Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[rossum]

You look for specified complexity.

Dembski’s concept of specified complexity has many problems. Dembski himself has admitted that it cannot tell actual design from apparent design, where the complexity is copied rather than generated. A process that copies complexity can be indistinguishable from a process that generates complexity. Since generating complexity is design and copying complexity is not, Dembski’s concept is not as useful as it could be.

For example, evolution copies information (=complexity) from the environment into the genome. The arctic environment contains the information “white things are difficult to see agains a snowy background”. Random mutation and natural selection copy that information into the genomes of animals living there and the result is animals with white fur. This is not design, merely adaptation to the environment. Copying complexity not generating complexity.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

“complexity copied rather than generated”? What does that mean? If I have a triangular rock that is not symmetrical, does not have regular, similar chip marks on the two long sides, I have a triangular rock, not an arrowhead. There are a few rocky face-like structures on mountains but I sure wouldn’t confuse those with the faces on Mt. Rushmore.

Evolution is a storytelling device. Random mutation, it is supposed, given enough time could produce anything. Well, why don’t we have polar bears with two heads, three tails, antennae and flotation bladders? Honestly, the random in ‘random’ mutations over supposed millions of years could have added tons of fun and useful attributes to the polar bear.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ed writes:

Evolutionist? Not me.

But you suggested a link that presents more evidence for evolution. It rather clearly shows how.

You didn’t actually read it, did you, Ed?

 

[edwest2]

It clearly shows how storytelling works. The claim is ludicrous:

“characteristics never before recorded” “likely a descendant of the very first ants to evolve.”

So, we have a story about an ant with never before recorded characteristics and conclude that it is a likely descendant of the very first ants to evolve? Hello! And the proto-ants, what about them? What about the pre-ant insects? The claim is made about ‘the very first ants’ (do we have those in a bottle somewhere?). Unless, of course, you accept that the first group of ants was created supernaturally. If not, give me a break. What speculative fiction.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

It clearly shows how storytelling works. The claim is ludicrous:

“characteristics never before recorded” “likely a descendant of the very first ants to evolve.”

So, we have a story about an ant with never before recorded characteristics and conclude that it is a likely descendant of the very first ants to evolve? Hello! And the proto-ants, what about them? What about the pre-ant insects? The claim is made about ‘the very first ants’ (do we have those in a bottle somewhere?). Unless, of course, you accept that the first group of ants was created supernaturally. If not, give me a break. What speculative fiction.

It is story-telling and not even that interesting. Claims are made about creatures that no one has seen – even fossils of them don’t exist. The term “probably evolved” is used a lot. That term is an obvious fallacy. “Probably” means that there is some probability. Probability is the product of statistics and mathematical calcualtions. How “probable” is it that they evolved like that? The only way to know that is to do the math. But evolutionists never want to do the math – they really can’t because they’re talking about their own speculative fictions and they can’t subject those to mathematical formulas.

There is a joke about the “certainity” of evolution.

Darwinists will say that evolution is as certain as nuclear physics.
But you never hear nuclear physicians say that their field is as certain as evolution.

 

[rossum]

“complexity copied rather than generated”? What does that mean?

I was talking specifically about random mutations and natural selection, not rocks. RM&NS is a process that copies infirmation from the environment into the genomes of populations living in that environment.

Dembski’s CSI may possibly be useful to distinguish arrowheads from random pebbles but it is of no use in determining if a piece of DNA is designed or not. It is noticeable that the ID researchers have not come up with any computer program to read the base sequence of a piece of DNA to determine whether or not it is designed.

There is also the point that for a theist, a ‘random’ pebble is just as designed in the mind of God as an arrowhead in the mind of a human. Any theistic design detector may well detect design in everything and hence be of no practical use. Just wire up the detector with the green light permanently on and the red light permanently off. Is there anything in the universe that is not designed by God?

Evolution is a storytelling device. Random mutation, it is supposed, given enough time could produce anything.

This is a strawman version of evolution. Random mutation and natural selection. The natural selection is very important.

Well, why don’t we have polar bears with two heads,

Because the advantages of having two heads are outweighed by the dieadvantages so on average Polar Bears with two heads have less cubs than Polar Bears with one head. This is Evolution 101 which you should understand, unless you are only interested in strawmen.

The nature of your question can perhaps be more easily seen if we change it slightly: “Why didn’t God make Polar Bears with two heads, three tails, antennae and flotation bladders?” It is just rhetorical point scoring with no real content.

Honestly, the random in ‘random’ mutations over supposed millions of years could have added tons of fun and useful attributes to the polar bear.

RM&NS did add many useful attributes to Polar Bears. Attributes that increased the average number of cubs were preserved and spread. Attributes that reduced the average number of cubs disappeared. Very basic evolutionary mechanisms, which we have known of since Darwin.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

It is story-telling and not even that interesting. Claims are made about creatures that no one has seen – even fossils of them don’t exist.

At least not found yet. Huxley, for example, made these wild claims about fossils that would be half-bird, half-dinosaur. Silly, um? Until they found the ones he predicted.

Years ago, a creationist ridiculed the prediction of whales with legs. He said if they ever found any, he’d become an evolutionist. Then, one after the other, they found not one but an entire series of them.

Many other examples of that, Reggie. Would you like to learn about some of them?

The term “probably evolved” is used a lot. That term is an obvious fallacy. “Probably” means that there is some probability. Probability is the product of statistics and mathematical calcualtions. How “probable” is it that they evolved like that?

The ones above? 1.0.

The only way to know that is to do the math. But evolutionists never want to do the math – they really can’t because they’re talking about their own speculative fictions and they can’t subject those to mathematical formulas.

Reggie can be forgiven for that falsehood. Reggie never read anything about population genetics. More math than Reggie could handle. All about evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

And the proto-ants, what about them? What about the pre-ant insects?

Prionomyrmex macrops, transitional between wasps and ants. Ants evolved from wasps.

Analysis of the insect’s morphology and DNA have confirmed that it is not only a new species and genus, but a new sub-family of ants. It is also among the most primitive sub-families known: its genetic code suggests it was among the first sub-families to split off from the main lineage, soon after ants evolved from wasps more than 120 million years ago.
(re: M. heureka)

**The claim is made about ‘the very first ants’ (do we have those in a bottle somewhere?). **

We didn’t have those feathered dinosaurs in a bottle either. So how on Earth did Huxley know they existed? Think about it.

 

[reggieM]

Dembski’s CSI may possibly be useful to distinguish arrowheads from random pebbles but it is of no use in determining if a piece of DNA is designed or not. It is noticeable that the ID researchers have not come up with any computer program to read the base sequence of a piece of DNA to determine whether or not it is designed.

The stages in development of ID theory (as I understand it which is far from an expert level) were first to develop a definion of design features. This was done negatively at first, to eliminate anything that could not have been developed by evolution.

The proposal is that everything in nature is the product of evolution. Is that true? Most evolutionists accept that by default. Thus, RM&NS (or some other natural laws) had the power to create everything we find in nature today – as well as things we haven’t even found yet. This means that every possible thing that could be seen in nature could be created by evolution. Thus, there is “no debate” – evolution wins. It, supposedly, has the creative power to turn anything in to anything else (eventually, “given enough time”).

But is this really true? It hasn’t been tested because one would have to test everything. ID merely is looking for some things in nature which are “impossible” for random chance and natural selection (which works on randomness) to produce.

The “boundary of the possible” can be determined by mathematical formualae. This is what Behe and Dembski have been working on. They’re seeking to discover if there are elements in nature that could not have been created by evolutionary processes – simply because the mathematics will not permit it (e.g. there is “not enough time” for one thing). This is a matter of probability studies first. That is an essential part of “defining a designed thing”.

Any theistic design detector may well detect design in everything and hence be of no practical use.

Yes, but if something can be seen to be the product of natural laws, then the design proposal is falsified.

Just wire up the detector with the green light permanently on and the red light permanently off. Is there anything in the universe that is not designed by God?

This is very similar to what evolutionary theory does. The green light for evolution is permanently on. Therefore, even when something is falsified (peacock feather evolution), the “evolution-of-the-gaps” argument states “it must have evolved somehow”.

But more importantly, you’re asking a question of theistic evolutionists (at least the old-style) who would use the terms “guided evolution” and “unguided evolution”.

Is there some evidence to show that evolution was “guided”? If not, then evolution was unguided.

Richard Dawkins, for example, stated that nature gives the appearance of being designed. ID is first looking at what the difference would be between something that appears to be designed versus something that doesn’t appear to be designed.

 

[rossum]

The stages in development of ID theory (as I understand it which is far from an expert level) were first to develop a definion of design features. This was done negatively at first, to eliminate anything that could not have been developed by evolution.

Rocks are not formed by evolution, neither are they designed in the ID sense, though they may be designed in the theological sense. There is also a deeper lying problem with this ID program. In science the default position is “we do not know”. If ID shows that something did not evolve, then the default position replaces “evolution did it” with “we do not know”. If ID wants to move from “we do not know” to “the designer did it” then ID will need some positive evidence. When did the designer do it? How did the designer move molecules to get the correct arrangement of base pairs in DNA and so forth. Thus far ID has concentrated on its negative attacks on evolution. This is good for their political aims, but not very useful for their scientific objectives.

The proposal is that everything in nature is the product of evolution. Is that true?

No. Clouds and rocks are not the product of evolution. Biological evolution is restricted to the development of living organisms on earth (and possibly elsewhere) from an initial population.

Thus, there is “no debate” – evolution wins. It, supposedly, has the creative power to turn anything in to anything else (eventually, “given enough time”).

You give evolution too much power. All living orgnisms carry the imprint of their past development. If humans evolved to live in the sea like dolphins then we would not be exactly like dolphins, we would have many similarities such as streamlining and holding breath, but there would also be differences. We would not be a gene-for-gene exact copy of a dolphin.

But is this really true? It hasn’t been tested because one would have to test everything. ID merely is looking for some things in nature which are “impossible” for random chance and natural selection (which works on randomness) to produce.

ID is indeed looking, but so far it has found nothing. All previous proposals for a possible unevolveble feature of living organisms have been shown to be evolveble. Even Behe’s own work (Behe and Snoke, 2004) has shown that irreducible complexity can evolve using just a restricted subset of evolutionary mechanisms.

The “boundary of the possible” can be determined by mathematical formualae.

I would rephrase that to read: The “boundary of the possible” can be determined by mathematical formualae that correctly reflect reality. Anyone can produce a formula, for example I have a formula that shows that God has a less than 1 in 10[sup]3628942[/sup] chance of existing. However my formula is only useful if it correctly reflects reality. If the formula is not based in reality then the numbers it produces are worthless - GIGO.

Yes, but if something can be seen to be the product of natural laws, then the design proposal is falsified.

Why? If the natural laws were designed, then the products of those laws are also designed, albeit indirectly. In effect this is the theistic evolutionist position. I note that ID tries to ignore the theistic evolution position. TEs were excluded from the movie “Expelled” and they also seem to be excluded from the ID “Big Tent”. Probably they would only confuse things by getting in the way of simplistic evolution = atheism position that most ID proponents seem to favour.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Rocks are not formed by evolution, neither are they designed in the ID sense, though they may be designed in the theological sense.

I’m using the term “evolution” in the general sense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution

The proposal is that everything is a product of evolution or some other natural laws. That distinction is irrelevant in comparison with design.

There is also a deeper lying problem with this ID program. In science the default position is “we do not know”. If ID shows that something did not evolve, then the default position replaces “evolution did it” with “we do not know”.

Ok, but I believe you’re saying that there is nothing that did not evolve. But beyond that, there is positive evidence that intelligence can create specified complexity. We see human intelligence doing that and even animal intelligence can do that. So, if one notices elements in nature that show the same characteristics of designed systems that we already know are a product of intelligence – the proposal that they were intelligently designed is reasonable.

Thus far ID has concentrated on its negative attacks on evolution. This is good for their political aims, but not very useful for their scientific objectives.

If ID can show that evolution could not produce various things, then it has immense value. It discovers that natural laws have limits to what they create.

No. Clouds and rocks are not the product of evolution. Biological evolution is restricted to the development of living organisms on earth (and possibly elsewhere) from an initial population.

Evolution here is in the general sense – I’m not just speaking of “biological evolution” but “chemical evolution” which is said to begin at the big bang and be responsible for the development of the entire material world.

You give evolution too much power. All living orgnisms carry the imprint of their past development. If humans evolved to live in the sea like dolphins then we would not be exactly like dolphins, we would have many similarities such as streamlining and holding breath, but there would also be differences. We would not be a gene-for-gene exact copy of a dolphin.

I’m not following this. It is proposed that all of the creative power in nature and all of what can be perceived in nature is the product of “evolution” (biological or otherwise). In other words, the natural laws created everything – and are responsible for things that we haven’t even discovered yet. To date, there are no limits given to what “evolution” (chemical, molecular or otherwise) can do. How is evolution thereby limited in any way? How does the current paradigm that assigns evolution as the cause for everything “giving evolution too much power”? That is a key point that ID is exploring. Are there limits to what evolution can produce?

All previous proposals for a possible unevolveble feature of living organisms have been shown to be evolveble. Even Behe’s own work (Behe and Snoke, 2004) has shown that irreducible complexity can evolve using just a restricted subset of evolutionary mechanisms.

Behe has been looking for evolutionary pathways for irreducibly complex things in nature. The arguments opposing him have said that things “could evolve” by various imaginary devices. But it hasn’t been shown that there is evidence that any of these structures actually did have those pathways.

Anyone can produce a formula, for example I have a formula that shows that God has a less than 1 in 10[sup]3628942[/sup] chance of existing. However my formula is only useful if it correctly reflects reality. If the formula is not based in reality then the numbers it produces are worthless - GIGO.

This is a good point and I’ve questioned evolutionists about this before and did not get an adequate answer.
The questions I posed were: “Is it possible to define and measure designed systems”? Some might say it’s impossible. We can see designed systems, but we can’t define or measure what they are. This does not seem very scientific to me. If we can see the sytsem, then we should be able to come to some definition, eventually.
The other question is, as you present: “Can we determine the mathematical probability of certain things occuring through the natural laws (like evolution)?” If not, then how could evolution be predictable? We have to know the statistical probability in order to determine that something “probably evolved” or “could have evolved”. Otherwise, those statements are pure fiction and useless.

If we can determine the probability – they why are ID theorists the only ones working on this?
My suggestion is that evolutionists don’t want to know the mathematics behind their theory because it would expose some impossibilities.
Additionally, most evolutionary work is done for things that already happened. So, it declares that what evolved is what evolved.

 

[reggieM]

Why? If the natural laws were designed, then the products of those laws are also designed, albeit indirectly. In effect this is the theistic evolutionist position. I note that ID tries to ignore the theistic evolution position. TEs were excluded from the movie “Expelled” and they also seem to be excluded from the ID “Big Tent”. Probably they would only confuse things by getting in the way of simplistic evolution = atheism position that most ID proponents seem to favour.

I don’t agree with this. Theistic evolutionists need to explain the difference between “guided evolution” and “unguided evolution”. If there is an observable difference – then this is the subject of ID.

But most theistic evolutionists, like Kenneth Miller, give an ambiguous response which end up being that there is only “unguided evolution”. God works only in ways that cannot be perceived or measured. The result is that natural laws alone are the only (direct) creative power in the universe. God may or may not have anything to do with it – the end result is the same.

ID proposes that an intelligent cause can be detected in nature and there are some things that cannot be explained by the process of natural laws alone.

This is the ancient, teleological argument – the same as used by St. Paul, the Psalmist, Jesus, and the Church for centuries.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The stages in development of ID theory (as I understand it which is far from an expert level) were first to develop a definion of design features. This was done negatively at first, to eliminate anything that could not have been developed by evolution.

They don’t talk about that much, anymore. The first few attempts, such as Dembski’s “explanitory filter” crashed and burned when it became clear that it wouldn’t work unless you assumed the answer beforehand. And there’s nothing new on the table now.

The proposal is that everything in nature is the product of evolution. Is that true?

No, that’s a silly misrepresentation of Darwin’s theory, which is only about the ways populations of living organisms change.

But is this really true?

No. It’s a misrepresentation used by creationists who don’t want to argue against the theory as it is. For obvious reasons.

ID merely is looking for some things in nature which are “impossible” for random chance and natural selection (which works on randomness) to produce.

Geologists could point to the sorting of minerals in the Earth. There’s a lot more like that. Would you like to learn about some of them?

The “boundary of the possible” can be determined by mathematical formualae. This is what Behe and Dembski have been working on.

Behe, after much “mathematical formulae” has concluded that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is. There’s a lot of math in astrology, too. More than there is in ID. But math, as you might be beginning to suspect, isn’t all there is to it.

They’re seeking to discover if there are elements in nature that could not have been created by evolutionary processes – simply because the mathematics will not permit it (e.g. there is “not enough time” for one thing).

So far, they can’t find anything like that. IDer Michael Denton now admits that it all can be ascribed to natural processes, in “Nature’s Destiny.”

Description of ID:

Just wire up the detector with the green light permanently on and the red light permanently off. Is there anything in the universe that is not designed by God?

This is very similar to what evolutionary theory does.

No. The theory was, like all scientific theories, developed to explain an existing phenomenon and evidence. ID, like some other religions, assumes a conclusion and is now trying to find some support for it.

The green light for evolution is permanently on. Therefore, even when something is falsified (peacock feather evolution), the “evolution-of-the-gaps” argument states “it must have evolved somehow”.

The DNA evidence very clearly shows the evolution of peacocks among the galliform birds. You didn’t know that?

www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118995674/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/esm010v1

Is there some evidence to show that evolution was “guided”? If not, then evolution was unguided.

I guess that might be what a non-Christian would say. But if you have faith in God, the evidence would be obvious. It’s just not evidence that’s accessible to science.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m not an expect on evolution, so i guess that i take it on faith, or rather i don’t see any problem with the idea in itself to a degree that i am happy to accept that sceince has good reasons for supposing that it happened. Plus, there are Christian Evolutionists in existence also.

But besides whether or not it is reasonable for me to take evolution on faith, a saw a point raised about Adam and Eve and polytheism. The problem is, i don’t see any reason to suppose that there were many Adams or Eves unless you accept a purely naturalistic account of reality; and even if you did, given the complexicities of the human brain and the processes involved, i don’t see why it would naturally ocurr that there would be a great number of creatures with the same cognitive capabilities. Rather i am tempted to think, that on a purely naturalistic account, That there would have probably been very few; maybe one or two. In otherwords, it might have been a very rare mutation that lead to humans, which would have unlikely happend again among other breeders.

 

[SFTor]

The DNA evidence very clearly shows the evolution of peacocks among the galliform birds. You didn’t know that?

www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118995674/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/esm010v1

I guess that might be what a non-Christian would say. But if you have faith in God, the evidence would be obvious. It’s just not evidence that’s accessible to science.

Wouldn’t it be correct to say that the peacock’s tail is an example of sexual selection?

Best,

Tor

P.S. Who knows the highly scientific connection between peacock’s tails and the beer enemas taken by Mayan princes?

 

[reggieM]

Wouldn’t it be correct to say that the peacock’s tail is an example of sexual selection?

Best,

Tor

It was thought that it could be. But sexual selection was tested and falsified.

Mariko Takahashi, Hiroyuki Arita, Mariko Hiraiwa-Hasegawa and Toshikazu Hasegawa (2008), Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains, Animal Behaviour, 75(4), pp.1209-1219

"We found no evidence that peahens expressed any preference for peacocks with more elaborate trains (i.e. trains having more ocelli, a more symmetrical arrangement or a greater length), similar to other studies of galliforms showing that females disregard male plumage."

Female Peacocks Not Impressed by Male Feathers

The feather train on male peacocks is among the most striking and beautiful physical attributes in nature, but it fails to excite, much less interest, females, according to new research.

The determination throws a wrench in the long-held **belief **that male peacock feathers evolved in response to female mate choice. It could also indicate that certain other elaborate features in galliformes, a group that includes turkeys, chickens, grouse, quails and pheasants, as well as peacocks, are not necessarily linked to fitness and mating success.

 

[SFTor]

The determination throws a wrench in the long-held **belief **that male peacock feathers evolved in response to female mate choice. It could also indicate that certain other elaborate features in galliformes, a group that includes turkeys, chickens, grouse, quails and pheasants, as well as peacocks, are not necessarily linked to fitness and mating success.

So Reggie, do you have any favorite theory on the development of the tail feathers of the peacock?

Best,

Tor

 

[Nickkname]

Even if the theory of evolution is correct - and I personally see evolution as the most possible way God created His corporal creatures, both in light of science, of reason, and of the truth that God works naturally - it is not contradictory to the Catholic Faith. And on that note, here’s something from the Vatican on evolution:

Official: Bible and Darwin Could Both Be Right

Vatican Plans Conference to Study Evolution Theory

VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- There is no a priori incompatibility between the Bible and Darwin’s theory of evolution, says the president of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, also president of the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church, affirmed this Tuesday when he presented an upcoming international conference that will gather theologians and scientists to discuss Charles Darwin’s theory.

The March 3-7 conference, to be held in Rome, marks 150 years since Darwin publicized his findings in “Origin of Species.”

The conference is organized as part of the Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest project, a venture sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame are also sponsoring the event.

According to Archbishop Ravasi, the congress aims to establish dialogue between philosophy, theology and science.

Theologians, philosophers and scientists move in “different terrains,” he said. What is important "is that the line of demarcation not be turned into a ‘Wall of China’ or an ‘Iron Curtain,’ which looks upon the other with contempt. …] The distinction is not separation. The distinction is necessary.

“Hence, an act of humility is also necessary on the part of the theologians who must listen and learn; on the other hand, the arrogance of some scientists must be overcome, [people] who slap those who have faith, and regard faith and theology as a heritage of a Paleolithic intellectual.”

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a professor at the Gregorian University, added that “the debate on the theory of evolution is ever more heated, both in the Christian as well as in the strictly evolutionist realm.”

Explaining the motives that led to convoking the congress, the Jesuit priest said, “We think it is our duty to try to clarify some points, given that Christian scientists, philosophers and theologians are directly involved in the debate, along with colleagues of other confessions or those who have no confession.”

The conference is an attempt to have “an ample exchange of opinions from the rational point of view, to foster fruitful dialogue between experts of different areas,” Father Leclerc added. “The Church is profoundly interested in this dialogue, fully respecting each one’s field.”

Source: zenit.org/article-23664?l=english

 

[rossum]

I’m using the term “evolution” in the general sense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution

The proposal is that everything is a product of evolution or some other natural laws. That distinction is irrelevant in comparison with design.

It would be clearer if you use less general terms: cosmogenesis, astromomy, abiogenesis and (biological) evolution. Unless I state otherwise, I will be using “evolution” in the biological sense.

Ok, but I believe you’re saying that there is nothing that did not evolve.

There are things that we do not know the detail of how they originated - “we do not know”. There is no indication that it is not possible for science to find an answer to these questions. Science has no problem with design, every time an archaeologist finds an arrowhead then design is recognised. SETI researchers are looking for a designed radio signal. Science does have a problem with an unspecified designer with unspecified powers. Too much unspecification in there - science needs specifications to work with. How can we recognise something that was not designed if we do not know the limits to the designers capabilities. Can the designer manage a bacterium, but not something the size of an elephant? ID needs to give more detail.

But beyond that, there is positive evidence that intelligence can create specified complexity.

Agreed. There is also positive evidence that random mutation and natural selection can create specified complexity. Dembski’s proposed criterion has not proved to be as useful as he hoped.

I’m not following this.

My point was that biological evolution has to work within limits. It can make humans into something like a dolphin, but it cannot make us into an exact gene for gene copy of a dolphin. Similar but not the same. That is a limit on biological evolution.

Behe has been looking for evolutionary pathways for irreducibly complex things in nature. The arguments opposing him have said that things “could evolve” by various imaginary devices. But it hasn’t been shown that there is evidence that any of these structures actually did have those pathways.

Behe originally asserted that it was impossible for IC to evolve. Even a possible pathway is enough to disprove the impossiblity claim. We also have a mutation by mutation listing of the changes needed to evolve irreducible complexity, see here. Behe has now modified hos position to say that it is unlikely (not impossible) for IC to evolve. His own work in Behe and Snoke (2004) shows that a population of a billion bacteria can evolve a simple IC system in about 20,000 years while using just a restricted subset of evolutionary mechanisms. Natural bacterial populations are vastly larger than that, you have trillions in your gut, and they have the full range of evolutionary mechanisms available so the time to evolve IC would be even shorter.

“Is it possible to define and measure designed systems”?

Yes, provided we have some knowledge of the designer(s) and the materials, tools and techniques they had available. Many forgeries are detected by the use of modern materials, tools or techniques. The case of ID is more difficult because the designer(s) are left undefined, as are their materials, tools and techniques. We know that stone age man could not have made a metal cylinder block for an internal combustion engine. How can we tell whether or not ID’s designer(s) could have made one?

“Can we determine the mathematical probability of certain things occuring through the natural laws (like evolution)?”

For some things, yes. We can determine the probability of a given asteroid hitting the earth in the near future. For other things, no because it requires measurements that are not available to us. We cannot predict weather that far ahead because that butterfly in China is still flapping its wings and we do not have the ability to measure the exact position and velocity of every air molecule that it affects.

If we can determine the probability – they why are ID theorists the only ones working on this?

Because the question was decided in science a long time ago. Very few astronomers are currently working on showing that the earth orbits the sun. As I said, ID needs evidence, and that is one way they think they can get it. In 150 years of looking biology has not found anything that needs direct intervention by a non-human designer to explain it. We now have various organisms that were designed by humans and science has no problem recognising them.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Inspired by Cardinal Schoenborn’s New York Times article “Finding Design in Nature,” a few thoughts.

First, forget about starting with science-only evolution. The teleological argument must be included.

The creative Word of God brought everything into existence. Next, design. Take a planet X miles from a star of a certain size. Add oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, UV shield, and gravity. All of the organisms that would be suitable to live in this environment will begin with a coded set of instructions that will allow them to survive under these conditions. Some basic body frames will be similar, others will be different. There will be certain code similarities based entirely on similar physical traits, with some variation possible.

Also, the organisms must be able to understand and interact with their environment immediately. There will be no school for insects, fish, amphibians and most mammals. To suggest that any of these organisms began as something less complex still needs to satisfy the immediate survival formula. Am amoeba must be able to tell if a particle floating past it is food, an iron shaving or nonnutritious dust. It must eat, now.

To suggest that a cell can somehow adapt a flagellum into its working structure ignores the fact that this part needs to be in the correct place, that its energy load can be compensated for by the cell, and that somehow, its control and construction instructions are integrated into the cell’s reproduction code. There is no known way to do this. But instead of saying “we don’t know,” science allows for it.

How is it that amoebas, insects, fish and amphibians know what is food and what is not? How is that the lamprey has a specialized organ where it can latch onto a shark and feed off it? How does a bee know what a flower is?

Evolution claims to have found relationships between all living things but it has come to the wrong conclusion. Life, even in its most primitive form, needs to survive immediately and it needs the ability to reproduce. The instructions required to do this have to be preloaded into the organism. They do not come from nowhere. To say that this organism is related to that organism should be understood as, yes, it was designed to survive in the environment of earth, that is why they are all related. Not, well a bunch of random accidents got selected and it changed from say, a land-dwelling mammal to a sea-dwelling mammal. Nonsense. The number of changes required would require a lot more than luck and ‘natural’ selection.

Take the dog, from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane, all are dogs. Examine the skulls from the various human races, all are human.

Recent science shows that man’s supposed ancestor was around during the time of the dinosaurs. It has also been shown that dinosaurs were eating mammals. As more information comes in, millions of years have to be shaved off the supposed evolution time-line. If a previously unknown living fossil turns up, the evolution story is adjusted to fit. Not that long ago, the Okapi was thought to be an evolutionary ancestor of the horse, until they were discovered alive.

I think it is wrong to believe that given enough time, anything is possible. It is still not explained how fossilized trees are found passing through many layers of rock representing thousands of years at least. Whatever force put them there buried them since if they had been exposed to the elements they would have rotted away.

So, in conclusion, here are some of the problems. No proof, just speculation, that any macro creature can gradually change into anything other than a variation of its own kind, like different types of dogs. Second, no explanation of how a creature can A) Comprehend its environment in a way that leads to its survival. B) How it obtained functional sensory organs that allow it to receive meaningful information about its environment. C) How it can interpret this sensory (name removed by moderator)ut in any organized, meaningful way and D) How it has the ability to reproduce at all.

Evolution would have us believe that random mutations were just spitting out legs, tails, ears, antennae, multi-faceted eyes, tentacles, feelers, fur, feathers, on anything and everything. Then good ol’ natural selection just sorted it all out. As recent living fossil finds have shown, even in the dim and distant past, these organisms satisfied the immediately able to survive condition. As nearly identical insect fossils in amber, supposedly millions of years old, also show successful, not transitional hodge-podge, organisms.

Scientists looking at living things today see all the so-called transitional forms, from viruses and bacteria, to fish and amphibians to mammals. See, see, This is an earlier version of that! No it’s not. All of the same type of organism are alive today. Any changes did not make them something other than what they were. Viruses are still viruses and the same with bacteria, fish, amphibians and mammals.

God bless,
Ed