Proinsias wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Proinsias wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?
Not that I'm aware of.
Ok, that's what Behe defines as an "irreducibly complex" system.
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the idea myself.
Have you read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box?
I've not read Darwin's Black Box but I have read quite a few articles by Behe and made it a least part way through many a youtube clip, I've been familiar with his ideas for quite a while. The above quote is pretty inoffensive, I can see the logic. If you remove an integral part of the system the system ceases to function as expected. It's the marriage of the above quote with the phrase 'irreducible complexity' that is unwarranted in my opinion. That things stop working as they were when we take them apart isn't controversial,
claiming it as scientific proof of an unspecified intelligent agent(s) seeding/manipulating living systems worthy of being included in science textbooks is where he ends up disagreeing with myself, his employers and the courts.
Thanks Proin for being respectful and honest.
If you're on Kindle I can lend you a copy of the book if you like?
You can read his ideas first hand for yourself, rather than seeing through the veil and fog of others (creationists and atheists alike).
Really, I don't think it'd be an onus read for a fair minded person. It's definitely not a Christian apologetic book.
You may reject some personal beliefs, but in general the ideas are quite neutral -- except in the aftermath that unfolded where they're magnified 1000x.
Based upon my memory (as it's been a while since I read the book), I felt that Behe was actually wanting to stir the scientific community to take things to the next level and put forward stronger ideas as to how these "irreducibly complex" systems came to be.
Instead people and both sides latched onto the he's saying "God did it" rather than the more neutral claim of, "no, we just seeing signs that look an awfully lot like true design rather than apparent design as Darwin once thought when he wasn't able to see the cellular levels." (hence "Darwin's Black Box" -- you see the black box but don't really know what's on the inside)
Understand, the underlying assumption is that is something in the natural world is "truly designed" rather than just displaying "apparent design" then such will display high levels of complex and specified information. This too seems rather neutral. Until one steers from say crime scene investigation and applies such to biological systems and people started getting their knickers into a knot.
I may need to give it another read myself. As many things said aren't what I remember Behe saying, but things have become so twisted in the aftermath that unfolded in the Naturalist vs Creationist debates. For example, your words I bolded I believe carry many misconceptions thanks to such aftermath. People who lips curl over in debates and just blow smoke and wind (both sides). Let me target each point:
- Proin: claiming it as scientific proof of an unspecified intelligent agent(s) seeding/manipulating living systems worthy of being included in science textbooks is where he ends up disagreeing with myself, his employers and the courts.
1) "Scientific proof of an unspecified intelligent agent(s)" needs unpacking and there is something misleading here.
It's not claimed as "scientific proof" necessarily. Rather science is being performed to try and see "signs" one would attribute to "intelligent design" rather than just the "apparent design" of say Darwinian evolution with natural selection acting on random mutations.
Behe put forward "irreducible complexity" as a sign that we would expect of truly intelligent design.
Similar to Darwin simply providing a natural explanation for apparent design.
Behe is not proving an unspecified intelligence actually designed the system.
Just like Darwin did not prove the natural processes actually designed something (he just suggested the idea).
How do we test Darwin's idea? Well, if we find in the natural world processes that lead to "design" then such design is just apparent rather than intelligent. It still could actually be designed in the beginning to unfold a certain way (i.e., Theistic Evolution). So even then the apparent design would be true design even if natural processes lead to life diversifying. Right?
How do we test Behe's idea? Well, we first have to agree as to what "signs" would likely be caused by intelligence. Behe puts forward "irreducible complexity" as one such sign of true design. So how do we now test? Well, we look for systems that appear to be irreducible. That can't be easily reverse engineered. This is therefore scientific proof for an irreducibly complex system, and then in turn a sign of intelligence. But, it does not prove that a system is intelligently designed, it's just a sign of such.
So, now hopefully it can be seen how when lips are curling over in heated debates and both sides are going at it, invoking
ad hominems and setting up strawman arguments, that phrases get tossed around which kind of make sense, but are actually quite misleading.
- Side Note: What of marriaging such with the phrase "irreducible complexity"?
By that Behe simply means if you backward engineer and something stops works then such is irreducible. Seems common sense.
The term is only wrong if Behe claims that such could not be caused by nature. But, he's not claiming that at all by such a term.
He's not claiming something irreducibly complex means God did it. Only that such is a "sign" of true design rather than apparent design.
Do you see the difference? And the misconception here over what is intended by "irreducibly complex" is just the smoke and wind of stupid people debating and clouding the issue.
Now Behe does mean more, namely that a system which is irreducibly complex could not have happened via a gradual natural process in pure Darwinian form.
And there are some partially valid arguments I feel against this, like perhaps there was some other function, or perhaps there was a previous system where "junk-like" features didn't serve much purpose but then become crucial in the next evolutionary step. Right? But, this is what Behe wants the scientific community to do. They've just sat of the laurels of Darwin for far too long and are missing the molecular levels are displaying far more levels of sophistication than Darwin was ever aware to, when he proposes his idea of how nature could account for apparent design via natural selection.
So again, nothing controversial, until you take all this to popular media and get torn to shreds over what many see at the ToE (Darwinian evolution and natural selection without any modern synthesis). Just like Eldredge and Gould proposing their punctuated equilibria. The only difference is that Behe's personal beliefs involve God as ultimate creator, so there's more to latch onto in the "tabloids". Eldredge and Gould were still Naturalists, but if they were otherwise then they too would have likely been similarly ostracised.
2) What about an "unspecified intelligent agent"?
Well, since Behe is Christian obviously Behe's belief that God is the designer. So?
The science Behe is doing is looking for signs of what he terms "irreducible complexity".
These signs further point to the hypothesis of true design, rather than natural design.
As you yourself said, there is nothing controversial about looking for systems that exhibit Behe's "irreducible complexity".
Looking at such signs says nothing about the designer.
Creationism, on the other hand, does claim to know the designer.
Behe obviously would believe God to be the creator, even Jesus.
So in the heated debates that followed people just mixed his beliefs all together. Why not?
Behe's beliefs regarding irreducible complexity and his personal beliefs regard God.
The two get conflated together, which I think is unfair and wrong.
Such leads to distortions and I can see the distinctive boundaries between the two as I hope I've been able to here show.
3) "included in textbooks" and "courts"
You'll need to provide references on that one.
Certainly, I know the Dover one was definitely Creationists blowing their own smoke and wind.
But, those behind Intelligent Design were then dragged in.
You do know a statement was released before any court case that it should not be taught in schools?
And that ID should not be taught in science. Because it was their own ideas, quite new and lacked development.
So injecting it into the classroom would be premature at best and lead to distortions by teachers.
(distortions that appeared to have happened anyway
)
