ID/Evolution and Michael Behe

[narnia4]

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

Definitely.

I try not to get into these sort of debates (so this will be my only post) because I simply don't see the profit in them, but I find it odd how protective *some* evolutionists are of their theory as if they're defending a religion. Instead I see so many who instantly shut off any criticism and "alternative thinking" as a danger to this paradigm they've created. Isn't the "scientific" thing to do to submit even accepted theories to rigorous testing and criticism and "nitpicking"? I just get tired of the flippancy with which any criticism is written off in some circles, as if they have to put on a big show as if everything has been figured out.

The "us vs. them" dichotomy wasn't just the creation of "crazy fundies", more would be open to it if those who have doubts (and sometimes well-founded) weren't treated with condescension and ridicule.

[Ivellious]

You are sorely mistaken. You are just playing the "poor, persecuted religious movement" card that ID enjoys playing. Science is open to criticism. Evolution has been dealing with it for 150 years. But, to this day, more and more evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution continues to be found, and no alternative scientific hypothesis has been legitimately presented.

We defend evolution vehemently for a number of reasons. Mainly, it's because ID pretends it is a valid scientific idea claiming to have all the answers to evolution's holes. But ID is pseudoscience...it makes the ludicrous demand that science break the aspects that make science what it is to allow a supernatural cop out into the discussion without evidence and without experimentation. Religions defend themselves based on faith. Science is simply defending itself from the assertion that it needs to let Christianity into its fold. Leave the supernatural out of science, lest I begin to argue that astrology and tea leaf reading are far better ways of determining the weather and how traits are passed down from parent to offspring (which, by the way, Behe agreed that ID is on the same level as those "sciences").

ID began the "us vs. them" argument. It claimed that it had the power to usurp 150 years of tests and experiments and research and rigorous challenging by inserting a god into the equation. The argument began with ID trying to push evolution out, and that continues to be the struggle. It's good to have doubts in science, and those scientists ought to study them if they feel it could honestly lead to a breakthrough. Instead, they don't research it and lead a campaign against evolution without even having a valid alternative. Instead of writing books about evolution, maybe ID would get more respect if they simply tried to do the science behind ID itself. Then they might have a legitimate argument next time they talk it out with evolutionary biologists.

[MarcusOfLycia]

But ID is pseudoscience...it makes the ludicrous demand that science break the aspects that make science what it is to allow a supernatural cop out into the discussion without evidence and without experimentation.

Is there any room for the supernatural in your worldview?

[narnia4]

Not playing any cards, just calling it how I see it.

The importance of Marcus' point is very clear here, but as I said I don't intend to continue a futile discussion when one side has made it clear that even considering other positions isn't on the radar or the agenda. It just isn't worth pursuing (for me at least), at least not on this subject.

[Ivellious]

Marcus: Of course! I never really got around to discussing my beliefs and worldview. Just understand that I don't mean to offend anyone here...this is not by any means christianity though. Plus, my view of the world and nature is always changing and evolving (so to speak) as I learn more and get exposed to different things. I'm also going to be pretty vague for the purpose of brevity, so ask if I'm not really clear.

I have a feeling that there is a higher being or power or force in our universe. I don't know what it is, who it is, what it can and cannot do, or exactly what it has done. Maybe there are more than one source of this power, more than one being. I could discuss my worldview at great length, but I'll stick to how it deals with science here.

I think that these forces and/or powers and/or beings could play an integral part in science. Or, they could not. I really don't know, and I highly doubt I'll ever "know," barring this entity opening up the sky and chatting about it with me. I absolutely do not discredit the idea that some power or entity drives science and the laws of nature. For all I know some god set up the universe, the laws of physics, of chemistry, and so on...And maybe that's how we ended up here. Maybe these entities created the universe and set it all in motion and it just so happened that this earth formed and we wound up evolving on it. My point, I guess, is that I don't think I can ever know for a fact what is out there, but I would never discredit it's existence or its impact.

My conflict with science is just that I don't see using a supernatural entity as being useful for science. As far as I know, the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry are rather consistent here on Earth and beyond. Based on that, I very generally assume that any supernatural being is not actively toying with the world as we know it. From that, I assume that using supernatural causation to explain nature is unreliable and pure speculation, without any logical backing. For all I know something out there is behind science, but I don't think it's reasonable scientifically to assume that it "poofed" everything into existence as is, clearly violating everything we know about the universe based on what we can see and feel and test. Hence, I have a problem with most creation stories because they seem to presume that supernatural powers, at one point, commonly and frequently broke their own laws of nature, though we have no evidence outside of ancient texts to back it up.

In short, I claim to know nothing about the supernatural, and so I subscribe to no "mainstream" worldview. I guess that kind of makes me agnostic, because I see validity in parts of almost all faiths. My view is more of a philosophy of accepting that I don't know, and that the biggest questions out there are too deep and complex for me or any other human to fully grasp it. Maybe there is a divine plan, but who am I to try to understand it?

That was awful and hard to follow...I'm sorry, I haven't slept in nearly 48 hours, so my mind is a mess right now haha...maybe I'll try to explain better tomorrow, but for now this is too philosophical and convoluted to explain coherently...

[sandy_mcd]

Behe's treatment at the hands if fellow biologists and his school in denying him tenure based upon a reaction to his religious views and an attempt to reconcile them within his discipline is an example of the groupthink that takes place in the scientific community today.

If he hadn't had tenure, Behe said, it would have been "extremely unlikely" that he could have taken such a contrarian stand and survived in the academic world.

[Ivellious]

So...he does have tenure?

[sandy_mcd]

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".

From my poor understanding of evolution, that does seem to be the case. How life developed is not sufficiently explained. But the fitting of continental boundaries was observed long before a mechanism to explain the match was found.
There are certainly plenty of gaps in science. But how many violate basic laws and can't be explained? How many just need more time ( ) to be modelled?

[sandy_mcd]

So...he does have tenure?

Yep he is a full professor. http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/faculty/index.htm

[Ivellious]

sandy...thanks for the clarification on Behe's status at Lehigh.

Also, the point about "needing more time" is certainly with merit. For instance, some point to gaps in the fossil record, failing to understand that just because we haven't yet uncovered them, it doesn't mean they aren't there. There are discoveries in that particular field all the time, and that doesn't appear likely to change anytime soon. Likewise, as I noted earlier, work is constantly being done across the world to scientifically explain problems in evolution, just like work is being done to clarify and fill holes in chemistry and physics and virology and so on...It's not as though it is impossible to fill those holes just because at this moment in time we don't have the answer. ID proponents might use that explanation as a reason why they don't have the answers...but again, they still don't even have anyone working on it.

[Reactionary]

Zoe: I and all other evolutionary biologists admit that we cannot typically witness macroevolution because of the brief lifespans we have.

I don't think that's a legitimate objection. I'm no biologist, but I'm aware of species (some bacteria, if I recall right), which multiply with a rate so fast that we could, in fact should witness an increase of the amount of information in the genome. We haven't, though.

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.

This is true, but does that make God non-existent? Since humans were the ones who created the standard of what is scientific (observability, repeatability etc.), it's not valid to dismiss something if it doesn't stand up to those standards. We have other methods, such as philosophy, to work with the unobservable. Our mind, for instance, is not observable (though materialists will say it is), but the fact is that we can't measure it or quantify it. There isn't such thing as a kilogram of consciousness.

There is no evidence pointing to it at this point.

Maybe it's time to update the standard of defining "evidence."

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.

But, Christians have never used "because God said so" instead of researching. Some of the most renowned scientists in history were Christians.
http://creation.com/scientists-of-the-p ... ator#early

However, the question posed here is how life arised on Earth. I see three possibilities:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Probability of humans repeating the process
God created life, using powers available only to Him ---------------------- None
God created life, by setting up a series of unlikely events ---------------- Low
Life arised by itself, via natural processes ---------------------------------- High

All attempts to create life so far have failed, in spite of the sophisticated technology. My opinion is, if life is something that can arise by itself and evolve over time, it shouldn't be a problem to repeat it in the lab, where we can simulate the most favourable conditions for life. Now, we could say that we may be missing some key ingredients or knowledge (science-of-the-gaps), but to reject theism completely - especially at this point - because it's "unscientific", would be the same thing you accuse religious people of doing. I would be primarily concerned with what is true. Whether or not someone classifies it as "scientific", is less relevant.

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks for the correction Sandy. I should have checked before repeating something I'd heard and thought a while back.

[jlay]

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.

This is exactly the point of ID, and I am oft confused at why so many have a hard time understanding. Can we experiement, observe and draw conclusions on how information and code are generated today?
The answer is yes. It is generated through minds. Abstract, immaterial concepts can be constructed by minds into physical plans. Over and over and over again we can witness minds generating information and code. Leading us to a valid hypothesis that information and code are the product of a mind.

[sandy_mcd]

Over and over and over again we can witness minds generating information and code. Leading us to a valid hypothesis that information and code are the product of a mind.

Over the years I have seen people start lots of fires; lighting cigarettes, stoves, heaters, bbq's etc. So if a fire starts in the forest, it must have been the product of a human, no?

[sandy_mcd]

I should have checked

You were probably too busy beating someone (or something) over the head with their(its) own arm.