ID/Evolution and Michael Behe

[Proinsias]

May I ask, at the expense of going off-topic, what your religious views are?

[Ivellious]

Zoe: I and all other evolutionary biologists admit that we cannot typically witness macroevolution because of the brief lifespans we have. Did I or anyone else witness the evolution of the flagellum? Of course not. But, unlike ID, we provide a scientifically possible process using the Theory of Evolution to describe its development. We provide evidence from transitional fossils to genetics to everything in between for evolution. I'm not saying that we can "prove" anything, but evolution is currently the only viable scientific set of hypotheses that can explain the origins of the multitude of species on Earth.

Saying that we have to witness it to make it scientific is absurd. We've never "seen" half the stuff you'll find in a physics textbook. But it still works and has been scientifically tested, examined, corrected, etc. Evolution provides a series of testable models that have remained strong over 150 years. Do we have all the answers? No, but nothing in science is considered to answer all of the questions presented about it. And work is continuously being done in thousands of research labs on evolution's principles, constantly updating and providing new evidence for evolution.

Again, this is where ID claims that it can "scientifically" answer all the questions by simply saying that a higher power created everything. That is not science. There is no model, no tests, no research, no progress to science as a whole, and no room for improvement. I posted 4 issues with ID above. Until ID can even begin to actually follow the rules of science, there is no competing hypothesis here. Just a non-scientific sect trying to push religion back into the classrooms without scientific basis.

And, for the record, the video I posted was 5 minutes long and only dealt with one example of supposed "irreducible complexity." I have read up on ID in great detail, enough where I've yet to hear a new argument for ID. I'll look into those books though.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Its usually when people say things like "your view has not a single shred of evidence and mine is made credible by thousands every day across the world" that I suspect bias may be in play.

[zoegirl]

Zoe: I and all other evolutionary biologists admit that we cannot typically witness macroevolution because of the brief lifespans we have. Did I or anyone else witness the evolution of the flagellum? Of course not. But, unlike ID, we provide a scientifically possible process using the Theory of Evolution to describe its development. We provide evidence from transitional fossils to genetics to everything in between for evolution. I'm not saying that we can "prove" anything, but evolution is currently the only viable scientific set of hypotheses that can explain the origins of the multitude of species on Earth.

Saying that we have to witness it to make it scientific is absurd.

Ivellius, I never SAID you had to witness it....I am saying, though, that at the end of the day, you are also resting your idea of something that can never be shown. You like to use "God of the gaps". My point was that in science, even though we cannot show it, we rest upon "over time".

And, for the record, the video I posted was 5 minutes long and only dealt with one example of supposed "irreducible complexity." I have read up on ID in great detail, enough where I've yet to hear a new argument for ID. I'll look into those books though.

That's fine...I'm just saying that you like to criticize an awful lot, but most of your information is coming from those that criticize, your university, and your own sources, and you are asking us to examine YOUR side....just saying that if you are asking us to read/watch your material, you should watch/read our material.

Have you read Behe's book? Or just those that criticize?

[Ivellious]

I'll get to my religious views another time...

Marcus, I appreciate the idea that there are smart people who believe in ID. But, every major university in the world with a biology program does, in fact, work with evolution on a daily basis. Universities like mine that view evolution as the best explanation for the origins of life are using that knowledge every day. If you want to claim that I'm lying or being too biased, then someone should show me the research on ID being done, what ID has actually brought to the table scientifically, how it has helped or could help biology as a whole...I've yet to hear of any of that from the ID camp, because they only say that "because evolution has flaw A, intelligent design is evident."

Zoe: The difference between the inferences and speculation made by evolution and those of ID is just what I said before. Evolution has a concrete, testable set of predictions and models based in science that are used to make those inferences. ID does not even have a consensus on how it might work. ID proponents like Behe spend all their time attacking evolution, while in end bringing forth zero evidence themselves but claiming that the absence of some evidence for evolution equals evidence for ID. ID fills the gaps in evolution with "It happened because the designer said so." Evolution uses established scientific theory.

No, I have not read Behe's book, but I have not criticized his books in detail. I have read his entire testimony while serving as an expert witness in the Dover Schools case, and I've read a few online biographies recently to familiarize myself with his career and past work. I appreciate his peer-reviewed material on non-evolution/ID topics, but his testimony for ID in the courtroom, which is consistent with other ID arguments, is what I've criticized, as well as the movement as a whole. I have read numerous articles, texts, and watched videos both for and against ID, as required of my by my university. The criticism of his 3 examples for irreducible complexity are based on peer-reviewed materials.

[zoegirl]

My recommendations stand:

I always encourage my Christian students to understand the tenets of evolution.....I teach it

I would encourage you to be willing to read the actual books

Francis Collins is a theistic evolutionist...wrote The Language of God

C.S. Lewis wrote Mere Christianity

Both are easily found in any library or bookstore.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Part of the problem is that you are taking evolution as one giant theory when in reality it is a combination of several theories. Not everyone takes issue with every part of evolution. To have people researching evolution at universities, then, is merely saying that some portions of evolutionary theory are getting a lot of attention. I have no idea what areas get more researched than others. I don't know if mutation is studied more or less than speciation.

All I know is that there are people of sound mind and studied intellect in the field of biology who take issue with some aspects of evolution. Instead of shutting such people down as 'non-peer reviewed junk pseudo-science religion', it would seem the proper thing to do would be to consider their viewpoints and modify (even heavily) one's own viewpoint if they present a compelling case.

Why "science" gets a free pass on shutting down opposition to some ideas I will never know.

[zoegirl]

I really enjoyed reading that link onthe other thread about science having some metaphysical aspects. We should link it here as well. I think for many people, they don't realize how much invades the idea of science.

[Ivellious]

It's one thing to take issue with an aspect of evolution, but another to say that the hole can only be explained by God, then pretend your idea is scientific. I don't take issue with the criticism. There clearly are areas of evolution without solid evidence or perfect explanations. But that's why researchers work on things like that...There are evolutionary biologists working on those problems. ID proponents just bash evolution's holes without even trying to explain it scientifically. They insert a supernatural being and claim that it is scientific. As a science student I simply take offense at ID trying to remove evolutionary science and replace it with non-science without evidence. I've already presented the problems with ID, and I've received no answer or explanation for any of them. That's why I bash ID...because it's not science and no one has told me anything to the contrary.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Why do you assume that "God" is unscientific?

[Ivellious]

Because science uses evidence and experimentation and observation to draw its conclusions. We can't use God in science because we can't observe him. We can't experiment on him. There is no evidence pointing to it at this point. It's not crazy to say that God must have created science if he created the universe...but that doesn't mean that science should just insert "because God said so" into every problem without a known solution. Nothing progresses that way.

Early scientists realized this, that we don't learn anything just by assuming supernatural intervention and accepting it. Science need not be mutually exclusive with religion, but they should not mix together like ID desires. ID wants science to stop working on the origins of life. It wants to end something that conflicts with the literal biblical account of creation.

[zoegirl]

ID doesn't try to fill in the gaps. You can take issue with IC, but ID is more than simply IC (as someone has already stated)

Check out
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... ience.html

[Proinsias]

Part of the problem is that you are taking evolution as one giant theory when in reality it is a combination of several theories. Not everyone takes issue with every part of evolution. To have people researching evolution at universities, then, is merely saying that some portions of evolutionary theory are getting a lot of attention. I have no idea what areas get more researched than others. I don't know if mutation is studied more or less than speciation.

All I know is that there are people of sound mind and studied intellect in the field of biology who take issue with some aspects of evolution. Instead of shutting such people down as 'non-peer reviewed junk pseudo-science religion', it would seem the proper thing to do would be to consider their viewpoints and modify (even heavily) one's own viewpoint if they present a compelling case.

Why "science" gets a free pass on shutting down opposition to some ideas I will never know.

I'm not sure science does get a free pass in shutting down opposition, it's more that ID isn't really testable and repeatable in the way that evolution is. Granted evolutionary experiments are on a very small scale but they are testable and fairly predictable, what testable predictions does ID make? I'm all for poking holes in evolutionary theory and the ID community is very handy at performing this function, it's just that I don't see they add much to the scientific community besides objections.

I think the reason that many ID'ers are shut down as non-peer reviewed junk pseudo-science is that they can't produce much aside from criticism that will be peer reviewed and peer review is one of the cornerstones of science.

It would seem the proper thing to do would be to consider their viewpoints and if they don't provide a compelling case, dismiss them. Which seems to be the case as far as my education in biology goes.

I don't think anyone is claiming current evolutionary theory is beyond appeal but I think most are claiming ID to be not worth interacting with as it produces little aside from criticism. It's all well and good to look out the window or look down a microscope and declare there is intelligent design apparent but in a scientific sense how does one make use of this insight?

[Ivellious]

You're right, it doesn't fill gaps. It rather sees gaps in evolution, scraps evolution, and replaces everything that evolution says with "Because the designer said so."

Basically, this article says:
No one knows what ID really is, because it is a movement without a defined purpose and no actual definition.
ID does not try to answer all the questions. The most important question, "who is the designer?", is ignored because, unlike all other science, ID admits it utilizes concepts that are "beyond science."
He says there is a ton of evidence...but doesn't even begin to list or describe any of it. He just says "it's there." I've heard that a ton. But no one can show me this evidence, or they just cover up their tracks with "well, it's out there."

[MarcusOfLycia]

If you exclude the supernatural in your presumptions, it is no wonder at all why the supernatural wouldn't be in your conclusions.