The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science

[TheLurch]

But I don't think by "current conditions" they mean today's weather and atmosphere.

No, it also means the chemical environment is radically different today than it was when life formed.

Nothing about that is an indication of being stuck.

Behe did not ignore mechanisms of evolution, instead he based his estimate on what evolution actually did. And new protein-protein interactions would be fundamental biochemistry.

He did. Show me with quotes where he accounted for any of the things i listed. Show me where, when he looked at what evolution did, he looked at a speciation event. Compared two genome sequences from related species? Looked at the outcome of a whole genome duplication?

All of those are things evolution's done. And Behe looks at precisely zero of them.

You can keep repeating a catch phrase because you like it, but doing so does not change the facts of the situation.

If there is a selectable path to it!

Ok, so there's three consequences of that. The first is that you can't just say "purposeful arrangement of parts" and have it say anything for or against evolution, since you just acknowledged again that evolution can produce a purposeful arrangement of parts under some circumstances. Therefore, your attempt to use that as a point against evolution, which you'd done just earlier, is void.

The second is that this distill's Behe's challenge of defining an unevolvable system down to demonstrating that there is no possibility of a selectable path. In other words, he has to prove a negative. Which, as we know, isn't possible. So Behe's argument distills down to a logical flaw.

Well done, Michael.

The final consequence is that, contra your repeated claims here, this isn't about probabilities. The probabilities are all secondary to a path not being selectable.

And I think the issue of whether natural processes could have produced an object is paramount. And who knows the limits of human ingenuity?

Try all you want to argue for human ingenuity, but you'll have people laugh in your face if you try to claim they ingeniously made a billion year old object.

Your argument is nonsense. Everything about archeology is secondary to the existence of hominins.

But this is a classic example of a repeatable experiment, you may attempt to rebuild or reinhabit Babylon at any time. I don't recommend the attempt, since previous trials have resulted in failure, Saddam Hussein's attempt being the most recent.

No, it's not a repeatable experiment. Where we inhabit is influenced by things ranging from climate conditions to zoning laws, all of which change constantly. Babylon is currently a UN designated World Heritage Site, for example, which undoubtedly limits what people are interested in doing there.

If Google maps is reliable, there's also a shopping mall and convenience store less than a mile rom the site. That feels rebuilt and inhabited to me. So the conditions also depend on the semantics of things, which also means it's not repeatable.

For someone who posts a lot in a science forum, you really don't get science, do you?

[rogue06]

That's been understood for a long time, though.

"All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again." (Ecc. 1:7)

And through basic scientific investigation we uncovered exactly how that is accomplished and more. So much so this was the sort of stuff I was taught early on in Elementary School because it is so easy to explain as well as understand.

watercycle.gif

It is a system that is truly elegant in its simplicity.

God is actively involved in the world, intimately involved, is the Scriptural view:

"Your hands made me and formed me; give me understanding to learn your commands." (Ps. 119:73)

"The LORD said to him, 'Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?' " (Ex. 4:11)

Deism is to say God is not actively involved in the world, that we should not for instance, pray for rain.

Blessings,
Lee

Nobody is saying you shouldn't pray for anything.

And I'm certainly not saying divine intervention is not possible. I believe that I have seen it with my own two eyes.

But that isn't the question. It never has been.

It is merely your attempt to distract and deflect attention away from the fact that not only does nobody have a way to detect for the presence of the miraculous, nobody seems to even no where to start.

If that wasn't the case then the boys at the Discovery Institute would be doing actual research instead of sitting around writing low-quality books and articles for Evolution News.


Just for giggles, do you know who said

"Supernatural explanations invoke miracles and therefore are not properly part of science."

If not the quote is a hyperlink and will reveal the source by clicking on it.

[lee_merrill]

No, it also means the chemical environment is radically different today than it was when life formed.

Right, they're aware of the different environments, and still say that this non‐deterministic temporal continuum could not be reconstructed de novo.

Show me where, when he looked at what evolution did, he looked at a speciation event. Compared two genome sequences from related species? Looked at the outcome of a whole genome duplication?

His approach has indeed been different, to look at what evolution did when it had the most opportunities, including whole genome duplication, in HIV, in E. Coli, in malaria, where the number of organisms is huge. Not much was accomplished. And Behe does agree that evolution can produce speciation.

Source: Edge of Evolution, pp. 155-156

What’s more, there are compelling reasons to suppose that the results we have in hand for malaria and HIV are broadly representative of what is possible for all organisms. In the past fifty years biology has unexpectedly shown that to a remarkable degree all of life uses very similar cellular machinery: With a few minor exceptions the genetic code is the same for all the millions of species on earth; proteins are made of the same kinds of amino acids; nucleic acids are made of the same kind of nucleotides; and many, many other basic similarities. A biochemistry textbook typically observes, “Although living organisms…are enormously diverse in their macroscopic properties, there is a remarkable similarity in their biochemistry that provides a unifying theme with which to study them.”

© Copyright Original Source

Ok, so there's three consequences of that. The first is that you can't just say "purposeful arrangement of parts" and have it say anything for or against evolution, since you just acknowledged again that evolution can produce a purposeful arrangement of parts under some circumstances. Therefore, your attempt to use that as a point against evolution, which you'd done just earlier, is void.

Well, it's not just "a purposeful arrangement of parts", there needs to be a sequence of unselectable steps to produce the result.

The second is that this distill's Behe's challenge of defining an unevolvable system down to demonstrating that there is no possibility of a selectable path. In other words, he has to prove a negative. Which, as we know, isn't possible.

On the other hand, to demonstrate evolvability, you need to demonstrate just one selectable path, which has been attempted for the flagellum, for instance. And for Behe's numbers, he estimates based on what evolution has done, seeing that multiple, required, unselectable mutations were required for chloroquine resistance. He then extrapolates to multiple protein-protein interactions, arguing that these would require multiple unselected mutations. This then produces a general limit to evolution, as described above.

The final consequence is that, contra your repeated claims here, this isn't about probabilities. The probabilities are all secondary to a path not being selectable.

But the probabilities are based on unselectable paths being traversed.

Try all you want to argue for human ingenuity, but you'll have people laugh in your face if you try to claim they ingeniously made a billion year old object.

Certainly there are things people cannot do, but this still does not imply that archaeologists have a book of "What People Make" that they consult in order to determine if an artifact was naturally produced. When I see a machine that I don't recognize what it is or where it came from, I can still deduce design.

No, it's not a repeatable experiment.

But it is repeatable, Alexander the Great and Saddam Hussein both tried to rebuild and reinhabit Babylon, and someone else may try and do this in the future, even though the U.N. has declared the site off-limits for now. A more evident demonstration of the arm of God you could hardly ask for.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

And I'm certainly not saying divine intervention is not possible. I believe that I have seen it with my own two eyes.

But that isn't the question. It never has been.

It is merely your attempt to distract and deflect attention away from the fact that not only does nobody have a way to detect for the presence of the miraculous, nobody seems to even no where to start.

You're trying to have it both ways, though! No one can detect the miraculous, and you have seen the miraculous. To put a point on it, do you believe in the virgin birth, in the resurrection of Jesus, as detected, miraculous events?

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Earth is crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God;
But only he who sees
Takes off his shoes –
The rest sit around it and pluck blackberries.

– Elizabeth Barrett Browning

"Love all of God's creation, both the whole of it and every grain of sand. Love every leaf, every ray of God's light. Love animals, love plants, love each thing. If you love each thing, you will perceive the mystery of God in all things. Once you have perceived it, you will begin tirelessly to perceive more of it every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an entire, universal love."

- Elder Zosima in Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov

"To see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wildflower."

- William Blake

[TheLurch]

His approach has indeed been different, to look at what evolution did when it had the most opportunities, including whole genome duplication, in HIV, in E. Coli, in malaria, where the number of organisms is huge. Not much was accomplished. And Behe does agree that evolution can produce speciation.

Let's stop right there, because that's false as you demonstrate in the very next quote.

Source: Edge of Evolution, pp. 155-156

What’s more, there are compelling reasons to suppose that the results we have in hand for malaria and HIV are broadly representative of what is possible for all organisms. In the past fifty years biology has unexpectedly shown that to a remarkable degree all of life uses very similar cellular machinery: With a few minor exceptions the genetic code is the same for all the millions of species on earth; proteins are made of the same kinds of amino acids; nucleic acids are made of the same kind of nucleotides; and many, many other basic similarities. A biochemistry textbook typically observes, “Although living organisms…are enormously diverse in their macroscopic properties, there is a remarkable similarity in their biochemistry that provides a unifying theme with which to study them.”

© Copyright Original Source

He is explicitly saying we can take the results from two examples and apply them to all of biology. Meaning he has not looked at any biology beyond these two examples. Which means he's done nothing to look at the vast majority of what evolution has actually done. Exactly as i said.

He is literally telling you "you don't have to look at anything other than these 2 examples" in a quote, and right next to that quote, you're telling me he's looked at everything else i've listed. You are literally contradicting Behe because you're so committed to defending his shoddiness that it's the only thing you can do.

I'm going to respond to the rest in a different post, because this point is so important, that i'm not going to let you slice and dice it into a blizzard of quotes.

[TheLurch]

On the other hand, to demonstrate evolvability, you need to demonstrate just one selectable path, which has been attempted for the flagellum, for instance.

Nope. That's not how science works. Evolvability and selectable pathways have been demonstrated multiple times. Behe's argument depends on it not being possible in some instances. It's up to him to demonstrate it isn't.

It's like someone trying to claim that, even though we've seen electrons and know how they behave, under certain circumstances they can't behave the way we think they do. It's up to them to demonstrate that's the case.

And for Behe's numbers, he estimates based on what evolution has done, seeing that multiple, required, unselectable mutations were required for chloroquine resistance. He then extrapolates to multiple protein-protein interactions, arguing that these would require multiple unselected mutations. This then produces a general limit to evolution, as described above.

Again, that's what he claims to do. But it's bogus. Most of evolution does not take place in a "resist this drug or die" context, and so its behavior is completely different.

But it is repeatable, Alexander the Great and Saddam Hussein both tried to rebuild and reinhabit Babylon, and someone else may try and do this in the future, even though the U.N. has declared the site off-limits for now. A more evident demonstration of the arm of God you could hardly ask for.

There is a shopping mall less than a mile away. It's reinhabited. Show me scientifically that this is wrong.

[rogue06]

And Behe does agree that evolution can produce speciation.

Probably a wise choice given that it has repeatedly been observed taking place both in the lab as well as in nature. So much so in fact that even most of the larger Young Earth Creationist (YEC) groups have abandoned their claim that each species was separately created and embraced speciation. Heck, for AnswersinGenesis (AiG) it is an essential component to their explaining the diversity of life we see as having originated from Noah's Ark. Of course the speciation they propose could be described as Supermegaultrahyperfantasticofragilisticmicromacro evolution, since you had to have groups speciating virtually every generation to account for the variety of life forms known even in Classical times.

Oh. And I should note, speciation is a form of macroevolution, which is defined as evolutionary change AT or above the species level. IOW, whether he realizes it or not Behe accepts macroevolution.

[rogue06]

You're trying to have it both ways, though! No one can detect the miraculous, and you have seen the miraculous. To put a point on it, do you believe in the virgin birth, in the resurrection of Jesus, as detected, miraculous events?

Blessings,
Lee

Please note that I'm in no way shape or form either saying or implying that I can demonstrate that it was a miracle. My cousin was terminal with a body riddled with cancer including multiple major organs and a softball-sized tumor on her hip. She had just left my place as the last stop on a "goodbye tour" of friends and family and was getting worse by the day. I was expecting to get "the call" in a month or so but not much longer.

After a thousand mile drive back to Wisconsin she was feeling better when she went to the doctor who announced that there was no longer a trace of cancer within her and she's remained cancer free for over 15 years now.

For me that was a definite miracle. Being completely healed somewhere along a 21 hour or so drive.

So I'm hardly one to discount the possibility of miraculous intervention but I also understand that we just don't have any means of detecting for the miraculous. That nobody can conclusively demonstrate much less prove a miracle took place. That being the case, science is stuck looking for prosaic answers and that changing the definition of science won't change that. It can only serve to dismantle the remarkable success that modern science has been with absolutely nothing in return to show for it.

Btw, I noticed that you didn't offer your guess for who was it that wrote "supernatural explanations invoke miracles and therefore are not properly part of science." Do you want to hazard a guess?

[rogue06]

I provided the exchange between Behe and the plaintiff's attorney during the Kitzmiller case where he was forced to concede that under the definition being pushed by him and others at the Discovery Institute would make astrology a legitimate scientific theory. This is indisputable.

[indent]

Now getting back to your statement here... You are aware that Behe was forced to concede that in order for Intelligent Design to qualify as a valid scientific theory that you would have to distort the definition of scientific theory to the point that it would include things like astrology, right? I'm not talking about astronomy but astrology -- the pseudoscientific belief that you can divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

Now I know that the Discovery Institute tells their lemmings that isn't true so let's look at the transcript again.

Q: And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A:That is correct.

Q: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Ouch.

Behe then continues by giving his own personal definition for "theory," which only confirms that you have to change it to the point that it includes crap like astrology. In science "theory" has a very specific meaning: What "theory" means in science

IOW, Jones did demonstrate his understanding of "intelligent design as science." That it isn't. That it is pseudoscientific claptrap on par with astrology.

You'll note that I did point out that Behe tried to explain it away by providing his own personal definition for "theory." But that attempted explanation merely served to verify that you would have to change the definition so radically that it would now include astrology as science.


And yes Lee is indeed conflating MN with ontological (metaphysical or philosophical) naturalism. He is following the lead of the Discovery Institute in this (they prefer to call MN "methodological materialism").

For instance, in their Intelligent Design Uncensored, William A. Dembski and Jonathan Witt write:

Only about one in ten Americans is an out-and-out atheist, but atheists have managed to extend their influence by selling religious people a related idea called methodological materialism. In its most ambitious form, methodological materialism says that we can believe whatever we want in our personal life, but when we’re doing serious academic work, we should only consider and defend explanations fully consistent with philosophical materialism.

Similarly, in his books Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer spends a great deal of time repeatedly attacking MS as being a restrictive and arbitrary standard in science (I'm willing to wager this is where Lee gets all of his nonsense about SETI and forensics from).

Paul Nelson, while discussing Meyer's complaints, categorically states that "ID theorists regard MN as an obstacle to knowledge and hence a methodological rule that we would be better off without."

The "Mahatma" of the I.D. movement, Phillip E. Johnson, ranted in his Reason in the Balance that MN (or for him "methodological materialism") is directly linked to homosexuality, abortion, genocide and a host of other "social ills"

As Lawrence Lerner once commented, "It is standard intelligent design creationist jargon to deliberately confuse and misuse the terms ontological (philosophical) naturalism and methodological naturalism" (emphases in original), or as the philosopher of science Del Ratzsch has correctly observed in his Science and Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective, that "the center of gravity of the [ID movement] is a rejection of methodological naturalism."

I guess DaveB was nothing but a drive-by poster

[Roy]

There is a shopping mall less than a mile away. It's reinhabited. Show me scientifically that this is wrong.

This reminds me of Dory's attempt to claim Tyre had never been rebuilt even after being shown satellite and street-map images of the hotels, restaurants and apartment buildings where the ancient city had been.

Here's Google Maps for the ancient site. Note the nearby roads and buildings, including mosques, petrol stations and shopping centres.

babylon.PNG

[rogue06]

This reminds me of Dory's attempt to claim Tyre had never been rebuilt even after being shown satellite and street-map images of the hotels, restaurants and apartment buildings where the ancient city had been.

Here's Google Maps for the ancient site. Note the nearby roads and buildings, including mosques, petrol stations and shopping centres.

babylon.PNG

85x120 is even too small for me to work with here.

Was that a png file? They tend to crap out like that

[lee_merrill]

He is explicitly saying we can take the results from two examples and apply them to all of biology.

Well, three examples, HIV, E. Coli and malaria, but is his logic correct? Is the question.

Meaning he has not looked at any biology beyond these two examples. Which means he's done nothing to look at the vast majority of what evolution has actually done.

Again, he summarizes his reasoning in extrapolating from these examples, that is what we need to investigate.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Evolvability and selectable pathways have been demonstrated multiple times.

But not in the case of the cilium, or the flagellum.

Behe's argument depends on it not being possible in some instances. It's up to him to demonstrate it isn't.

Well, irreducible complexity is due to a number of unselected steps. Behe's argument is that the flagellum, for instance, will not work unless all the parts are in place. What Behe then needs to demonstrate is that a number of unselected steps are required, which I believe he has done.

Most of evolution does not take place in a "resist this drug or die" context, and so its behavior is completely different.

With Lenski's E. Coli it's not "resist or die", though. And with HIV he looks at what the virus has done since its appearance in humans, not just its response to a particular drug or two.

There is a shopping mall less than a mile away. It's reinhabited. Show me scientifically that this is wrong.

And if it's been designated a World Heritage Site, I don't think they're building shopping malls within the city limits.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Oh. And I should note, speciation is a form of macroevolution, which is defined as evolutionary change AT or above the species level. IOW, whether he realizes it or not Behe accepts macroevolution.

But I don't think Behe is accepting every proposed instance of speciation, it depends on whether and how many unselected steps are involved.

Btw, I noticed that you didn't offer your guess for who was it that wrote "supernatural explanations invoke miracles and therefore are not properly part of science." Do you want to hazard a guess?

I did click on the link, and I think I know what Bill Dembski meant. But science can properly evaluate whether a result is probably due to natural processes, or not. I'm glad for your cousin, by the way. But you did not answer my pointed question, do you believe the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus are detected miracles?

Blessings,
Lee