What I Think of ID

Rod Dreher, in his beliefnet blog, writes about Farrell on ID and the Conservative Press, in which he describes a "fiery post" by John Farrell in which "he tears into conservative journals and journalists who have, in his view, given unmerited aid and comfort to ID backers."

Rod himself says he doesn't think much about ID at all, and says that while his sympathies are with IDers--often because of their reasonableness and the way they are sometimes trashed by anti-IDers--that doesn't mean he agrees with ID.

But, he wonders, "I'd love to know how the guys at Touchstone, which has been a big supporter of ID, respond to Farrell's post."

I simply lack the time to write much at all today (and this week), but let me say that the current slate of senior editors here have a range of opinions about ID taken as whole. Part of the problem, I would submit, that there are various sorts of IDers and any group is going to have many fringes, people identifying themselves as IDers whom other IDers don't accept. (Just as there are scientists embarrassed by the anti-religious ravings of Dawkins the scientist.)

What I am coming to find frustrating is how politicized things have become, as well as how imprecise some of the vocabularly is. What, for instance, does someone mean by "evolution"? You really have to ask.

And then, IDers are suspect because most of them are religious believers, while scientists such as Dawkins can speak about theology as much as they wish. I sat and listened to a lecture by Steven Weinberg that was mostly about religion (and wasn't supposed to be) while his ID opponent talked nothing but science.

As to Farrell's post, I am not sure what reasonableness it adds to the situation; my preference would be to hear lots of science debated head on. That's why I've been interested in ID in the first place, because I find science fascinating. Not polemics, but real science.

Farrell may be adding fuel to the fire. He describes Avery Cardinal Dulles's piece in First Things as "otherwise thoughtful" because he gave "a crumb of credibility" to ID. You can't give any space to ID, you see. Much of the opposition is bluster.

Well, I've given space to ID. It's a reasonable position to argue that blind natural mechanical pathways proposed in the past for the rise of life and conscious mind are  inadequate--and I believe the evidence for the inadequacy is mounting--and that a design inference is reasonable. There is a growing though quiet acceptance of a stronger anthropic principle, I would argue, and some scientists are simply retreating into multiverse theories, which means you can avoid the impression of any cosmos specially designed for man.

Things are getting very interesting from where I sit. I'll rest here for the time being and watch what comes next.

Comments

[Christopher]

The more I learn about "crunchy cons", the more they sound like "moderates", which is to say, conservative when convenient, but jugular issues: theology, morals, etc. To start the comments on a tangent: what do you folks think of these "crunchy cons", are the conservative in any serious way?

[Christopher]

The more I learn about "crunchy cons", the more they sound like "moderates", which is to say, conservative when convenient, but liberal on the jugular issues: theology, morals, etc. To start the comments on a tangent: what do you folks think of these "crunchy cons", are the conservative in any serious way?

[James A. Altena]

Cardinal Dulles' piece in First Things was eminently sane and well balanced. Once could quibble with a minor point here and there, but it was thoughtful, eirenic, clear, cogent, and had no other agenda than stating truth purely and simply.

[Nick]

For which he'll get savaged as an idiot legacy of a bye-gone era. Never mind the argument folks he's religious and therefore just this side of insane.

^
|---- The above is satire

[Christopher Hathaway]

Could someone explain to me how any Christian, how any theist of any stripe who believes that the world was "created", could object to an idea that postulates the simply idea that creation can only be adequately explained by such a belief?

Are these people really saying, "Yes, I believe God created the world, but I insist that there is absolutely no evidence of Him having done so."?

[Art Deco]

In particular, I'd love to know how the guys at Touchstone, which has been a big supporter of ID, respond to Farrell's post.

I am sure there are criticisms of Dr. Behe et al that are worth investing the time to read, digest, and respond to, but why this fellow Farrell's? Not much there other than Mr. Farrell's spleen, interesting to Mrs. Farrell, perhaps...

[Rob Grano]

'The more I learn about "crunchy cons", the more they sound like "moderates", which is to say, conservative when convenient, but liberal on the jugular issues: theology, morals, etc. To start the comments on a tangent: what do you folks think of these "crunchy cons", are the conservative in any serious way?'

Well, as a person who considers himself one, or at least a fellow-traveler, I think they are definitely conservative, drawing from the paleo- or trad-con stream. There is a strong aversion to neoconservatism among them, and unfortunately neo-con'ism is the only type of conservatism a lot of people are familiar with, especially if they listen primarily to Hannity, Limbaugh, et al.

[JRM]

Wel, Mr. Farrell is a conservative and a Catholic. He writes on scientific subjects and has published a facinating book on Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest and a renowned physicist and contemporary of Einstein. He is credited with the first development of the Big Bang theory.

Website here:http://www.farrellmedia.com/lemaitre.html

Lemaitre here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Mr. Farrell is definitely worth reading.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

James, thanks for the reference to Cardinal Dulles. Very good article.

My favorite excerpts:

o "Theistic evolutionism, like classical Darwinism, refrains from asserting any divine intervention in the process of evolution." (That explains why I'm not a theistic evolutionist.)

o "Much of the scientific community seems to be fiercely opposed to any theory that would bring God actively into the process of evolution, as the second and third theories do. Christian Darwinists run the risk of conceding too much to their atheistic colleagues. They may be over-inclined to grant that the whole process of emergence takes place without the involvement of any higher agency. Theologians must ask whether it is acceptable to banish God from his creation in this ­fashion."

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God....

[Stuart Koehl]

Actually, my problems with both Intelligent Design and with Dawkinsian Evolution are flip sides of the same coin: Intelligent Design is metaphysics making scientific claims, while Dawkinsism is science making metaphysical claims.

[Art Deco]

Wel, Mr. Farrell is a conservative and a Catholic. He writes on scientific subjects and has published a facinating book on Georges Lemaitre...Mr. Farrell is definitely worth reading.

Rod Dreher was not making reference to Mr. Farrell's biography of Lamaitre, but to a blog posting which is free of substance (other than Mr. Farrell's expressions of contempt). The vast bulk of what most folk say is not worth reading, and it is doubtful that Mr. Farrell is an exception in that regard.

[Neil Gussman]

Christopher, You asked: "Are these people really saying, "Yes, I believe God created the world, but I insist that there is absolutely no evidence of Him having done so."?
Actually, yes we do exactly believe that. I beleive without any doubt that Our Lord created the world and that the reason He created the world was and is Love. Because the main purpose is Love, the complexity we see makes a proof of God's exisitence from creation--without faith--impossible. That is why I accept Theistic Evolution as the best description of the universe as it is.

Neil

[Bob Gardner]

Actually, yes we do exactly believe that. I beleive without any doubt that Our Lord created the world and that the reason He created the world was and is Love.

I, too, believe God created the world, but I don't pretend to know what the motivation was. Neil, what do you mean that the reason He created the world was love? I believe that God loves His creation, but that he didn't need to create in order to demonstrate love, since God is perfect in Himself, and is Love. Therefore he didn't need to create in order to love. If you could unpack that statement a little for my edification I would appreciate it. Thank you.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I, too, believe God created the world, but I don't pretend to know what the motivation was. Neil, what do you mean that the reason He created the world was love? I believe that God loves His creation, but that he didn't need to create in order to demonstrate love, since God is perfect in Himself, and is Love.<<<

I would say love is a perfectly plausible, for God is indeed love, and his love is so boundless that it could not be contained within the three persons of the Trinity, so that God created the universe in order to express and share that love with us, his creations.

[Bob Gardner]

his love is so boundless that it could not be contained within the three persons of the Trinity

There is where I would have my disagreement. It seems to me that this would infer that God was somehow lacking in and of Himself, and needed an "other." That is how it seems to me now as I sit here. I don't think that there is any 'necessity,' in the Diety, save being true to Himself. Perhaps the arguement, then, is that God's love was so boundless that he wanted to share it rather than it not being able to be contained. I don't know, it is an interesting thing to ponder.

[DDH]

Neil Gussman,

What do you make of Romans 1:20-21, and the many per se rational proofs that find their Biblical support in this verse and others like it?

You mention a proof for God's existence with faith.
But I'm not sure what a proof with faith would look like. It would be both a necessary demonstration wherein the intellect necessarily assents to the conclusion combined with an act wherein the will moves the intellect to assent to a conclusion without any entailment. This is a noetic contradiction.

Is theistic evolution a chimera? A dualism with one part religious faith the other part scientific rationalism.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>There is where I would have my disagreement. It seems to me that this would infer that God was somehow lacking in and of Himself, and needed an "other." <<<

No, not at all. It is an act of utter, prodigal and wholly unnecessary grace, a boundless desire to share in his nature. He doesn't NEED to do it, He chooses to do it, through an act of his own will--and through that same act of will keeps us and the entire cosmos in his mind, and thereby continues its existence. That's what the chant "Eternal memory" is--not a promise that WE will remember the departed, but that GOD will continue to remember the departed, and thus grant him life everlasting.

[DDH]

"his love is so boundless that it could not be contained within the three persons of the Trinity"

I'm also not sure this is quite right. God's love is self-sufficient and complete within Himself. It was not necessary for him to create and he was not essentially compelled to create. Its true that God's love is diffusive and an every flowing fount. But Creation was a completely free act. Esolen had a wonderful post a few weeks ago on the nature of God's love in Creation ex nihilo, and I think these mysteries should be meditated upon when considering the nature of God's Love. It is at its full revelation in both the New Creation by the Incarnation and Creation ex nihilo.

[DDH]

oh, thanks Koehl. I agree

[Bob Gardner]

I think we are in agreement.

[Stuart Koehl]

Bob,

You might want to look at the works of Russian theolgian Paul Evdokimov on this subject.

[Matt]

Actually, my problems with both Intelligent Design and with Dawkinsian Evolution are flip sides of the same coin: Intelligent Design is metaphysics making scientific claims, while Dawkinsism is science making metaphysical claims.

But without metaphysics, what framework do you have to know what your physics is? Metaphysics is inescapable...

[David Mills]

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards' review of John Farrell's The Day Without Yesterday, which appeared in the November 2006 issue, can be found here.

[DDH]

"But without metaphysics, what framework do you have to know what your physics is? Metaphysics is inescapable..."

This is true. Natural Philosophy (Aristotle's Physics) does presuppose a metaphysic. And the mathematico-empirico sciences certainly presuppose both. But neither metaphysics nor natural philosophy should take on the disguise and method of the modern sciences. The former certainly lay the foundation for the latter but their investigations do not tread into the same subject matter. Let us not make the same errors and further muddle the demarcations the Darwinist's defy.

Part of my own confusion about ID lies in my inability to discern what role final causality should play in mathematico-empirico sciences. I would appreciate others thoughts on this, or suggested readings.

thanks,

[JS Bangs]

"Theistic evolutionism, like classical Darwinism, refrains from asserting any divine intervention in the process of evolution." (That explains why I'm not a theistic evolutionist.)

I, on the other hand, think that ID gives the game away to the secularists by allowing that regular Darwinian evolution could exist without God. The Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, is in all places and fills all things, therefore any "natural" physical or biological process is already an act of God. ID and other forms of creationism agree with the atheistic concept that if God has acted in creation, those acts will stand out from the rest of creation and be detectable as "design" or "the supernatural".

So as someone said above, I don't think that God has left traces of himself in creation that we can scientifically identify as such. That's because the entirety of creation is one seamless act of God.

[Bisaal]

Isnt the Argument from Reason a more critical test than Evolution?

While theism makes no claim on how exactly God created Life, it does make a claim that every act of thinking is supernatural.
I wonder how the materialist philosophers answer the Argument from Reason (the distinction between Cause-Effect and
Ground-Consequent).
I havent heard much about it recently.

[Christopher Hathaway]

ID simply claims that the design is too complex to be the work of nonintelligent chance.

This is metaphysics? Hardly.

[DDH]

Bangs,
>>>ID and other forms of creationism agree with the atheistic concept that if God has acted in creation, those acts will stand out from the rest of creation and be detectable as "design" or "the supernatural".<<<

I cannot help thinking this is a straw man. Also what inclines you to attribute this as an Atheist conception. It seems to me to be the thought of any man who comes to wonder with the reality that he actually exists. I imagine most IDer's would gracefully concede that God acts through all of Creation and His purpose and effects can be witnessed through everything. It is just the IDers happen to be scientists, so they focus upon God's effects within scientific discoveries.

>>>So as someone said above, I don't think that God has left traces of himself in creation that we can scientifically identify as such. That's because the entirety of creation is one seamless act of God.<<<

Creation certainly is caused by One Pure Act of God, but Creation of itself is a multiplicity of effects. Just because its Cause is One Act, it does not follow that its effect must be one seamless effect. Let us not reduce the diversity of the beings of God's Creation into some Eleatic monism.

I'm still confused with your assertion. Does all the evidence of Creation point to God (Romans 1:20), or just no scientific evidence points to God?

If the latter, I fail to see your reason for holding such a position.

[Rob Grano]

"I wonder how the materialist philosophers answer the Argument from Reason (the distinction between Cause-Effect and
Ground-Consequent).
I havent heard much about it recently."

Bisaal, it comes up frequently on some of the more philosophically-oriented apologetics websites like this one:

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/

[Bobby Winters]

In my opinion, all of the probability arguments ultimately run to ground of the following fact: We ARE here so how unlikely it is doesn't matter. Incredibly unlikely things happen by chance all the time. From the mathematical point of view, there is a difference between looking at them after the fact and before.

That God is our creator is a matter of faith. What God creating means is a matter for study and prayer.

[John Farrell]

My thanks to Mr. Kushiner for taking the time to read my post.

He writes: "As to Farrell's post, I am not sure what reasonableness it adds to the situation; my preference would be to hear lots of science debated head on. That's why I've been interested in ID in the first place, because I find science fascinating. Not polemics, but real science."

Might I suggest he begin with Prof. James Matheson and his discussion of common descent? Professor Matheson, as I mentioned in my post, is both a biologist and a Christian. He is as unconvinced about the scientific merit of ID as most other biologists.

[John Farrell]

For example, Matheson:
"common descent is a scientific theory, and a certain body of evidence supports that theory. But it is my view, and one of the themes of this blog, that the theory of common descent does not derive its main strength, its immense scientific success, from the collection of evidence that supports the proposal that organisms alive today are related through ancient common ancestors. In other words, I think that to claim that “there is a lot of evidence for common descent” is to significantly understate the strength of the theory.

"The strength of the theory arises not from the evidence that supports it, although one can certainly build an overwhelmingly compelling case on that basis alone. The strength of the theory arises from its vast explanatory power. The data that make common descent so scientifically compelling are not just the data that “support” the theory. To really understand why common descent is such a powerful theory, one must focus on data that are explained by the theory, findings that just don’t make sense without an explanatory framework of common ancestry."

Michael Behe is on record as saying he supports common descent. It seems to me, and others have pointed this out, that it is not coherent to claim you support common descent, but insist that certain parts of biological systems are in fact too complex to have evolved through the process of genetic variation and natural selection. By definition, a functioning part of an organism that is by Behe's argument irreducibly complex cannot have anything in common with it's nearest common ancestor.

[JS Bangs]

DDH:

To clarify, I don't insist that there is no evidence of God's hand in creation, though I don't see any reason why there must be. God certainly could have---and in fact may have---created the world without any evidence that the scientist would recognize as such.

To answer your other question, the atheist and the creationist are united in thinking that "the process of genetic variation and natural selection" can proceed without God, so if the biological diversity that we see today is the result of that process, then God need not be involved. The atheist thinks that Darwinian evolution is true, and takes it to be positive evidence of God's nonexistence. The creationist hopes that, at least, Darwinian evolution won't work without adding some ID fairy dust, because God has to have something to do.

Of course I'm oversimplifying. Most Christians won't abandon their faith over Darwin (though a distressing number will abandon Darwin over a perceived assault on the faith). But if we're really agreed that God's creation does not require demonstrably supernatural agency, then why the rush to embrace ID? If there's no theological reason to favor it, then it just becomes another scientific theory that has to prove itself on its merits. There's nothing particularly Christian about believing it, and nothing unChristian about denying it.

[Franklin Evans]

As one of the few "liberal" hanger's on at Dreher's blog, I want to express my gratitude that issues there are discussed here (and elsewhere). Regardless of the diversity in any given blog, horizons should always be stretched.

I post there with the name I'm using here. I invite comment on those posts. My main point: the fundamental issue is that ID is not science, and does not fulfill the strictures of the scientific method.

[bd]

"Part of my own confusion about ID lies in my inability to discern what role final causality should play in mathematico-empirico sciences. I would appreciate others thoughts on this, or suggested readings."

Do you think that design can be accurately detected via specified complexity understood in probabilities?
And I'm not sure exactly where the line is between empirical and mathematico-empirico sciences, but criminal sciences seem to deal with final causality. Thoughts.

[Rob Grano]

Franklin -- good to see you over here, buddy. Hopefully, these posts will shed more light than heat!

[labrialumn]

Stuart,
ID is definitely NOT metaphysics making scientific claims, but science making juridical claims.

Hopefully you assent that metaphysics is ontologically and epistemologically prior to a sepecialization of logic such as the emperical method a.k.a. science. That theology is the Queen of the Sciences.

The problem with ID is that it is insufficient. It demonstrates the evidence of an intelligent agent, but does not explain the current state of the universe from a moral perspective, resulting in Deism, but not a form consistant with Christianity.

Neil, you seem to be operating from an existentialist redefinition of the word 'faith'. I also don't know what meaning you are giving to the syllable "love" for "nature red in tooth and claw" is not consistent with any of the semantic range known to me.

How many of you critics of ID have actually read Behe and Demski, rather than merely reading their detractors? The problems you claim to see aren't present in the actual ID theorists.

If theistic evolution is true Christianity (and Judaism) are false.

Farrell, that is an odd claim. If I see a landscape that is on the whole, natural, but I see the ruins of a building upon it, I do not therefore claim that the entire landscape is artificial, should I claim that the ruins are. Your assertion, if I understand it correctly, is that I must either claim that the ruins of the abbey are in fact the result of time plus chance, or else that the entire landscape is artificial. "What do they teach in those schools these days!"

Bangs,

It is a blatantly false assertion to claim that creationists believe that the code and operating system written on DNA in living organisms could arise through time plus chance plus nothing. That sort of superstitious spontaneaous generation remains the realm of the doctrinaire neo-Darwinists.

Ahh, I read the rest of your post. You weren't being serious, were you. I'm sorry, I thought you were. My mistake.

Mr. Evans, your main point charitably suggests an extreme unfamiliarity with ID.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That theology is the Queen of the Sciences.<<<

As an Eastern Christian, i deny that theology is a science at all. Theology is properly prayerful meditation on the divine mysteries and a feeble attempt to find words appropriate to God. That's why we like apophaticism. Science by its nature is reductionist and cataphatic, and therefore theology cannot be a science.

[John Farrell]

Farrell, that is an odd claim. What exactly is an odd claim? If you were quoting me, I don't see from your last post where.

[Franklin Evans]

Labrialumn, please call me Franklin.

On the contrary, I have a close familiarity with ID, having been until recently the volunteer host (moderator) for the Evolution/Creationism debate board at Beliefnet. I've seen nearly every source on both sides.

I find it interesting that you would conflate science with legalism. I'd be grateful if you would elaborate.

It is my contention, upon my own reading as well as that of scientists (I am a well-read layman), is that the concept of a designer cannot be justified without positing a deity. How one defines the deity is immaterial; attempting to deny deistic intention by making the "designer" vague in some way is sophistry.

[bd]

Franklin,

Would you briefly explain the "strictures of the scientific method" as you understand them?

[Christopoher]

Mr. Grano says speaking of crunch cons:

"Well, as a person who considers himself one, or at least a fellow-traveler, I think they are definitely conservative, drawing from the paleo- or trad-con stream. There is a strong aversion to neoconservatism among them, and unfortunately neo-con'ism is the only type of conservatism a lot of people are familiar with, especially if they listen primarily to Hannity, Limbaugh, et al."

I think of Limbaugh as a sort of incoherent hybrid of libertarianism, neo-con, and something close to true conservativism. He seems to be a reflexive libertarian, but an instinctive conservative. In any case I can't detect any formal relationships in his philosophy, but perhaps I don't listen enough. I can say that he does would have the right (instinctively speaking) reaction to ID, unlike these "crunch-cons". I have no idea about Hannity. In what way is this particular reaction to ID "paleo"? I don't see it...

[Christopher]

Having just finished Behe's "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism" I was struck at just how faithful the method of this particular "ID" advocate is to current scientific methodology. Basically, he uses the current evidence to show that one aspect of Darwinism, random mutation, can not account for the machinery of a cell, let alone multi cellular life. He shows where it IS effective, and where it is not. Darwinism is "true", just not sufficient explanation for most of life and it's changes. Behe is an ardent supporter of the other two aspects of Darwinism, common origin and natural selection. The charge that he is dabbling in "metaphysics" does not stick to Behe...

[Franklin Evans]

The scientific method is a clear path from idea to verified description of phenomena. Violation of any step in the path is a step beyond the strictures (limits) of that step. Pick one step in the process, and one can find bad science being practiced even in the pursuit of valid, scientific goals.

One glaring example comes recently from the pharmaceutical industry. Claims of safety, reliability and assertions about side effects are all governed by the scientific method.

A common example of the scientific method in action is the meteorological expression "X% chance of" in weather forecasts. It is a strictly (within all limits) scientific expression, and has an exact meaning: of all the days on record that have the conditions expected to happen on the day being forecast, X% of them also experienced the condition being described in the forecast. As time goes on, as more data is collected, the value of X can change.

That is hardly a complete analogy to the theoretical work being done, but it serves to illustrate how the process works.

[Franklin Evans]

"Random mutation", as Behe is using the term, is a red herring.

[Christopher]

""Random mutation", as Behe is using the term, is a red herring."

WOOOOOSSSHSSSSSSHHHHHHH...BAAANNGGGG!!!!

That's my lame imitation of you dropping this bomb :)

Perhaps you would care to expand, instead of simply throwing out an assertion. From my reading, Behe uses the phrase just like the Darwinist's due. Are you saying he does not? If not, in what way is it different than how the Darwinists use it in their theory? Or do you have a third, better way of using the phrase ;)

[T. Chan]

Mr. Farrell:
By definition, a functioning part of an organism that is by Behe's argument irreducibly complex cannot have anything in common with it's nearest common ancestor.

No--Behe does not deny material continuity/identity; what he denies is functional identity/continuity (which extends into formal identity/continuity).

It's the difference between matter and form, and it would not surprise me if you do not understand the distinction.

[Franklin Evans]

There is much literature concerning "random mutation", so I'll just offer my layman's -- and oversimplified, so please use grains of salt instead of nitpicking -- understanding of it. I strongly recommend a close reading of the mechanisms of mutation and selection and how they interact. What you are getting here is my understanding of them; I am not a scientist, and I will continue to caveat my posts with the use of the term "layman" to make sure any reader is aware of that.

Mutation is the condition where a combination of genes produces a variation in a trait not necessarily seen in the parents. Variations in a trait occur "randomly", that is they cannot be predicted in any given mating or offspring.

In a large enough population (which is why these theories are geared towards a species), some variations will match the survival requirements during the lifetime of the offspring, and some will not. Selection is that process by which survival requirements change over time, thereby making some variations survival traits where they had not been previously.

Behe's use of the notion that "random mutation" cannot account for "x, y or z" is a red herring because there is no logical connection between the two concepts. Mutation produced variation; some variations survived to reproduce and pass on their traits, and some did not. At any given point in an evolutionary chain, the dominant traits of a species can be traced to those variations in progenitors that survived to reproduce.

Behe's usage, and we are picking on him randomly because he is not alone in it, is tantamount to claiming that if you throw enough people off a cliff, eventually some of them will have their arms converted into wings and they will start surviving and having offspring.

[Rob Grano]

'I can say that he does would have the right (instinctively speaking) reaction to ID, unlike these "crunchy-cons".'

As far as I can tell there is no particular 'crunchy con' response to ID, any more than there is a unique trad-con or neo-con response to it. I'd say you'd probably find pro-ID, anti-ID, and neutrals in all these camps.

[Franklin Evans]

And Christopher, you are quite right. It was rude of me to drop a line like that.

[Rob Grano]

"Mutation produced variation; some variations survived to reproduce and pass on their traits, and some did not. At any given point in an evolutionary chain, the dominant traits of a species can be traced to those variations in progenitors that survived to reproduce."

Franklin, what I've wondered about this thesis is its apparent circularity. In effect, evolutionary biologists are saying: "We know that the variations which have survived are the fittest because it is the fittest variations that survive." Then they reason backwards from the presumed extant "fittest" to demonstrate how that particular variation evolved.

This all seems counterintuitive to me, like a teacher making a passing grade in his class a 95%, then boasting that everyone who passed the class got an 'A.'

Am I missing something here?

[John Farrell]

Mr. Chan,
It's the difference between matter and form, and it would not surprise me if you do not understand the distinction.

I understand the difference between matter and form-- from a philosophical standpoint. But it is scientifically meaningless. And we are talking about ID's scientific merit.

However, if you insist on discussing ID in philosophical terms, let me by all means refer you to IDs philosophical shortcomings:

"In light of this sketch of the Thomistic account of creation and natural cause, one can perhaps understand the reluctance of contemporary Thomists to rush to the defense of the Intelligent Designers. It would seem that Intelligent Design Theory is grounded on the Cosmogonical Fallacy. Many who oppose the standard Darwinian account of biological evolution identify creation with divine intervention into nature. This is why many are so concerned with discontinuities in nature, such as discontinuities in the fossil record: they see in them evidence of divine action in the world, on the grounds that such discontinuities could only be explained by direct divine action. This insistence that creation must mean that God has periodically produced new and distinct forms of life is to confuse the fact of creation with the manner or mode of the development of natural beings in the universe. This is the Cosmogonical Fallacy.
"Among the most sophisticated attempts of Intelligent Design Theorists to counter the Darwinian account of the formation of organisms is the Irreducible Complexity Argument of biochemist Michael Behe. He argues that there are specific life forms and biotic subsystems which are irreducibly complex and which could not possibly be brought about by means of natural selection. Irreducibly complex systems and forms reveal intelligent design in nature and, therefore, indicate the reality of an Intelligent Designer of the universe. Intelligent Design Theorists are often perplexed and, even a bit put out, that Thomists do not acknowledge the cogency of Behe’s argument. After all, Thomists are quite open to the notion that creation provides evidence for the existence of the Creator—cosmological arguments for the existence of God based on the order of nature have long been the special preserve of Thomism.
"Why, then, have Thomists not been among Behe’s most ardent supporters? First of all, they would agree with many biologists who have pointed out that Behe’s claims of irreducible complexity fail to distinguish between the lack of a known natural explanation of the origin of complex systems and the judgment that such explanation is in principle impossible. Thomists, however, would go even further than most biologists by identifying the first claim as epistemological and the second as ontological. Now, a Thomist might agree with Behe’s epistemological claim that no current or foreseeable future attempt at explanation for certain biological complexities is satisfactory. Yet, a Thomist will reject Behe’s ontological claim that no such explanation can ever be given in terms of the operation of nature. This ontological claim depends on a “god of the gaps” understanding of divine agency and such an understanding of God’s action is cosmogonically fallacious."

This is from Michael W. Tkacz's piece which I linked to in my original post. I consider myself a Thomist (being a Catholic) so I'm not impressed by ID from a philosophical point of view either.

Neither was Cardinal Newman who was Darwin's contemporary, and well aware of the shortcomings of the vaunted William Paley. If I recall correctly, Newman said "I don't believe in God because I see design; I see design because I believe in God."

[Bobby Winters]

>>>Am I missing something here?<<<

No. Fitness=survival. The business of living and dying is a filtering process. The staph bacteria that are less resistant to antibiotics survive.

What is missed in the rush to randomness is the possibility there might be some features that appear more often just because "that is the way the world works." Or I would say, "God in his design created a predisposition for certain mutations."

[Rob Grano]

'No. Fitness=survival. The business of living and dying is a filtering process.'

Of course, but then what we have is a tautology. 'Survival of the fittest' really means 'survival of the survivors.' On what basis is there any scientific content in conclusions reached from arguing backwards from a tautology?

[Judy Warner]

>>>Behe's use of the notion that "random mutation" cannot account for "x, y or z" is a red herring because there is no logical connection between the two concepts. Mutation produced variation; some variations survived to reproduce and pass on their traits, and some did not. At any given point in an evolutionary chain, the dominant traits of a species can be traced to those variations in progenitors that survived to reproduce.<<<

Behe showed that mutation cannot account for creating new structures. Variation occurs either within the existing genetic material, or as mutations. He uses malaria as his test case because it multiplies so rapidly and is so widespread that there is an enormous number of organisms within which mutation can occur, larger than the total number of mammals which have ever lived. Malaria has developed drug resistance through mutation. It did so not by creating something new, but by damaging an existing piece of DNA.

His book is called "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism" because he recognizes that Darwinism in the sense of the natural selection of random mutation can account for certain things, like drug resistance and the length of finches' beaks. But it does not seem to have a creative ability. No new structures have ever been shown to be the result of specific genetic mutations. So to talk of variation as if that is a moving force of evolution is to mistake the meaning of variation.

[Bobby Winters]

>>Of course, but then what we have is a tautology. 'Survival of the fittest' really means 'survival of the survivors.' On what basis is there any scientific content in conclusions reached from arguing backwards from a tautology?<<

'Survival of the fitest' is not a scientific statement. It is not what evolutionary biology is about.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view."

From March 30, 2007 Newsweek Poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek

(Disclaimer: I can't vouch for the methodology used in Newsweek's polling. Take it with a grain of salt.)

[Neil Gussman]

There must be 50 posts since I wrote last night. What I meant is that the creation as we see allow love and free will to operate in the life of every person, whether they know science or not. The very complexity of creation gives both Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham enough evidence for their positions, but not enough to compel anyone to either believe or not believe. It is one of the great mercies built into creation that no one can say beyond doubt "The Universe is Created this way and I have undeniable proof."
Since my metaphysical view of creation is as above, theistic evolution best fits the frame in which I am viewing the data. As with any other contingent theory, I will drop it like phlogiston or aether when something better comes along.
Although it may not be true of my posts, there is a lot more light than heat in this thread. Thanks to all for some great posts.
Neil

[Bobby Winters]

>>It did so not by creating something new, but by damaging an existing piece of DNA. <<

Judy,
This is an interesting notion. Did Michaelangelo create something new when he sculpted David, or did he just damage a piece of marble?
Bobby

[Judy Warner]

Not parallel, Bobby. Organisms are not created from DNA in the sense that a statue is created from marble. DNA is information. If a piece of information is removed and that causes a more drug-resistant organism, that would be more like Michelangelo smashing the arm off a statue so he could get it through a door. It would be more adapted to getting into the room, but it wouldn't be a better or more complex statue.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I don't know, Judy - I mean, random changes can be anything. It is possible to get a good change (the one change that Michelangelo himself was planning on doing) - it's just not real likely.

[Judy Warner]

Random changes apparently *cannot* be anything. Behe used malaria because there is a constant rate of mutation in DNA, and the more organisms that exist and the faster they reproduce, the more mutations there will be. He did not find any positive mutations in malaria, though there is more opportunity for it in just a few decades of malaria than in millennia of mammalian evolution.

He is saying that the genetic mechanisms we know of do not create anything new, they just fiddle around with what already exists. I'm in the middle of reading his book, so I don't know if he gets specific about how creative change happens.

[T. Chan]

Mr. Farrell,

I understand the difference between matter and form-- from a philosophical standpoint. But it is scientifically meaningless. And we are talking about ID's scientific merit.

Scientifically meaningless? If we're going to use labels, then that limitation is not a "scientific" one but a philosophical one. To limit "science" to the use of the empimrico-hypothetical or the scientific method is arbitrary, and not an intrinsic limit to reason. If on the other hand we cast aside labels, then the discussion of form and matter is proper to the reasoning about natural things.

Science, in so far as scientists choose to limit themselves to uncovering material and natural efficient causes will always give an inadequate explanation of reality and must be recognized as such.

However, if you insist on discussing ID in philosophical terms, let me by all means refer you to IDs philosophical shortcomings.

Mr. Tkacz's piece will require a more developed refutation elsewhere, but as a "philosophical" argument this much can be said: his Cosmogonical Fallacy, which he ascribes to Behe, is not a fallacy strictly speaking, as the problem with the argument is not in its structure or form, but with the premises, or the matter. He assumes that evolution is a change proper to natures, but he has not shown that this is the case. (He also assumes that the mechanism of evolution is true--which may be fine as a dialectical argument, but his argument falls short of certitude, and is not really that impressive for that reason.) One can agree with him that this is not a mechanistic universe, but that does not mean that God is wholly absent. What Thomists need to deal with is the question of synthesis of higher-order substances from lower-order substances, and give a proper causal analysis of it (with due attention to all 4 causes), paying respect to both proximate and remote ends.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>> It is one of the great mercies built into creation that no one can say beyond doubt "The Universe is Created this way and I have undeniable proof." <<<

Dear Neil, this is not what most Christians are saying. The more important question is WHO, not how. How is secondary to WHO, although still quite important!

Atheistic macroevolution metaphysics says there was and is no God in the beginning creation of the universe. Non-macroevolutionists state unequivocally the first four words of Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God...."

>>> Since my metaphysical view of creation is as above, theistic evolution best fits the frame in which I am viewing the data. <<<

Dear Neal, what do you think of Cardinal Dulles' statements in the October 2007 edition of First Things?

o "Theistic evolutionism, like classical Darwinism, refrains from asserting any divine intervention in the process of evolution."

o "Much of the scientific community seems to be fiercely opposed to any theory that would bring God actively into the process of evolution, as the second and third theories do. Christian Darwinists run the risk of conceding too much to their atheistic colleagues. They may be over-inclined to grant that the whole process of emergence takes place without the involvement of any higher agency. Theologians must ask whether it is acceptable to banish God from his creation in this ­fashion."

[Bobby Winters]

>>>Not parallel, Bobby. Organisms are not created from DNA in the sense that a statue is created from marble. DNA is information. If a piece of information is removed and that causes a more drug-resistant organism, that would be more like Michelangelo smashing the arm off a statue so he could get it through a door. It would be more adapted to getting into the room, but it wouldn't be a better or more complex statue<<<

Judy,
I would disagree. Michaelangelo damage a perfectly fine stone building block and turned it into a piece of smut! ;)

More seriously, the genome of the resistant strain of malaria is just the memory of that strain. How to be resistant to drugs was entered into that memory by the "damaging" of an existing structure. The damage is only such if one posits that the previous structure was the right one. It wasn't the right one to be resistant to drugs. If there wasn't a "right one," this would have led to a less successful organism in a world where antibiotics exist.

Bobby

[T. Chan]

which may be fine as a dialectical argument

I should add, fine as a dialectical argument that aims at giving a Thomistic treatment of evolution, but as a refutation of Behe, it isn't.

[JS Bangs]

Judy, your comments make no sense to me. Malaria went from a state of non-resistance to a state of resistance to the drugs. Why does it matter at all if this was accomplished by adding nucleotides or removing them?

And arguably, this is an instance of adding information, because the coding area that was "damaged" did not contribute to the virus's survivability before the mutation. The actual number of bits of may not have changed, but the informational properties of those bits certainly did.

[Franklin Evans]

Changes happen. The false label of "random" is applied to the ongoing process where survival requirements are either changing or not changing.

If the requirements are not changing, then changes in the organism will have little or no effect.

If the requirements are changing, there are two possible outcomes:

1) Some of the changes will permit the organism to survive with the changed requirements.

2) None of the changes permit survival, and the organism becomes extinct.

One can validly examine the processes of mutation and selection in malaria, but one cannot extend any conclusions from observations of malaria to other organisms unless those other organisms have been tested using the same criteria.

Macro-evolution cannot be tested. This is a valid criticism. What boggles my mind is that Behe then posits an analogy to macro-evolution using a short-lifespan organism like malaria and then insists that his observations are valid for all other organisms. That is not science. It is borderline propaganda, in my not so humble opinion.

This is just one of many examples where Behe (and others) make something look like science, convince a few laypersons that it is science, then cry foul when scientists tell the truth: it is not science.

... it occurs to me that the importance of using the label "random" rests solely on the importance of gaining acceptance for the existence of a designer. A designer cannot stand on its own merits, so an opposite is created against which people can make opinionated choices as to which seems more likely.

[Franklin Evans]

The fossil record, observation and what little valid testing can be done all point to one conclusion: the more diverse a species is (down to the genetic level, this layman adds), the greater its chances of surviving changes in its survival requirements; the more specialized and limited a species, the more vulnerable it becomes.

I wish to offer one correction to my previous posts that used the following terms:

In most cases, where I wrote "mutation" I really should have written "variation". Mutation is a subset of variation, there being other reasons why variation occurs. One can argue (and should) that mutation is the likely root of all variation, but in discussing the process the "v" word is more accurate than the "m" word. :-)

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Macro-evolution cannot be tested. This is a valid criticism." (Franklin Evans)

Then by the definition provided by the Humanist Association of Canada: "Science is the design or conduct of reproducible experiments to test how nature works, or the creation of theories that can themselves be tested by such experiments."

From: http://humanists.ca/humanism/definitionofscience.php

Macro-Evolution is *not* a science. I have read and seen many critiques that ID is not a science. Fine with me. Then Macro-Evolution is not a science by definition either, and consideration should be given to put its teachings into a philosophy or religion class alongside other non-macroevolution theories of life origins.

[Bobby Winters]

<>

No one claimed it was. At most, it would be a phenomenon. To say it is a phenomenon that cannot be tested is, perhaps, merely a statement of the current state of the enterprise.

[John Farrell]

Mr. Tkacz's piece will require a more developed refutation elsewhere...
Mr. Chan, in all sincerity, if you ever write that refutation... I would be happy to read it.

[John Farrell]

Rob Grano, I neglected to say 'thank you' for your kind comments.

Thank you.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Or the converse should be considered. Since macroevolution is *not* a science, yet it's taught in science classes, then alternative explanations such as ID should also be allowed in science classroom instruction.

After all, we live in a tolerant, pluralistic, diverse, inclusive society. So let's tolerate and include ID and other non-macroevolution theories into the science classroom. After all, according to the Newsweek poll earlier this year, 48% of the general public does not believe in scientific (macro)evolution.

[GL]

Just trying to fix the italics. They drive me crazy.

[John Farrell]

Does this mean we should tolerate alternative math (2 + 2 = 5) and alternative gravity?

[John Farrell]

I don't mean to sound flip, but one of the presuppositions the Discovery Institute has managed to convince people of is that ID is a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwin's Theory. And yet, as George Gilder once himself admitted, ID has no scientific content.

No one here can point to one article--ONE ARTICLE--in either Nature or Science or Cell Biology, that suggests any fruitful ID research.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Math and physics are science.

Besides, scientific advances come about from alternative explanations being proffered.

Silly strawman question. Next!

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Macro-evolution cannot be tested. This is a valid criticism." (Franklin Evans)

Hearty applause.

[John Farrell]

This is another way of pointing out that Michael Behe has failed--unlike Georges Lemaitre, who was a priest and a physicist--to convince anyone in the scientific community, that his argument has any scientific merit or would lead to fruitful research.

This has not stopped the man from drawing an egotistical analogy between himself and the Belgian cosmologist. Lemaitre convinced an entire generation of skeptical agnostics, Christians and atheists--including Einstein, Eddington, de Sitter and Tolman among others-- that the universe was dynamic.

Michale Behe has done nothing remotely similar. Nor has William Dembski.

[GL]

No one here can point to one article--ONE ARTICLE--in either Nature or Science or Cell Biology, that suggests any fruitful ID research.

Just out of curiosity, how long after Darwin published his Zoonomia was it before there was any fruitful research into the theory of common descent which has stood the test of time?

I have heard the critique before and, as I have said before, I have no dog in this fight, but I wonder if this criticism is really valid given the short existence of ID theory.

[James A. Altena]

As Yogi Berra said,

"It's deja vu all over again."

I.e., both sides repeating the same arguments for the umpteenth time on this site, as if the same points had never been addressed before. (Regulars to this site know that I have criticisms to voice against both evolution and ID.)

Some of my previous posts have addressed e.g. the several different meanings of "random" or "chance", the sense in which ID is more properly a metaphysical critique of scientific methodology rather than a strict scientific theory and (i believe, a long time ago) why "survival of the fittest" is in fact not tautological.

The Thomist critique of ID by Tkacz clearly makes an important point which T. Chan's attempted rejoinder completely fails to address. A fundamental problem in Behe's entire argument for irreducible complexity in "Darwin's Black Box" (I have not yet seen his newest book) makes a constantly repeated and logically fallacious move from "science has not yet explained X" to "it is impossible for science ever to explain X". The latter, of course necessarily requires a perfect epistemic knowledge that God alone possesses.

TUAD,

My wife has disappeared with the current issue of "First Things", so I can't double-check this, but you are quoting the two statements you repeatedly cite a bit out of the overall context. Among other points, I would note that Cardinal Dulles stated that he personally was inclined neither to theistic evolution nor to ID but to a third position he associated with Chardin and Polyani, and also explcitly endorsed all three of these alternatives as positions defensible by orthodox Christians. For my own part, I think that Cardinal Dulles also overstates the theistic evolutionary position in a somewhat too rigid fashion.

Part of the problem concerns how one defines divine "intervention". Theistic evolutionists, ID apologists, and YECs all agree that God is constantly intervening in the sense that the universe is sustained by Him, and without Him would cease to exist in an instant. The issue is over what might be termed "special" intervention that suspends or "violates" the "laws of nature" (which laws are of course also divine creations). That in turns rests on differing concepts of such laws and miracles.

In some ways the difference between these parties is akin to that between wave and particle theorists of light. One side emphasizes the properties of God and nature related to continuty, the other those related to discontinuity. It is a dichotomy that also has a deep theological cleavage through Christendom. E.g., contrast the Catholic/Orthodox emphasis on sacraments as continuous material means for transmission of grace vs. the rejection of such a conception in evangelical, fundamentalist, and pentacostal Protestant groups in favor of an emphasis upon (discrete and in that sense discontinuous) certain types of direct acts of divine intervention (conversion experiences, miraculous cures by laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, etc.). Or, the Catholic/Orthodox emphasis upon the continuity of the Tradition in contrast to the focus among evangelical, fundamentalist, and pentacostal Protestants upon individual personal interpretation of Scripture.

In short, we are not just dealign with two different views on an issue here, but with two fundamentally different ways of conceiving and perceiving the structure and activity of reality. It is as always the forest vs. the trees, Isaiah Berlin's hedgehog vs. his fox.

[John Farrell]

Good point, but don't you think there are more--rather than less--grad students, post-docs and scientists with labs to support than there were in Darwin's day?

How long, for example, have we had all the data on the Human Genome and the Chimp Genome?--and yet look how soon this paper was written based on the research the Genome project inspired?

[John Farrell]

The last post was in reference to GL's post.

:)

[Zamir]

'I'm in the middle of reading his book, ' (Behe's)

Judy, did you ever read Dawkin's The blind watchmaker,
or another good standard book on evolution theory?

Bisaal

on: the argument from reason:
see the review by Carrier:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/reppert.html

[GL]

I was kind of cheating by the way. The Darwin to whom I referred was Erasmus, grandfather of Charles, who published his own embryonic theory of common descent decades before his more famous grandson. And, of course, John's answer is valid and what I anticipated.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Among other points, I would note that Cardinal Dulles stated that he personally was inclined neither to theistic evolution nor to ID but to a third position he associated with Chardin and Polyani, and also explcitly endorsed all three of these alternatives as positions defensible by orthodox Christians."

James, I read what Cardinal Dulles wrote and I know that he stated that he inclined to the third position.

With regards to all three of those positions being defensible by orthodox Christians, he does raise an interesting point in his paragraph which I quoted before and which bears quoting again:

"Much of the scientific community seems to be fiercely opposed to any theory that would bring God actively into the process of evolution, as the second and third theories do. Christian Darwinists run the risk of conceding too much to their atheistic colleagues. They may be over-inclined to grant that the whole process of emergence takes place without the involvement of any higher agency. Theologians must ask whether it is acceptable to banish God from his creation in this ­fashion."

Christian Darwinists run the risk of conceding too much to their atheistic colleagues.

Christian Darwinists run the risk of conceding too much to their atheistic colleagues.

Christian Darwinists run the risk of conceding too much to their atheistic colleagues.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God...."

[James A. Altena]

TUAD,

Risk is not the same thing as flaw. We all run certain risks by taking a certain position. And, as I already said, Cardinal Dulles paints a somewhat too rigid portrait of theistic evolutionists in these quotes; don't reduce it further to mere stereotype and strawman.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

There is intelligent risk-taking and there is foolish risk-taking.

When Cardinal Dulles writes "Christian Darwinists run the risk of conceding too much to their atheistic colleagues," what do you think he means?

[T. Chan]

The Thomist critique of ID by Tkacz clearly makes an important point which T. Chan's attempted rejoinder completely fails to address. A fundamental problem in Behe's entire argument for irreducible complexity in "Darwin's Black Box" (I have not yet seen his newest book) makes a constantly repeated and logically fallacious move from "science has not yet explained X" to "it is impossible for science ever to explain X". The latter, of course necessarily requires a perfect epistemic knowledge that God alone possesses.

Mr. Altena,

Unfortunately my copy of his book is packed away, but perhaps you can give the relevant passages and page numbers showing that he commits the fallacy.

[Nick]

You know, I'm going to have to agree.

[JRM]

T Chan writes:

The Thomist critique of ID by Tkacz clearly makes an important point which T. Chan's attempted rejoinder completely fails to address. A fundamental problem in Behe's entire argument for irreducible complexity in "Darwin's Black Box" (I have not yet seen his newest book) makes a constantly repeated and logically fallacious move from "science has not yet explained X" to "it is impossible for science ever to explain X". The latter, of course necessarily requires a perfect epistemic knowledge that God alone possesses. --- James Altena

Mr. Altena,

Unfortunately my copy of his book is packed away, but perhaps you can give the relevant passages and page numbers showing that he commits the fallacy.

Here it is:

"Science cant explain" is inherent in Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. If something is irreducibly complex, that means it could not have evolved. That's Behe's breakthrough claim and the thesis of his book. If his claim is merely that "Other biologists don't know how irreducibly complex structures could have evolved--and neigher do I" then he doesn't challenge evolution at all. That's not what he attempted to do.

No, Behe means that irreducibly complex systems can't have evolved. As he put it, "What type of biological sytem could not be formed by "numerous, successive slight modification?"

Behe's answer: "Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex."

He goes on:

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system..." (p.39)

He clarifies that such a system cannot be produced gradually. "It would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop." Now, on the next page, he concedes that perhaps an irreducibly complex system can be produced by a circuitous route, but he plainly considers such indirect indirect routes to be unlikely and as complexity of the sytem increases, the chance of an indirect route "drops precipitously" and we can be as certain as "science allows" that the system did not evolve.

With that language in mind, read pages 69-73. If the bacterial flagellum doesn't qualify as an unevolvable ireducibly complex susytem, then nothing will.

On Page 187, Behe observes that if things weren't put together gradually, then they must have been assembled "quickly or suddenly." He reviews two natural methods for such an occurrence and rejects them both. on page 193, he suggests a third method--intelligent design, the purposeful arrangement of parts.

(I've put the pages numnbers to the paperback version of Darwin's Black Box. They won't do you any good if you have the book packed away, but just in case it happens to be lying next to your computer, you can find the references for yourself)

And to remove all doubt, an interview with Godspy:

Godspy: But isn't your main scientific argument, in fact, falsifiable? You claim that random mutation and natural selection—the Neo-Darwinist mechanisms of evolution—could not have produced certain structures in the human cell, such as the flagellum, because these structures are "irreducibly complex"—in other words, if you remove one part the whole system doesn't work. You claim such a system could not have evolved incrementally, and would need to have been designed somehow. Isn't this falsifiable? If Neo-Darwinists can show how these structures could have evolved, then it would prove your point false, right?

Behe: That's correct.

http://www.godspy.com/reviews/After-Dover-An-Interview-with-Professor-Michael-Behe-about-Intelligent-Design-by-Angelo-Matera.cfm

and yet again in a number of places when he testified under oath in Dover:

8 Q And then the second paragraph. "In simple terms,
9 on a molecular level, scientists have discovered a
10 purposeful arrangement of parts which cannot be explained by
11 Darwin s theory. In fact, since the 1950s, advances in
12 molecular biology and chemistry have shown us that living
13 cells, the fundamental units of life processes, cannot be
14 explained by chance."
15 What's your reaction to that section?

16 Behe: Well, I think I would have phrased things somewhat
17 differently, but I think for a newsletter, it s fine. It
18 speaks about the purposeful arrangement of parts, which is
19 exactly right, that s the heart of detecting design. So I
20 think it does a good job at getting across the idea.

Trial testimony page 17, Oct 18, afternoon

Further on Page 49-50 Behe concedes Intelligent design calls for supernatural intervention:

21Q And it says, "Creationism, intelligent design, and
22 other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of
23 life or of species are not science because they are not
24 testable by the methods of science." That s the National
25 Academy s position?

1 Behe: That's correct, that s exactly the position that I
2 argued against in my article in Biology and Philosophy. I
3 disagree with it, as a matter of fact I think it s the
4 inverse of what is true. I think that in fact Darwinian
5 theory is very difficult to falsify, but that intelligent
6 design is easily falsify -- or easy to falsify.

Note that Behe doesn't challenge that ID is supernatural intervention, he challenges the idea that, despite its requirement for supernatural intervention, it's still testable and falsifiable.

The claim that ID is evidence of supernatural intervention, the hand of God if you will, is what makes ID so startling, and, frankly, so alluring to religious people.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

(1) "I think that in fact Darwinian theory is very difficult to falsify, but that intelligent design is easily falsify -- or easy to falsify." (Behe)

(2) "Macro-evolution cannot be tested. This is a valid criticism." (Franklin Evans)

(3) Then by the definition provided by the Humanist Association of Canada: "Science is the design or conduct of reproducible experiments to test how nature works, or the creation of theories that can themselves be tested by such experiments."

From: http://humanists.ca/humanism/definitionofscience.php
-----------

If macro-evolution can't be tested, then no wonder it's not falsifiable! Again, macroevolution theory is *not* a science. It is a metaphysical argument masquerading as a science... which is the exact same accusation that's thrown out to tar and smear ID proponents.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[DDH]

Thank you JRM for that clear account of Behe’s position.

I think Behe does present some serious challenges to the explanatory power of the current Darwinian mechanisms. But I think Behe may over extend the bounds, or other ID proponents, may infer from this honest criticism too much. While the critique seems to be proportionate to emphasizing that there is no adequate natural mechanism yet discovered and formulated, which is capable of explaining the irreducible-complexity of certain observed phenomena. This critique does not have the kind of breadth of criticism to eliminate the possibility of discovering any future natural mechanism. It would be one thing to appeal to some kind of natural teleology to explain irreducibly complex entities, which would still be capable of retaining theories that only posit causality of a natural mechanism. (And such a move would certainly have its critics.) However, Behe’s position seems stronger than this. (perhaps I’m wrong here) But the assertion seems to be that it would be impossible to explain irreducibly complex organisms by any natural mechanism, and therefore there is intelligent designer and this designer is of a distinct ontological order. This certainly resonates with a “God in the gaps” solution. (Although, I do agree with JRM that ID seems clearly falsifiable.) ID is more of an epistemological critique that may or may not reveal a real ontological deficiency within biological mechanics.

[Franklin Evans]

[sarcasm] Thank you for quoting me out of context. That seems to be a popular sport here. [/s]

Allow me to clue you in on an important fact that Behe, Dembski, the Discovery Institute etc. will never acknowledge: science criticizes itself, constantly, progressively and thoroughly. Biologists don't need Behe et al to tell them that the theories have flaws. Billions of dollars are spent every year all over the world working on those flaws.

My out-of-context statement "Macro-evolution is not testable" is the premise in a logical statement illustrating the illogic that Behe uses. He mixes statements of fact, conjecture, opinion and conclusion with absolutely no adherence to the scientific method. It is a direct criticism of the malaria example.

The schoolyard tactic of argument by assertion, implicitly inviting the reader to agree without one shred of evidence, does not constitute a valid criticism of anything, let alone a scientific body of theories (that being the accurate description of evolution) that has been under close scrutiny, been the subject of tests, experimentation and change due to finding things wrong with it for several decades.

Every assertion I've stated in my posts can be found in verifiable, scientific sources. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of science. Behe, Meyer, Dembski et al want you to take them on faith. I leave the logic to the reader.

[Franklin Evans]

TUAD,

Explain to me what is falsifiable about the concept of a designer. Do it without resorting to quoting other scientists, unless you've conducted the test/experiment yourself and it is your intention to confirm those scientists.

That is in no way sarcasm, an attempt to trick you, or at all meant as disrespect. It is precisely what scientists are called upon to do in the normal course of their work.

In the meantime: there have been, are, and likely will always be theories used to support other theories that fail to meet the full standards of the scientific method. Macroevolution is one of them. Chaos theory if full of it. When Einstein was working, the same was true for a while for general and special relativity. However, there is enough body of knowledge, experimentation and confirmation from similar and supporting disciplines that allow scientists to continue to work with macroevolution, chaos theory, quantum mechanics (which make Newtonian physics wrong, btw) and a host of other areas of research. ID can't make even that claim. All ID has to support it is faith in the existence of a designer.

[Judy Warner]

>>>Judy, did you ever read Dawkin's The blind watchmaker, or another good standard book on evolution theory?<<<

Zamir, I tried to email you privately but my email got returned. Is The Blind Watchmaker the book you would recommend? I will read it.

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

Franklin Evans,

If I have quoted you out of context, please accept my apologies. Let me reproduce the paragraph:

"Macro-evolution cannot be tested. This is a valid criticism. What boggles my mind is that Behe then posits an analogy to macro-evolution using a short-lifespan organism like malaria and then insists that his observations are valid for all other organisms. That is not science. It is borderline propaganda, in my not so humble opinion."

When I read your paragraph, the part "Macro-evolution cannot be tested. This is a valid criticism." looks like a conclusion. And that it stands by itself.

So now you are saying that Macro-evolution is testable and therefore falsifiable. Is that right???

If so, how so?

[Franklin Evans]

TUAD,

I should have written at greater length, to be clear with my intention. Thank you for your courtesy.

I didn't write more, I should add, because I tend to be rather long-winded, and as a newcomer to this forum I would like to avoid the label of windbag (one that I do deserve at times) for a little while. :-)

Forgive me, but I do tend to approach written debate from my symbolic logic background, it being the only context in which I can practice it.

Anyway, the statement is not a conclusion, it is an assertion with a qualifier of agreement. It is also the opening premise in a logical chain, that being the critique of Behe's use of the assertion and his goal of turning the agreement on its head.

It's much like the scapegoat syndrome, humorously illustrated in the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". If you know the movie, its the scene where they are trying to determine if a woman is a witch. They blame her for all sorts of ailments, out of their fear and ignorance. I don't mean to imply that you, per se, are afraid and ignorant, but that Behe's logic doesn't hold up to an unafraid, educated scrutiny.

I did warn you about longwided... the last point is to address macro evolution itself. It does not, contrary to the desires of a Behe, Dembski or Meyer, stand by itself as a theory. It is an aspect of the grander theory of evolution, and it has more problems than the nearly impossible task of testing it. Its problems are mitigated by the rest of the science, which is testable.

Think of quantum physics as comparable. QP makes Newtonian physics inadequate; some scientists call it a disproof of Newton's work, and they are heard as serious and sincere. However, QP has many of the same problems as ME, starting with a very large mountain to climb around testability. In the meantime, though, no one is relegating QP to a back burner. Research continues, and Newtonian physics remains what is taught in general education for the simple reason that it is sufficient to our needs, even if it has been replaced as the best possible explanation science has found (so far).

Do you wish to try to answer my challenge about falsifiability with the concept of a designer? "No" is a reasonable answer; I never take silence as meaning anything but just that, silence, but I do seem to be doing most of the heavy lifting here so far. :-)

[Truth Unites...and Divides]

"Do you wish to try to answer my challenge about falsifiability with the concept of a designer?"

No silence here. There may be several ways to address your question about falsifiability of a designer. However, these ways may not meet your idea of "falsifiability"; it depends on how narrow your parameters are of what constitutes your definitional boundaries of falsifiability.

Let me just offer one method of falsifiability about a Designer.

Disprove the historical, physical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is historical falsifiability. Many, many, many, many folks have and still do attempt to disprove this CENTRAL fact/doctrine of Christianity. Falsify this, and you will falsify a Designer.

Go ahead.