Intelligent Design

[Charlemagne_II]

Science has every right to say who is a credible scientist and who is not.

Well, at least Michael Behe is in good company with another scientific quack, Isaac Newton.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Could this be the same quack Isaac Newton who five years ago was voted by the Royal Society as the greatest scientist who ever lived, eclipsing even Einstein?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Science has every right to say who is a credible scientist and who is not.

Well, at least Michael Behe is in good company with another scientific quack, Isaac Newton.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

I’m not going to grant you anything with the quote mining. I will not agree that Behe is in good company or that your desperate attempt to give him credibility is going to be found by your interpretation on the matter.

You don’t get a vote, neither do I.

Science has spoken. Behe is a quack.

Let the Catholic Church handle it’s business, Science will handle it’s business.

 

[buffalo]

I believe that God created a universe which allows for evolution. My understanding of ID is that when the universe was created, then Adam was fully formed and could walk down any street and be identified as a homo sapien. As a scientist, I believe that Adam first appeared around 60,000 years ago, and was the single progenitor. Maybe I misunderstand ID.

ID the science would not go that far. IDvolution the philosophy does. It is not constrained by science and is illuminated by Revelation.

Consider:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

ID the science is being reasoned from raw scientific findings. We know Revelation is true. You can see IDvolution in the intersection where both must be true.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not going to grant you anything with the quote mining. I will not agree that Behe is in good company or that your desperate attempt to give him credibility is going to be found by your interpretation on the matter.

You don’t get a vote, neither do I.

Science has spoken. Behe is a quack.

Let the Catholic Church handle it’s business, Science will handle it’s business.

No science has not spoken. Human materialists call him a quack.

 

[StrawberryJam]

No science has not spoken. Human materialists call him a quack.

Required reading:

Mary Higby Schweitzer, Zhiyong Suo,Recep Avci, John M. Asara, Mark A. Allen, Fernando Teran Arce, John R. Horner Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein Science 13 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5822, pp. 277 - 280

J. M. Asara, M. H. Schweitzer, L. M. Freimark, M. Phillips, and L. C. Cantley Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry. Science 316, 280-285 , (2007)

The Catholic Church does not claim to be an authority on Science. Because it is not.

You however, are taking things to new levels.

You are claiming on the one hand there are miracles, that can not be explained.

You utterly refuse to use science and yet claim you can tell what science is.

 

[buffalo]

Required reading:

Mary Higby Schweitzer, Zhiyong Suo,Recep Avci, John M. Asara, Mark A. Allen, Fernando Teran Arce, John R. Horner Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein Science 13 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5822, pp. 277 - 280

J. M. Asara, M. H. Schweitzer, L. M. Freimark, M. Phillips, and L. C. Cantley Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry. Science 316, 280-285 , (2007)

The Catholic Church does not claim to be an authority on Science. Because it is not.

You however, are taking things to new levels.

You are claiming on the one hand there are miracles, that can not be explained.

You utterly refuse to use science and yet claim you can tell what science is.

Required reading - the stuff after 2007. In addition, more findings of soft tissue in non - dino fossils claimed to be many millions of years old.

 

[buffalo]

Required reading:

Mary Higby Schweitzer, Zhiyong Suo,Recep Avci, John M. Asara, Mark A. Allen, Fernando Teran Arce, John R. Horner Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein Science 13 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5822, pp. 277 - 280

J. M. Asara, M. H. Schweitzer, L. M. Freimark, M. Phillips, and L. C. Cantley Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry. Science 316, 280-285 , (2007)

The Catholic Church does not claim to be an authority on Science. Because it is not.

You however, are taking things to new levels.

You are claiming on the one hand there are miracles, that can not be explained.

You utterly refuse to use science and yet claim you can tell what science is.

All of my postings regarding reason are using the findings of modern science.

 

[Peepers]

I was only expressing my own opinion, since it was asked for. My background is that I am a former Marine. I have undergrad degrees in English Literature and Molecular Biology. I have worked as a scientist for one of the largest genetics research companies in the world. I am currently a grad student and med student. I bring a certain bias to this discussion, which I thought I should be open about.

Comparing Behe to Newton sounds like desperation to me. Newton backed his theories with solid mathematics. He was rigorous enough that he was embarrassed to talk about the little thing he had come up with which we call Calculus today. Are you seriously putting Behe in the same league as the discoverer of gravitational theory and calculus? Do you think that Behe will be regarded as one of the foremost scientists of all time in 300 years? His notions on ID don’t withstand peer review, so he better get busy on something else.

 

[rossum]

Behe and Dembski are quacks.

When Darwin proposed his theory, he also gave a potential falsification:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

– Origin, Chapter Six
Professor Behe proposed Irreducible Complexity as a way to meet Darwin’s falsification criterion. His original definition of Irreducible Complexity was:A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin’s Black Box, 39)
His original argument from Irreducible Complexity was:

1. *]Irreducibly Complex systems cannot evolve.
   *]Living organisms contain Irreducibly Complex systems.
   *]Therefore parts of living organisms cannot have evolved.
   
   Unfortunately for Professor Behe this argument fails at step one, IC systems can and do evolve. It is no criticism of Behe that he put forward a failed hypothesis; most scientific hypotheses fail. Indeed in this case it was a useful failure that lead to a lot of good work on exactly how complex systems, such as the blood clotting cascade and bacterial flagella, evolve. IC was a failure, but an interesting and useful failure.
   
   Professor Behe reacted correctly to his failure – he amended his hypothesis to account for the new facts:
   1. *]Irreducibly Complex systems are unlikely to evolve.
      *]Living organisms contain Irreducibly Complex systems.
      *]Therefore parts of living organisms are unlikely to have evolved.
      
      Since then Behe has been working on examining just how unlikely it is that IC systems can evolve. In 2004 he produced a paper on just this subject: Behe and Snoke, (2004) “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”. Behe’s own figures from that paper showed that a small population of bacteria could evolve a simple IC system in about 20,000 years:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10^8 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10^9.
      Since 20,000 years is not a long time and the population size Behe used (one billion) is small for bacteria – you have trillions of bacteria in your gut – it is evidence that it is really not very difficult for IC systems to evolve.
      
      Behe’s IC argument was an interesting failure that lead to much good work in this area. However in the end it is not a valid argument against evolution.
      
      Behe is incorrect, but that is not enough to make him a quack. He proposed a hypothesis which led to some interesting work, but ultimately failed. He was doing science.
      
      rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Behe’s IC argument was an interesting failure that lead to much good work in this area. However in the end it is not a valid argument against evolution.

His argument is a success when it is viewed in its real context. The assumption on which the theory of non-Design is based is that the most probable - if not the inevitable - outcome of events since the Big Bang is:

1. The increase in complexity of the laws of nature
2. The development of a universe with properties necessary for life
3. The development of life from inanimate matter
4. The emergence of rational beings from processes devoid of hindsight, insight and foresight

Non-Design also presupposes that truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love have been produced by purposeless events.

Most fascinating of all is the inevitable conclusion that the theory of Non-Design - like all theories - has a non-rational origin! I wonder how much it is really worth in such circumstances…

Further explanation of all the above facts is required if the absence of Design is to be at all plausible!

 

[grannymh]

When Darwin proposed his theory, he also gave a potential falsification:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

– Origin, Chapter Six

The difficulty with this as a potential falsification is that Darwin philosophically limited a potential falsification to that which he was studying. Apparently, Darwin’s philosophical base was his assumption that what he was observing was a miniature of all living organisms. What Darwin was observing has a common denominator of living matter also known as a living organism. The living matter, living organism, in his fields of study exhibited similar properties and actions which can be explained by a general theory of change which would include numerous, successive, slight modifications.

My humble opinion is that Darwin was looking at the creatures in his study from an atomic view rather than a holistic view. Choosing a particular viewpoint is valid. Whether the extrapolation of a particular viewpoint is sufficiently warranted is another question.

Darwin was convinced that the complexity of the living organisms which he observed would be generally the same in all living organisms. This similarity consisted in the method in which they came to be what they are at the time of his observation. It needs to be noted that the method was part and parcel of the observed species. It is my personal observation that the wording of Darwin’s suggestion of a potential falsification is actually limited to the common denominator of material/physical composition generally known as matter.

I am not sure how to explain the contradiction, but the sense is that something which materially exists and follows the observed guidelines of Darwin’s specifications cannot both be viewed as an affirmation and at the same time viewed as a falsification.

In other words, Darwin was looking for a falsification in his own field of study, eliminating other possibilities for falsification which would come from the outside. Technically, there is no problem with Darwin’s specifications provided that matter is the only thing which exists in the universe.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[rossum]

1. The increase in complexity of the laws of nature

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the laws themselves are changing or that as a consequence of the laws the amount of complexity in the universe is increasing? In either case, how is complexity measured?

1. The development of a universe with properties necessary for life

Any theory which proposed the development of a universe not suitable for life will immediately be rejected, since the universe we live in is, at least in a small part, suitable for life. Any any all successful theories will result in a universe that is suitable for life since a successful theory has to explain the observed outcome.

1. The development of life from inanimate matter

Again, the development of life is an observed outcome. Note that a living designer fails to explain the origin of life, but merely assumes it. Hence such an explanation, while it may be theologically satisfying, is not philosophically satisfying.

1. The emergence of rational beings from processes devoid of hindsight, insight and foresight

What do you mean by hindsight? Much of the present universe is influenced by the past.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I was only expressing my own opinion, since it was asked for. My background is that I am a former Marine. I have undergrad degrees in English Literature and Molecular Biology. I have worked as a scientist for one of the largest genetics research companies in the world. I am currently a grad student and med student. I bring a certain bias to this discussion, which I thought I should be open about.

Comparing Behe to Newton sounds like desperation to me. Newton backed his theories with solid mathematics. He was rigorous enough that he was embarrassed to talk about the little thing he had come up with which we call Calculus today. Are you seriously putting Behe in the same league as the discoverer of gravitational theory and calculus? Do you think that Behe will be regarded as one of the foremost scientists of all time in 300 years? His notions on ID don’t withstand peer review, so he better get busy on something else.

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Comparing Behe to Newton sounds like desperation to me. Newton backed his theories with solid mathematics. He was rigorous enough that he was embarrassed to talk about the little thing he had come up with which we call Calculus today. Are you seriously putting Behe in the same league as the discoverer of gravitational theory and calculus? Do you think that Behe will be regarded as one of the foremost scientists of all time in 300 years? His notions on ID don’t withstand peer review, so he better get busy on something else. **

Peepers, for a fellow with so many graduate degrees, why don’t you read and reason more carefully?

I did not say Behe was in the same league with Newton as a genius. What I said, if you will please take the blinders off your eyes, is that he and Newton agree about the obvious fact that atheistic science is blind to, and is evident to anyone willing to see it: the universe and everything in it is designed. That means only that Behe is in good company with Newton, whereas atheistic modern science cannot see beyond its atheistic nose … and you seem to be just fine with that!

Tell me again, just for the record.

As a Protestant, do you believe that God designed the universe?

A yes or no will suffice.

 

[buffalo]

When Darwin proposed his theory, he also gave a potential falsification:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

– Origin, Chapter SixProfessor Behe proposed Irreducible Complexity as a way to meet Darwin’s falsification criterion. His original definition of Irreducible Complexity was:A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin’s Black Box, 39)His original argument from Irreducible Complexity was:

1. 
   *]Irreducibly Complex systems cannot evolve.
   *]Living organisms contain Irreducibly Complex systems.
   *]Therefore parts of living organisms cannot have evolved.
   
   Unfortunately for Professor Behe this argument fails at step one, IC systems can and do evolve. It is no criticism of Behe that he put forward a failed hypothesis; most scientific hypotheses fail. Indeed in this case it was a useful failure that lead to a lot of good work on exactly how complex systems, such as the blood clotting cascade and bacterial flagella, evolve. IC was a failure, but an interesting and useful failure.
   
   Professor Behe reacted correctly to his failure – he amended his hypothesis to account for the new facts:
   1. 
      *]Irreducibly Complex systems are unlikely to evolve.
      *]Living organisms contain Irreducibly Complex systems.
      *]Therefore parts of living organisms are unlikely to have evolved.
      
      Since then Behe has been working on examining just how unlikely it is that IC systems can evolve. In 2004 he produced a paper on just this subject: Behe and Snoke, (2004) “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”. Behe’s own figures from that paper showed that a small population of bacteria could evolve a simple IC system in about 20,000 years:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10^8 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10^9.Since 20,000 years is not a long time and the population size Behe used (one billion) is small for bacteria – you have trillions of bacteria in your gut – it is evidence that it is really not very difficult for IC systems to evolve.
      
      Behe’s IC argument was an interesting failure that lead to much good work in this area. However in the end it is not a valid argument against evolution.
      
      Behe is incorrect, but that is not enough to make him a quack. He proposed a hypothesis which led to some interesting work, but ultimately failed. He was doing science.
      
      rossum

1. 1. 
      Now it is believed that the flagellar motor came first.
      
      

 

[grannymh]

Again, the development of life is an observed outcome. Note that a living designer fails to explain the origin of life, but merely assumes it. Hence such an explanation, while it may be theologically satisfying, is not philosophically satisfying.

I am paying the price for some bad decisions regarding my university requirement for a minor in philosophy. One was to enroll in a course which coincided with my nap time and the other was to dismiss any philosopher whom I considered nuts. It is a good thing that my natural overabundance of curiosity is still a driving force.

Thus, your reference to something being theologically satisfying, but not necessarily philosophically satisfying sounds to me like the environment of the 12th and 13th centuries. In brief, it seems to me that Thomas Aquinas was in the right place at the right time to tackle the theological/philosophical relationships. My gut instinct says that Intelligent Design should first be examined in the light of Catholic theological/philosophical relationships.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[levinas12]

When Darwin proposed his theory, he also gave a potential falsification:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

– Origin, Chapter Six
Professor Behe proposed Irreducible Complexity as a way to meet Darwin’s falsification criterion. His original definition of Irreducible Complexity was:A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin’s Black Box, 39)
His original argument from Irreducible Complexity was:

1. *]Irreducibly Complex systems cannot evolve.
   *]Living organisms contain Irreducibly Complex systems.
   *]Therefore parts of living organisms cannot have evolved.
   
   Unfortunately for Professor Behe this argument fails at step one, IC systems can and do evolve. It is no criticism of Behe that he put forward a failed hypothesis; most scientific hypotheses fail. Indeed in this case it was a useful failure that lead to a lot of good work on exactly how complex systems, such as the blood clotting cascade and bacterial flagella, evolve. IC was a failure, but an interesting and useful failure.
   
   Professor Behe reacted correctly to his failure – he amended his hypothesis to account for the new facts:
   1. *]Irreducibly Complex systems are unlikely to evolve.
      *]Living organisms contain Irreducibly Complex systems.
      *]Therefore parts of living organisms are unlikely to have evolved.
      
      Since then Behe has been working on examining just how unlikely it is that IC systems can evolve. In 2004 he produced a paper on just this subject: Behe and Snoke, (2004) “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”. Behe’s own figures from that paper showed that a small population of bacteria could evolve a simple IC system in about 20,000 years:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10^8 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10^9.
      Since 20,000 years is not a long time and the population size Behe used (one billion) is small for bacteria – you have trillions of bacteria in your gut – it is evidence that it is really not very difficult for IC systems to evolve.
      
      Behe’s IC argument was an interesting failure that lead to much good work in this area. However in the end it is not a valid argument against evolution.
      
      Behe is incorrect, but that is not enough to make him a quack. He proposed a hypothesis which led to some interesting work, but ultimately failed. He was doing science.
      
      rossum

1. 1. 
      Rossum,
      
      It would be neat to hear Behe’s response. If an IC system could evolve in 20,000 years with just a billion bacteria, then that would be a problem.

 

[buffalo]

My gut instinct says that Intelligent Design should first be examined in the light of Catholic theological/philosophical relationships.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

Yup -:yup:

IDvolution, the philosophy passes the test.

 

[rossum]

It would be neat to hear Behe’s response. If an IC system could evolve in 20,000 years with just a billion bacteria, then that would be a problem.

That was Behe’s response. My quote was taken form the abstract of his own paper, Behe and Snooke (2004) which I referenced. The 20,000 year figure for 10^8 generations is taken from Behe’s own testimony at the Dover trial, where this paper was discussed. IIRC it was on day twelve.

The whole paper is available at the link in my post.

rossum

 

[Peepers]

**Comparing Behe to Newton sounds like desperation to me. Newton backed his theories with solid mathematics. He was rigorous enough that he was embarrassed to talk about the little thing he had come up with which we call Calculus today. Are you seriously putting Behe in the same league as the discoverer of gravitational theory and calculus? Do you think that Behe will be regarded as one of the foremost scientists of all time in 300 years? His notions on ID don’t withstand peer review, so he better get busy on something else. **

Peepers, for a fellow with so many graduate degrees, why don’t you read and reason more carefully?

I did not say Behe was in the same league with Newton as a genius. What I said, if you will please take the blinders off your eyes, is that he and Newton agree about the obvious fact that atheistic science is blind to, and is evident to anyone willing to see it: the universe and everything in it is designed. That means only that Behe is in good company with Newton, whereas atheistic modern science cannot see beyond its atheistic nose … and you seem to be just fine with that!

Tell me again, just for the record.

As a Protestant, do you believe that God designed the universe?

A yes or no will suffice.

I tend to discount the questions and opinions of those who open with a personal attack. That will suffice.