N
Namesake
Guest
In theoretical physics, yes it’s worth a lot more.
- Status
R
ricmat
Guest
All of creation is a work of God, a gift to us, his creatures, his children. A work of love.
Theoretical physics may give us some limited practical (working) insight into creation. A language with words which have been invented to approximately describe it in a way we think we understand it, and which gives us limited abilities to manipulate things.
But God is Love, and the author of beauty, goodness, justice, mercy, and total self giving love. I would think that his mind is primarily concerned with these things, and the details of this transient creation being only a small means to a much greater end.
What does theoretical physics tell you of those…the important eternal things?
N
Namesake
Guest
Nothing whatsoever.
R
reggieM
Guest
Yes.
No, that’s not what I meant.
If we “understood” randomness, it wouldn’t be random any more.
Randomness is just our ignorance of causes.
For example, when you flip a coin, we consider that a random result. But it’s only random because we don’t know all of the information. If we knew where the coin was in your hand and then how many times it flipped in the air, the result would be 100% predictable and not random.
So we don’t understand randomness – we will never understand randomness as long as it exists. Randomness means that we don’t understand the cause or result – it’s always a surprise.
God has permitted that because He has given human beings limited knowledge. It’s not a deception at all.
R
reggieM
Guest
Physics, like any science can only look at the external, superficial aspects of reality. Materialist-philosophy reduces the universe to material causes alone.
That’s a great danger for human beings also. If they choose a naturalist philosophy, then they limit their investigations to material causes alone for all things.
R
reggieM
Guest
Actually, you’re giving a different definition than rossum did. Here, you’re talking about “the system”. That is correct.
In rossum’s case, talking about “the axle” alone – apart from the system, and noting that it has “a function” means that the system is not IR.
But that’s the incorrect view. The propeller has to function by being created in gradual steps. The blades without the axle are not a functioning propeller (moving the organism or machine forward). They’re just blades. The same is true with the axle. For evolution to work it has to keep the machine moving with the axle being created and primative propeller blades in place – in a unit.
R
reggieM
Guest
No, that’s not what IC is. It’s not a question of whether any of the parts have individual functions or of the system can carry out a different function. IC is about how that particular system can function without all of the parts. A mousetrap doesn’t work without the spring.
Michael Behe explains it:
Here’s how Michael Behe explains it.
MESSING WITH THE MOUSETRAP
(The Case for a Creator, Strobel pgs 199-200)
“Your mousetrap has generated quite a bit of controversy,” I began. “For instance, John McDonald of the University of Delaware said mousetraps can work well with fewer parts than yours—and he even drew a picture of a trap that’s simpler than the one you drew. Doesn’t this undermine your point that your mousetrap is irreducibly complex?”
“No, not a bit,” he said with a good-natured smile. "I agree there are mousetraps with fewer parts than mine. As a matter of fact, I said so in my book! I said you can just prop open a box with a stick, or you can use a glue trap, or you can dig a hole for the mouse to fall into, or \ou can do any number of things.
“The point of irreducible complexity is not that one can’t make some other system that could work in a different way with fewer parts. The point is that the trap we’re considering right now needs all of its parts to function. The challenge to Darwinian gradualism is to get to my trap by means of numerous, successive, slight modifications. You can’t do it. Besides, you’re using your intelligence as you try. Remember, the audacious claim of Darwinian evolution is that it can put together complex systems with no intelligence at all.”
Behe’s simple explanation seemed sufficient to defeat McDonald’s critique. But there was a stronger challenge to consider. I reached down into my briefcase and removed a copy of Natural History magazine.
“Kenneth Miller of Brown University has another objection to your trap,” I said. Then I read him Miller’s comments:
Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different—but still useful—functions.
“That’s a strong point,” I said. “Maybe an irreducibly complex system could develop gradually over time, because each of its components could have another function that natural selection would preserve on the way toward developing a more complex machine.”
“That’s an interesting argument,” he said.
I leaned forward. “Doesn’t this dismantle your case?” I asked.
Behe didn’t flinch. “The problem,” he replied, "is that it’s not an argument against anything I’ve ever said. In my book, I explicitly point out that some of the components of biochemical machines can have other functions. But the issue remains—can you use numerous, slight, successive modifications to get from those other functions to where we are?
"Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap. Besides, look at what he’s doing: he’s starting from the finished product—the mousetrap—and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other purposes. Again, that’s intelligent design!
“The question for evolution is not whether you can take a mousetrap and use its parts for something else; it’s whether you can start with something else and make it into a mousetrap. The problem for evolutionists is to start with a less complex system and build a more complex system. Even if every component could theoretically have a useful function prior to its assembly into the mousetrap, you’d still have the problem of how the mousetrap becomes assembled.” “Explain further,” I said.
"When people put together a mousetrap, they have the disassembled components in different drawers or something, and they grab one from each drawer and put it together. But in the cell, there’s nobody there to do that.
"In molecular machines, components have portions of their shape lhat are complementary to each other, so they connect with each other in the right way. A positive charge can attract a negative charge, and an oily region can attract another oily region. So if we use the mousetrap as an analogy, one end of the spring would have to have a certain shape or magnetism that just happened to attract and fit with another component of the trap. They’d all have to fit together that way until you had the whole trap assembled by itself.
“In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the other pieces into position, you’d be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature. If you do any calculations about how likely this could occur by itself, you find it’s very improbable. Even with small machines, you wouldn’t expect them to self-assemble during the entire lifetime of the earth. That’s a severe problem that evolutionists don’t like to address.”
S
Sideline
Guest
No, it doesn’t. They constituent parts don’t have to have to have the same function as the final system. They only need to be able to exist on their own.
If you have an organism that used the blades for one purpose, and the axle, for a different purpose, the constituent parts of the propeller are still there. It is not, therefor, irreducibly complex.
Have you read Darwin’s Black Box? I get the sense from your post that you understand IR differently than Behe does.
Edit: I just read the text you quoted. I understand now that you are, in fact, correctly stating Behe’s misconception of how evolution works. Not misunderstanding his position.
He’s even more wrong than I thought.
R
reggieM
Guest
I just quoted an interview with Behe in the previous post. He addressed that issue.
S
Sideline
Guest
Noted, I’ve since edited my last post.
R
rossum
Guest
A springless mouetrap does not work as a mousetrap, but it may work as something else. Given that it does have a function then it is possible for a springless mousetrap to evolve. The existence of a fuction allows natural selection to drive its evolution. The step from a springless mousetrap to a mousetrap with spring is far less unlikely that the step from nothing to a mousetrap with spring.
If a subsystem has its own function then that subsystem can justify its own existence in evolutionary terms. That allows the final assembly of the IC system from a small number of existing pre-assembled subcomponents rathen that having to build it from scratch. That reduces the difficulty of assembling such a system.
It is also possible to make an IC system by losing parts from a more complex system. One potential example is the Venus Flytrap. There is another carnivorous plant, the Sundew. This has sticky filaments on its leaves. When an insect is caught on the filaments the leaf rolls inwards to enfold its prey, but slowly; taking an hour or so for the leaf to fold around the insect. The sticky filaments hold the insect in place so it can be slowly enveloped and digested, the rolling in of the leaf acting to bring more filaments to bear. The glue on the filaments also acts to digest the insect.
So, starting from a Sundew we can slowly increase the speed of movement of the leaves. Say they now take half an hour to close. Nothing new is added, just the kind of small improvement in an existing systen that evolution is well capable of doing. Since the speed of closure is faster, the glue does not have to be quite as strong. The plant needs less of it, so it can reduce the number of filaments and the glue can be optimised more for digestion than for stickiness. Keep increasing the speed of closure and keep reducing the number of filaments and the strength of the glue commensurately. A plant whose glue gets too far ahead of the closure speed will die so the two are kept in step.
Adjustments to existing systems, such as changing the number of filaments or adjusting the composition of the glue are exactly the sort of thing that microevolution is easily capable of doing. Nothing new is being produced, only adjustments to things that already exist.
Eventually the speed of closure is such that the plant does not need any glue at all. The secreted fluid can be completely specialised for digestion and only needs to be produced when there is something to digest. The number of filaments can be reduced to the minimum needed to trigger the closure of the trap. This is a Venus Flytrap.
So there is a possible evolutionary path from a Sundew to an Irreducibly Complex Venus Flytrap.
What about the initial Sundew? How could that have evolved? The components of a Sundew are glue, filaments on the leaves and movement.
Many plants exude sticky substances, try touching the leaves of plants on a hot day. Pine trees exude resin that happens to catch insects: amber. In poor soils any insects caught would be a source of nitrogen for the plants which would give them an advantage. Sticky glue is not a problem for plants.
Look at plants in a garden. Some of them have silvery leaves. Look closely at the silvery leaves. The silvery effect is usually due to many fine filaments on the leaves. Growing filaments on leaves is not a problem for plants.
Plants can move. Sunflowers turn their flowers to follow the sun, hence their name. Many flowers open during the day and close up at night. Mimosa leaves can react quickly when touched. Movement is not a problem for plants.
All the necessary ingredients for making a Sundew are already available; there is nothing impossible about any of them since they are all present in other plants. A Sundew can evolve, and a Venus Flytrap can evolve from a Sundew.
It is also worth pointing out that both the Sundews (Drosera) and the Venus Flytrap (Dionea) are in the same Family - Droseraceae - so they are descended from a reasonably recent common amcestor.
Irreducible Complexity is an interresting idea, and one which has lead to a lot of useful scientific research. It is not a disproof of evolution. IC systems can and do evolve.
rossum
F
FrankSchnabel
Guest
The Schnobbster sed earlier: Dembski sez at p. 63: "Detachability is always relativized to a subject or subjects possessing certain background knowledge.
So, Frank, now that we know, from Dembski’s own mouth, that specification is inevitably subjective, what does that do to ID as a scientific enterprise?
I dunno. I think it is clear that the accusation that ID merely identifies the pattern after the fact is false. If that were true, then SETI is a pointless exercise as well.
But tis true that Rossum and other ID skeptics will wait in vain for a more objective definition of specification. How does that make you feel?
Well, coming from a “pseudo” social science background, I yam kinda use to mushy, subjective objects of study. How does one grab “social integration” or “alienation” by their ontological joints?
So maybe I don’t feel so bad about it.
Anyways, still pondering…
have a joyous Lord’s day one and all
cordially
Frank
So, Frank, now that we know, from Dembski’s own mouth, that specification is inevitably subjective, what does that do to ID as a scientific enterprise?
I dunno. I think it is clear that the accusation that ID merely identifies the pattern after the fact is false. If that were true, then SETI is a pointless exercise as well.
But tis true that Rossum and other ID skeptics will wait in vain for a more objective definition of specification. How does that make you feel?
Well, coming from a “pseudo” social science background, I yam kinda use to mushy, subjective objects of study. How does one grab “social integration” or “alienation” by their ontological joints?
So maybe I don’t feel so bad about it.
Anyways, still pondering…
have a joyous Lord’s day one and all
cordially
Frank
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Behe’s objection to the evolution of IC is pretty much “humans wouldn’t do it that way, so nature couldn’t do it that way.”
Sure, a paperweight has a certain look to it, because it was intelligently designed to be one. But in a pinch, you could use a mousetrap as a paperweight. And it would be fine. If the spring happened to fall off after a while, that would be OK, too, but it wouldn’t have to. Even after a very long time, it might be no longer functional as a mousetrap, but traces of its origin would persist.
And this explains why so many features we see in nature look cobbled-together by such ad-hoc exaptions. That’s how it happened. So if the supposedly IC bacterial flagellum has a simpler form that works as a means of transferring chemicals, it’s not bad engineering, it’s just something that happened to work and was retained. That sort of thing has been directly observed in bacteria, BTW.
This seems to puzzle Behe. I think he just wishes it would go away.
Sure, a paperweight has a certain look to it, because it was intelligently designed to be one. But in a pinch, you could use a mousetrap as a paperweight. And it would be fine. If the spring happened to fall off after a while, that would be OK, too, but it wouldn’t have to. Even after a very long time, it might be no longer functional as a mousetrap, but traces of its origin would persist.
And this explains why so many features we see in nature look cobbled-together by such ad-hoc exaptions. That’s how it happened. So if the supposedly IC bacterial flagellum has a simpler form that works as a means of transferring chemicals, it’s not bad engineering, it’s just something that happened to work and was retained. That sort of thing has been directly observed in bacteria, BTW.
This seems to puzzle Behe. I think he just wishes it would go away.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Great Irony - science which is interested in finding the truth eliminates the biggest part of it.
Perhaps science should redefine itself.
S
Sideline
Guest
If you look at my post comparing SETI and Archaeology to ID, I give a rather lengthy explanation as to why SETI doesn’t share ID’s fate. Specifically, it isn’t looking for design in isolation. It is looking for something out of context in nature.
S
Sideline
Guest
Does anyone else find it interesting that in nearly every conversation on Intelligent Design, the people saying that it is a science eventually start talking about how flawed science is?
B
buffalo
Guest
S
Sideline
Guest
No. Science doesn’t know anything. It’s not about knowing things, it’s about discovery. It is a method, not a set of facts. We discover facts through science, but the facts are not the method.Yup! I have noticed that.
Is your position science can know everything?
That’s why it doesn’t matter what scientists think about things. Their opinions, musings, intelligence, training, affiliations, ponderings, and feelings don’t matter. What matters is their theoretical frameworks, their methods, their discoveries, and their results.
Having good navigational skills won’t deliver us to every location in the universe, but by being good navigators, we will find many more places than we would by travelling at random. Or by following bad directions.
Science doesn’t explain everything, but I have yet to discover anyone who has found a better way of discovering the workings of the universe.
There are so many people that argue that Intelligent Design is a science, only to turn around and criticize science itself. It makes me wonder why people want to argue that it is a science if they don’t think that science is worthwhile. It’s like they claim that a certain location is due north, only to criticize the concept three dimensional space when they can’t find the location they sought after.
B
buffalo
Guest
The basis of ID is to discover. To discover if design can be empirically detectable.
Now the same premise applies to ID as to science.
Both approaches are limited in what they can say about the universe. Both can give us keen insights as you state. It would seem to me they could be complementary.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The guys who invented ID wrote about the basis of ID:
Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
That’s what they admit when they think no one else is listening. It’s a religion, but not a Catholic religion.
No. The methodology of science is unable to even investigate the supernatural. But it has one great advantage over ID. It works. Nothing devised by man works better at understanding the way the physical universe works. ID is unable to do that, because any problems are glossed over with “God musta done it.” For science, ID does nothing. And if it doesn’t do anything, what good is it?
We have science and Christianity. ID is a poor substitute for either of them.
- Status