Page 11 of 11
Re: questions for science( let's hear your answers)
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:51 am
by Canuckster1127
Do you have a source or reference for your representation of Behe and Dembski's reported claims?
Re: questions for science( let's hear your answers)
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:31 am
by Gman
Kurieuo wrote:Scientific investigations are neutral to both theism and philosophical naturalism (positive atheism). However, an atheist's philosophical naturalistic conclusions may be more easily smuggled into science clouding true scientific inquiry with atheistic personal opinion and bias. So where true ID proponents are criticised for not stating the designer (a philosophical and even theological affair), those who adhere to philosophical naturalism often don't even get an eyebrow raised when they do mix their atheistic philosophy with scientific practice. Both sides are wrong to mix their personal beliefs with scientific investigation and call it science.
Yes, I would agree with this as well.. Strictly speaking ID is not religion or Christianity, and strictly speaking Darwinism is not atheism either. But a lot of this appears to be the argument that is going on between the two. There are simply two opposing worldviews, two opposing explanations, two opposing interpretations of reality here... It's practically philosophy vs philosophy.
Sometimes it takes someone from the commonwealth realm to get our English straight on subjects like this...
Re: questions for science( let's hear your answers)
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:08 am
by IgoFan
Canuckster1127 wrote:Do you have a source or reference for your representation of Behe and Dembski's reported claims?
You'd have to read Dembski's
No Free Lunch for the gory math details. Here's some of his summary statements:
William Dembski wrote:
http://www.discovery.org/a/1364:
Bottom line: Calculate the probability of getting a flagellum by stochastic (and that includes Darwinian) means any way you like, but do calculate it. All such calculations to date have fallen well below my universal probability bound of 10^(-150).
If I'm right and the probabilities really are horrendous, then the bacterial flagellum exhibits specified complexity. Furthermore, if specified complexity is a reliable marker of intelligent agency, then systems like the bacterial flagellum bespeak intelligent design and are not solely the effect of material mechanisms.
For Behe's details, read his
Darwin's Black Box. Here's some of his summary statements:
Michael Behe wrote:
http://www.discovery.org/a/54:
To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity. Rather, they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed; the designer took steps to bring the systems about. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=3218:
On December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2853:
Whenever we see these complex functional systems we realize that they have to be designed.
These statements are not merely their personal opinion extrapolations to ID theory. The top two ID theorists say that ID shows the existence of a designer. I wonder if that has anything to do with the theory's name being
Intelligent Design?
Re: questions for science( let's hear your answers)
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:25 am
by Kurieuo
IgoFan wrote:IgoFan wrote:
Both Behe and Dembski, not me, have published calculations indicating that natural causes for IC have a vanishingly small probability, i.e., an intelligent cause is almost certain.
So your characterization of ID's intelligent cause merely being more probable spectacularly misrepresents the two leading ID theorists, whose probability results look more like 99.999...%.
Kurieuo wrote:
Do you agree that such probability is 99.999...%?
Not me, that's what Behe and Dembski say.
Mmm. So you believe an intelligent cause is not the most probable scenario. How certain of this are you?
IgoFan wrote:Kurieuo wrote:
Are they not entitled to their personal opinions and judgments as to where they see certain intricate features of life point; whether such features can be reasonably explained naturally by necessity or chance, or have an appearance of being designed? I do not see anything wrong with personal opinions, even preferences.
I'm talking about Behe and Dembski's scientific calculations, not their personal opinions or preferences, and not what other scientists' unjustified opinions may be. Those probability calculations all but eliminate natural causes. So unless you're discrediting Behe and Dembski as ID representatives, the almost certain existence of an intelligent cause follows from their near 100% probability calculations that certain features of the natural world could have no natural causes. Correct?
No. You are indeed mixing in their personal opinions and inferences as to the best conclusion given what they see in biochemistry. You are not just talking about their science, but also their personal opinions.
Beliefs have a "certainty" quality to them otherwise they would not comprise our beliefs. I think you are confusing the certainty of personal judgment, in this case Behe's and Dembski's opinions that specific features in biological systems (irreducible complexity and specified complexity respectively) point to an intelligent designer (which being Christian they would surely believe to be God), with their scientific inquiry of examining chemical processes in life and looking for such features.
Re: questions for science( let's hear your answers)
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:59 pm
by waynepii
IgoFan wrote:http://www.discovery.org/a/1364:
Bottom line: Calculate the probability of getting a flagellum by stochastic (and that includes Darwinian) means any way you like, but do calculate it. All such calculations to date have fallen well below my universal probability bound of 10^(-150).
If I'm right and the probabilities really are horrendous, then the bacterial flagellum exhibits specified complexity. Furthermore, if specified complexity is a reliable marker of intelligent agency, then systems like the bacterial flagellum bespeak intelligent design and are not solely the effect of material mechanisms.
I assume his calculation is the probability of a flagellum being produced from scratch. There are structures in other organisms that are quite similar to flagella, but lacking a few parts, and serving a completely different function. From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella ...
The bacterial flagellum
An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system.
All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. It is also a possibility that the flagellum could have evolved from a currently undiscovered system with similar flagellar traits or a currently extinct organelle/organism.[citation needed] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system