| Subject: Here's side issue we could dicsuss... |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/17/04 5:24am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Assumptions?" on 09/14/04 12:23am
I was re-reading my last response (the one above) and noticed a little pattern in one of your lines of argumentation - examples of things that are clearly designed, yet we don't know who the designer is.
I'll admit, I haven't read Behe's book (or books?), so I don't know exactly how he argues that we've identified design, but there's an important distinction to be made between ID "design" and the "design" we regularly see and identify in the world:
We identify the "design," and assume the existence of a designer in the case of the Pyramids using a very simple filter - they look like other things that humans build. Now, we could also argue the case that we infer design because of the LACK of naturally occurring pyramidal, orderly configurations of rectangular-prism-shaped rocks, and that'd be an OK way to look at it, but the reality is much simpler, I think.
Now, as for the Jupiter obelisk, the reality is that we'd HAVE to consider the possiblity that it is a natural phenomenon simply because we wouldn't know who "designed" it. And that's an interesting thing, since you said that we'd have to assume it was designed. Well, why? Because it looks like other stuff humans have built.
I think that's the reason we'd think it might be designed. Because we, as humans, tend to recognize and classify things as "naturally occurring" and "designed" only because we design things.
But in the case of "irreducibly complex" biochemical pathways, we're supposed to infer design how? We can't use our normal "natural vs designed" filter of, "Well, if it looks like something we'd build, it's reasonable to think that someone built it."
That's because we're talking about something that we KNOW we didn't build or design. And it doesn't resemble anything we'd design.
What's more interesting, if you look at the actual chemistry of some of the molecular pathways he uses as examples of "irreducibly complex," you see recurring themes - redundant molecular forms, system-level redundancy, and you see things like molecules that perform one function in one system performing a similar function in another, though not exactly the same one...
I have to be honest, once you study biochemical pathways enough, you almost get a sense of, "yeah, this seems evolved" just like we have a sense of, "yeah, we designed this."
And I have an academic objection to the fact that Behe seems to pick a singl, isolated system and say things like, "if the system in question has complicated, numerous parts, and we can show that it needs all these parts to function, then we can't show how that system evolved to its current form." That's just bad form for a biochemist to make such claims - he knows as well as I and anyone else who studies or has studied molecular biology and biochemistry that the systems he's looking at don't exist in an biochemical or evolutionary vaccuum. I mean, they exist in, arguably, the most complex animal to ever have walked the earth!
It's feasible to suggest (as this has been shown to be the case for some systems) that a system may arise by utilizing the components of another system - I mean, think about it this way: If a molecule that catalyzes a specific chemical reaction exists in a cell, and we identify it as, say, part of the DNA synthesis pathway, we can't say that it plays no part in any other system or pathway. In fact, we can see how it'd be almost assuredly WRONG to say so!
Just because we identify something as a "system," with definite components and pathways does not change the fact that, with few exceptions, those components, and the components of all other such systems, are just floating around in our bloodstream, or in our cells, freely intermingling with the components of other systems. And that our definition of a biochemical system is mostly, if not ALL functional - not structural or compositional.
A biochemical system is a "system" because of what it DOES, not how it does it. Behe's trying to say that the "blood clotting system" could not have functioned without all its constituent parts, and it's too improbable that they evolved separately, indepentently, so therefore we can infer design.
The burden of proof, then, lies on him and the adherents of ID theory to then show that each component of the system couldn't be used in any other pathway, or that the system couldn't have functioned in a less-"modern" state, or that an evolutionary precursor to a component couldn't have functioned in some way in another pathway... Etc.
See, the problem with that is that there are so many common molecules in our bodies, used for so many different things, in different ways, and there are so many common building blocks for those molecules.
Now, I want to identify a likely objection to my "burden-of-proof" statememt above. Should ID proponents have to support their claims of design exhaustively? That is, should the scientists who claim, "pathway X is irreducibly complex" have to show that it is, indeed, "irreducibly complex?"
Should they have to demonstrate so exhaustively that NONE of their components could possibly be used in ANY other pathway, in ANY organism, in ANY of it's possible precursor forms?
Well... Yeah! See, the problem is that ID proponents don't outright reject the theory of biological evolution. In fact, they even admit that some systems DID probably evolve. And they too use many of the evidences and assumptions that molecular biologists and biochemists use.
ID proponents are stuck arguing a "special case" argument, where they accept the standard view for 99% of things, but for their 1% of "special-case" phenomena, they argue for a completely different mechanism than the one that they accept for the other 99% of things.
So it's neccessary for them to differentiate their special cases from the norm by showing that the normal sequence of events DIDN'T/COULDN'TVE happened. It's a significant burden of proof, and I wonder if they underestimated it...
At any rate, this is just a side issue from the real one. ID theory assumes a designer. So those who support it should be offering theories about this designer - ones that we can then evaluate and make determinations as to the feasibility of ID.
And they don't. And they continue not to. Which, as I've said before, makes me wonder why not. I mean, I get your argument Wade - it's a good distinction you made.
The theory of ID assumes a designer, but says nothing about who/what it is, how it did it's job, etc. And you're right, that's OK. But it's a huge assumption. And while there are other theories that are accepted by mainstream science that have big assumptions, the difference is that we try to minimize them, and make it so they're not assumptions anymore, or weaken our assumptions, replacing them with fact.
So the real point of this is that I'm trying to get some response from an ID-adherent about the designer. And it seems funny that no one ever just answers the one, simple question:
"What's your theory on the Intelligent Designer?"
I mean, there doesn't have to be evidence, so don't feel bad if you don't have any. Which I know you don't. But a simple, honest, "Well, we think is was a race of super-advanced aliens," or, "God," or, "The Dolphins," would be better than what I've heard so far.
What I have heard is people strenuously argue that, "I don't have to say anything about the designer!" Or maybe, "That's not testable!"
Well, here's my responses to those:
"I don't have to say anything about the designer!"
Yeah, you don't. But how can we seriously consider the theory unless you do? I mean, science isn't abstract. We need something to go on. If we assume there's a designer, then who do you think it was? Simple question. Without answering it, you can't expect anyone to seriously consider ID as real science. I mean, all this time is spent arguing why we shouldn't have to say anything about the designer, when a simple answer would dispel all this hype.
This is why, Wade, I say things like, "Well, what are you hiding behind ID theory? What's your agenda." That's because ID-proponents aren't behaving like honest, candid rationally minded people - I ask a simple question, and I get ten mintues (or pages) of argumentation of why "I don't have to answer that question to effectively defend ID theory." They're acting like they don't want to answer it!
I mean, any other real scientific theory has its proponents, and for any assumption their theory makes, they're EAGER to talk about "how they think" this happened, or "what we're doing to figure out if this assumption is true." ID is not. It's reluctant. It makes me think there's a reason why no one wants to talk about the "Designer" itself.
And the reason is plain as day! Because the "Designer" would have to be an individual with capabilities vastly beyond ours, who might have some vested interest in life in our planet (or might not) and that starts to sound a bit like God.
Then you couple that with the fact that those proponents tend to be (or maybe all are!) adherents to a Fundamentalist sect of Christianity, who have been shown to lie and combat science with falsity and underhanded tactics in the past (misquoting, using false evidence, etc.), and you end up with a very clear conclusion.
So, Wade, I'm not paranoid. I'm only looking at facts and drawing a reasonable conclusion. But I'm also trying to be fair-minded.
I'm asking for ID-proponents to show me wrong about ID theory. I'm saying, "Talk about the designer! Tell me some theories! Demonstrate to me that ID really is a serious scientific endeavour!"
Then what I get in response is vehement argumentation why they shouldn't have to answer. I mean, paranoid? I say, "ID theorists seem shady to me because they won't answer this simple, legitimate question. Show me that I'm wrong about you!" Then I get no answer - I get exactly what I would expect if there IS the shadiness I thought there was in the first place!
Oh well. Anyways, to bed.
oh yeah - that other response:
"That's not testable!"
Well, then ID theory has picked some shitty assumptions.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 