Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/26/04 9:27pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "Here's side issue we could dicsuss..." on 09/17/04 5:24am
>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.
Fine. Let's say after decades of geological research there are still no known means for the currents of nature to reasonably produce the obelisk.
>But in the case of "irreducibly complex" biochemical
>pathways, we're supposed to infer design how?
The argument is that the currents of nature aren't reasonably capable of producing those things. Read Behe's book. There are a lot of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals on those issues, but I think you'll agree that if the data are as he says they are, the currents of nature are not reasonably capable of producing those systems.
>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!
That's fine, but I feel you're ignoring the relevant evidence he offers on the irreducibly complex issue. Consider for instance the blood cascade. The fact that it does not exist in a biochemical vacuum doesn't come anywhere near to solving the relevant problems.
>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
I'm not so sure that's true, for I would also say that the burden of proof that there is such a way rests on the person who claims it. It might eventually boil down to the inference to the best explanation. And if Behe is right about the system being irreducibly complex, then I think ID is wins on that part.
It's often difficult to prove a negative, but one could argue that given the specifics and high sophistication of the system involved, it doesn't look plausible. For instance, for the blood clotting mechanism to work, all the parts are needed (so the argument goes). If the animal starts bleeding without all the parts in place, the fact that the already-formed-parts were also used being for a secondary function isn't going to help the little bleeding fellow.
I personally don't know (I'm mainly an ID adherent when it comes to the origin of life itself) but I think what Behe said certainly explains why all attempts (so far) have failed. Decades of research on the issue to test ID theory's prediction may be needed before ID theory is accepted on this matter.
>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?"
Absolutely. Behe claims it's already been done. If you don't believe him, remove any one of the components he identified as being necessary and see what happens.
>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?
I think Behe only needs to demonstrate that it isn't plausible. If the data he reported are accurate, then I think he's succeeded at least for the most part.
>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.
And as I said before, this particular assumption being resolved does not appear scientifically feasible.
>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 disagree. As long as we can rationally infer the existence of the designer, we don't have to know the designer's identity to accept ID theory.
>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.
Consider this question. What caused the big bang? The cause would have to have capabilities vastly beyond ours, and that starts to sound a bit like God. In fact theists have argued that for a while now. God created the universe, that's why the big bang happened, that's why there is a finite age for the known physical universe etc.
Nonetheless, the fact that science can't (yet?) tell us what caused the big bang is hardly an intrinsic problem for the theory. The fact that theists use this as a grounding point for the existence of God is hardly an intrinsic problem for the theory.
>Then you couple that with the fact that those
>proponents tend to be (or maybe all are!) adherents to
>a Fundamentalist sect of Christianity
Behe is a counterexample. He is not a Fundamentalist Christian; in fact he's not even Protestant. He's a Catholic who's had no theological or religious objections to evolution. (Confer the official position of the Catholic Church regarding evolution.)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 