.
What sort of science doesn’t allow for other possibilities?
mrsizer wrote:
“That leaves three choices: Natural (i.e. Aliens), Supernatural (i.e. God), or The-Universe-itself-is-intelligent (I forget the word for that idea). I would submit that most ID proponents do not believe that aliens are influencing evolution on earth or that a self-intelligent universe is guiding its own evolution.”
I would submit that it doesn’t matter what most ID proponents believe. Just as it wouldn’t matter if most Darwin proponents believed that God was responsible for natural selection. Where did the Big Bang come from? We don’t know.
Where did the intelligence come from? We don’t know. In order for ID to remain science it can only answer empirical questions and at this time it doesn’t have an answer to that question. It may never be able to answer that question, just as Darwin’s theory may never be able to answer a similar question.
Nov 20, 2005 - 2:42 pm 51. Michael_B:Some briefs on this subject, a subject pockmarked and studded with premeditated, studied avoidance once some subjects are broached and certain questions are asked:
Owen Gingerich, Taking the ID Debate Out of Pundits’ Playbooks, excerpt:
“ID is interesting as a philosophical idea, but it does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers. But evolution presented as a materialistic philosophy is ideology, and that is something that can be legitimately resisted. Unfortunately, the battle as it is being fought is a battle of misunderstandings on both sides of the terrain.”
Dembski, for those who can get past the kneejerk, ad hominem dismissiveness, What Counts as a Plausible Scientific Theory?, excerpt:
“The way a scientific theory gets empirically established is not by showing that the evidence requires that precise theory. That is an impossible task-there are always infinitely many theories that fit the data. Rather, it gets established through showing that the evidence discredits the main alternative theories but does not discredit this theory.”
Phillip Johnson, on Dennett and Searle’s adumbrations of scientism upon a more genuine and rigorous science, Daniel Dennett’s Dangerous Idea (where the term “dangerous” is a provocation in a manner which is not readily apparent), excerpt:
“Daniel Dennett’s fertile imagination is captivated by the very dangerous idea that the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution should become the basis for what amounts to an established state religion of scientific materialism. Dennett takes the scientific part of his thesis from the inner circle of contemporary Darwinian theorists: William Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, George C. Williams, and the brilliant popularizer Richard Dawkins. When Dennett describes the big idea emanating from this circle as dangerous, he does not mean that it is dangerous only to religious fundamentalists. The persons whom he accuses of flinching when faced with the full implications of Darwinism are scientists and philosophers of the highest standing: Noam Chomsky, Roger Penrose, Jerry Fodor, John Searle, and especially Stephen Jay Gould.”
Nov 21, 2005 - 10:40 am 52. Godzilla:After reading the Bible (Douey-Rheims, KJV, Dead Sea Bible), the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the extra-canonanical Pseudepigrapha, it is hard not to see the innumerable links within these works to the mythological systems that predated them.
For example, in Gen 6:2 … “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose”
Can there be any more striking similarity to the Greek Mythology system? Is is not obvious that this mimics the custom whereby Greek gods and goddesses entered into union with mortals and produced semi-divine offspring? Except the Hebrews modified the myth, corrupting the Greek version (which itself may be a bastardized and corrupted system even more ancient, that originally started out as serious stories of heavenly heros, using the image of men and women to pass down the knowledge of the stars). The Hebrews made the liason go only one way. Divine men going in unto mortal women.
Further on in Gen 6 the story continues, with the offspring of these liasons being giants of reknown. Again, the similarity to the Greek system is unmistakable.
That said, Intelligent Design is a whole different animal. The people mocking it as some kind of scheme to reinstitute Adam and Eve are just plain stupid, or are being turned off by the religious types that HAVE tried to hijack ID.
Anyway, the real question that started philosophy and science off on the same goal is the fundamental one: WHY does the universe exist? Evolution isn’t going to tell us the answer to that one. The answer to that question is in the stars, if anywhere, more than likely the ones that are very very far away, ancient light. Or it could be all around us, and we can’t see it because of the limitations of our sense organs. There are things that our sense organs and machines cannot understand, for example pure consciousness.
Anyway, my point is that evolution (anti-ID or pro) will not answer the question of why the universe exists, and in that respect Evolution is a dead end. Mathematics is a more vital discipline in the search for God than evolution ever will be.
But still, the Bible and the aforementioned, is great reading.
Nov 21, 2005 - 2:06 pm 53. Johann Climacus:One of the great ironies of this debate is how many of the advocates of “science” have themselves become unwitting fundamentalists for their viewpoint. I’m not an advocate for ID, but the charge that ID is nothing but a dressed up version of “Creationism” is simply ignorant. You don’t have to be an ID advocate to understand that; you merely have to have read more than the shallow, dismissive accounts about ID in the press. And more than the claims by certain Christian fundamentalists who try to glom onto ID theory as proof that their own creation myths are true. Both distort what ID theory is. But why do that when you already “know” everything about the subject? Major holes in evolutionary theory and empirical corroboration? No matter, because it’s “science,” and we believe in science. And scientism.
Another irony is that those who claim to advocate only “true science,” not the philosophical or belief systems they (wrongly) ascribe to the scientific postulations of ID, themselves cannot substantiate much of what they propound by scientific means. The theoretical and empirical deficiencies of Darwinism and neodarwinism have been well known for years, even decades or longer in some cases. And many of those in the field of evolutionary biology have not even kept up with the revelations of quantum physics, so their biomolecular models are often pathetically outdated. They cling to them anyway, because it’s “science.”
NPR had a piece last week about scientists who even raise the slightest challenges to evolutionary theory or ask any questions that might be labelled “intelligent design.” Doesn’t matter if they’re not Christians or theists of any sort, their careers and reputations are simply and reflexively attacked anyway. We can see the same thing in comments above, when many anti-ID people resort immediately to ridicule and ad hominem attack, always the hallmark of weak substantive arguments. Don’t bother any of those people with any actual information about what ID theory is, because they already know it’s just creationism in drag—they read it in the New York Times. Just suppress the debate and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you because it’s so, you know, scientific.
I’m a big fan of Krauthammer and of Roger on this site. But they are both ignorant of what ID theory is. Anyone who has a real interest in this subject should stop their knees from jerking long enough to look up some of the quality writings on it. Or, if you don’t have time for that, simply attack anyone who disagrees with you as a fundamentalist apologist.
Nov 21, 2005 - 4:15 pm 54. George Turner:ID has merit, but not as it’s been presented.
Obviously it’s pretty ridiculous to posit an intelligence that determined the fundamental constants of physics, expanded space-time into a big-bang, designed whole groups of galaxies, spinning them from gravitational yarn, carefully crafts solar systems, and then on Thursdays sets off a volcano, plays around with bacteria in a mud puddle in Zimbabwe on Friday, mucks around with a rabbit’s naughty bits on Saturday, and drinks beer on all Sunday.
We are definitely looking about a multiplicity of beings with a multiplicity of interests and attributes. No being that’s been molding mankind’s consciousness would have the slightest interest in setting the future mating habits of the red-spotted Amazonian turd-beatles. Sorry, that’s just breathtakingly stupid.
There may be an intelligence in charge of beatle R&D, but he wasn’t involved in making the Beatles, and he didn’t determine the proper orbital period of the moon. That would be another intelligence entirely, a force that can rewrite the gravitation constant of the universe or shephard unimaginal tons of matter around, as opposed to one who takes thousands of years of struggle before managing to mutate a single gene in one of the sperm cells spooed by a hamster.
Nov 21, 2005 - 8:27 pm 55. Yeshooroon:Evolution used as a big word for all things is misleading. There are scientist, some leaders in their fields which agree that macro evolution is in trouble. This is not news within the community from what I’ve read so far.
If there were not serious problems, Gould would not have put forth Punctuated Equilibrium to account for the ‘gaps’ in the fossil records.
Essentially, PE reduces all need for any logical framework within the theory of mac-E. You can have it by tiny steps, or large leaps. This is the very contradiction that Darwin stated would falsify his theory. The inability to explain all the steps. The question is today has science reached that point to determine if this is true.
There are legitimate reasons Netwon’s contributions to science are considered Laws. Laws of Motion, whereas Darwin’s science is still considered theory. While contradictions exist in both, Newton’s Laws can be relied upon for accurately repeated results over and over again on earth.
Genetic variation(mic-e) and inherentance within a species was shown by Mendel, not Darwin. Geneticist refer to “Mendel’s Law”, not Darwin for the initial underlying discovery which contributes to their field of study.
Modern biological research being done today does not rely on Darwin or Evolution. Leading scientist acknowledge this today: http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1
The amount of information complexity found at the cellular level was never anticipated by Darwin. Neo-darwinist and evolutionist supporters must be able to explain Evolution within the context of information theory now as it relates to functional complexity of storage access, symbolic representations and ’smart’ use of compressed algorithmic data. This has nothing to do with gaps, it has everything to do with scientific observation.
It is my personal opinion that information exchange studied at the cellular level within living organisms will spur a paradigm shift from random/selection unintelligent materialist reductionism to digital/algorithmic functions of information transfer and intelligent recognition.
Assembler language(machine code) is an excellent example of CODON storage techniques used to reference amino acids by a multi-pass method accessing different starting points within storage. A programmer who designs such a code utilizing discreet algorithms is considered highly intelligent. The fact is today, nano options are being sought after for just such scales of use.
It is my personal contention that complex information cannot be transferrable without knowledge of transfer protocols. Protocols infer design and communication between a receiver and sender with enough knowledge to account for error processing mechanisms as well. Further, information complexity transferred by an intelligent agent for use in another form denotes the information transferred was created by an intelligent agent.
mac-E is unproven and has not been shown to be observable. All attempts to date have failed in producing a new species in the lab. Fruit Fly experiments, bacteria, viruses, etc., have only been observed as variations within the conserved genome of that particular species. New information for radical morphology has not been created or observed. In fact, it is the attempt at random processes which led to failed experiments. With information theory and protocol recognition, codes will be opened. It is cryptologist that are required in today’s biology labs. “Language Code Breakers”.
On much larger scale organisms, leading paleontologist disagree with current findings for example – reptile to bird morphologies. As in leading scientist say there is currently no proof for transitional fossils. Professor Feducia(sic) at UNC is considered one of the top orinthologist in the nation and he states its not done yet. Please note, he believes in evolution.
there is no reason not to have a good debate on these issues even though it is recognized territory of a considerable paradigm shift within the scientific community and population as a whole.
ID as a theory is not fully formalized(in my personal opinion) and the leading scientific proponents I’ve read do not suggest it be taught at the high school level.
Teaching about problems with macro evolution however should not be a problem, it should be considered healthy and students should be taught to be skeptical and ask questions without being attacked as being silly or stupid. To many times I see adults behaving with such disrepect and students pick up on it.
There is to much media distortion on this subject. And I’m really astonished that Roger adds to the misinformation the way he has, including Charles.
PJM it seems on this subject is simply acting like the very media it abhors and puts down every day bad reporting. Instead of having a healthy debate on both sides of the issues, the few post I’ve seen Roger make have been inflammatory rhetoric with ommissions of any factual knowledge. It fails to recognize good sources of information online in technical journals on both sides of the debate.
I expected much more from PJM. If this is to be the extent of reporting on scientific inquiry, then I’ll be seriously disappointed. Best stay off the topic if it can not be succinctly covered.
I do not expect PJM to be all things to all people. But I expect it to at least look significantly ‘deep’ at the current information available prior to making attacks on a subject matter which it obviously did not investigate properly before posting on the subject.
Otherwise, don’t make pop-culture poll choices, via lalawood national enquirisms and today’s current popular media tactics – low on content, high on opinon, appeal to authority figures within our popular culture and do not question or investigate for yourself.
There are multiple scientific viewpoints on these large encompassing issues of worldviews between Macro-E and ID. Some scientist I read are honest enough to say they don’t know yet.
These issues are much more complicated than a simple throw away glance and deserve attention.
As an example of real scientific theoretical concepts being put forth I’ve read a recent article put by two Professors recently which I found consise, clear and fairly straight forward for most here to read.
It is an excellent technical article in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling online for anyone to peruse regarding three types of Sequence Complexity; Random, Ordered, and Functional.
The two authors put forth 4 null hypotheses which they asked to be falsified based upon their definitions of Complexity. They welcome all scientist to join in to help them falsify their hypotheses. They predict it will not be done.
This is a much better and logical way of looking at serious questions regarding biological complexity and new theories to account for the origin of species and information.
Richard Dawkins, an atheist enthusiast proposed Shannon Information Theory could account for much of the complexity now seen on cellular levels. Dr’s. Abel and Trevor state that Shannon Information Theory cannot account for Functional Sequence Complexity(FSC).
I encourage all those who care to take a look, go to this link: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958
If the hypotheses cannot be falsified, then I suspect “design proponents” will begin to take a “small foothold” in academics and lab settings.
Whatever side you take these are exciting times. ID, information theory, it all serves a good purpose in the end. Evolutionist must be able to respond and shoot down such proposed concepts as IC of flagellum(still standing). They must be able to test it, not just speculate.
This is a valid test for both sides.
Nov 23, 2005 - 4:19 am 56. Michael_B:A tip of the hat and a thank you to Yeshooroon’s comment directly above, imo the most comprehensive, thoughtful and cogent comment in this entire thread, bar none. An absolutely terrific summary in its entirety.
Have always been an evolutionist, though have never been a simple or pure materialist from a broader philosophical perspective. The notion (and “notion” is all it has ever been, or little more than that) evolution has operated by pure randomness and chance (on a purely physicalist level) was perhaps the earliest question and doubt I entertained, however tentatively. I stay informed and read extensively, but ultimately am only a layman, no more than that. So it’s intriguing, helpful and even probative, in an informal and obviously summary fashion, to read more informed comments such as Yeshooroon’s above.
Nov 23, 2005 - 7:15 am