Evidence for God from Science

CLEARLY ncooty does not want to learn. If ID didn't work, why do we have it? Why haven't people like you been able to successfully refute Michael Behe's work? This is why we defend ID, because people of evolution have been kicking all other works in the can and smother it so it never survives again.

You never said anything about #4

Thinker wrote:But ID is built off of SOME evolution proponents, therefore claiming you don't want to discuss evolution would then invalidate discussing ID. If you really are what you claim to be in the areas of study you have, why don't you research these things out for yourself instead of asking US about it, you are a teacher, no? Aren't teachers supposed to study this among others or by themselves and then teach it instead of joining a little forum asking other people about it when they have already made their minds up? Talk to Michael Behe about it, talk to the Discovery Institute. That would be a serious consideration.

Thank you for the suggestions. I have visited the Discovery Institute site (and have cited it here, I believe) and have read one of Mr. Behe's pieces. I wanted to hear some of the different perspectives from ID advocates. I figured advocates would have a lot of rationale and resources, so I came here to ask some basic questions about the topic. One of the problems with assessing ID now is that I can't seem to find any empirical papers on the topic. I can't even know if ID research would fall under my academic purview without knowing the nature of the hypotheses. I wouldn't want to do the research based on my impressions of the hypotheses, only to have ID advocates say I hadn't faithfully represented their position. (By the way, I'm perfectly willing to become an ID advocate; I just want some empirical evidence pursuant to scientific hypotheses before I get onboard.)

Thanks again for the suggestions.

If nothing else, where should I direct my students if they want to read empirical research on ID theory?

Gents, one more personal attack of any type and this thread is locked.

ncooty wrote: As one tiny example, if you find a hominid fossil in the jurassic era (either by radioactive or carbon dating or by location in the geologic strata), that won't fit with current evolutionary theory.

The goelocgical column is a fabrication, and a rock formation that contains a hominid would be definition not be described as jurassic. The rock formation would be "dated" by the fossils it contains. Your disprovable hypothesis is a sham; it's not disprovable at all. Any rock formation containing a hominid would be dated at ~1.5 million years or less by the very hominid fossil.

August,

Thank you so much for your post.

I have a couple of questions:

How do you operationalize (i.e., objectively define) "too complex" for nature to have created without direction?

How do you distinguish between something that appears to have been intelligently designed and something else that does not appear to have been intelligently designed? What would be an example of something that was not intelligently designed?

I have some other questions, but I don't want to bombard you. Thanks again.

By the way, the funny thing is that when my student brought this up on Thursday, several other students made some preliminary attacks on the idea and I was busy defending the idea that these kinds of novel, scientific theories are important to the growth of human knowledge. I was defending ID and the possibility that it has something important to offer. I reviewed the ordeals of Copernicus and Galileo and the dogmatic opposition from the church to their new ideas. I'm not against you guys at all. I have faith in the process.

Jbuza wrote:

ncooty wrote: As one tiny example, if you find a hominid fossil in the jurassic era (either by radioactive or carbon dating or by location in the geologic strata), that won't fit with current evolutionary theory.

The goelocgical column is a fabrication, and a rock formation that contains a hominid would be definition not be described as jurassic. The rock formation would be "dated" by the fossils it contains. Your disprovable hypothesis is a sham; it's not disprovable at all. Any rock formation containing a hominid would be dated at ~1.5 million years or less by the very hominid fossil.

You can radiologically date other elements of the stratum and you can radiologically date the fossil itself. An achronistic dating would be contrary to other findings and incongruent with current evolutionary theory. That is a very simple form of disproof.

It's irrelevant anyway. What is the falsifiable hypothesis of ID that you propose? If we come up with something testable, it'll get published either way and the influence will be profound. I just want to make sure the study is a true representation of ID theory.

Dembski defined it (irreducibly complex, aka, tooo complex) in the article I posted, the one you claimed had logical fallacies-an argument you never supported, except with entry level examples of the logical fallacies you claimed exist.

ncooty wrote:August,

Thank you so much for your post.

I have a couple of questions:

How do you operationalize (i.e., objectively define) "too complex" for nature to have created without direction?

How do you distinguish between something that appears to have been intelligently designed and something else that does not appear to have been intelligently designed? What would be an example of something that was not intelligently designed?

I have some other questions, but I don't want to bombard you. Thanks again.

By the way, the funny thing is that when my student brought this up on Thursday, several other students made some preliminary attacks on the idea and I was busy defending the idea that these kinds of novel, scientific theories are important to the growth of human knowledge. I was defending ID and the possibility that it has something important to offer. I reviewed the ordeals of Copernicus and Galileo and the dogmatic opposition from the church to their new ideas. I'm not against you guys at all. I have faith in the process.

Hi, no worries. I removed it in the meantime because it looked to be too basic for where the discussion was.

Behe describes irreducible complexity as: "By irreducibly complex I mean 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." A further refinement of that (Griffith, 2004), is the concept of "strict irriducability", where any biological system cannot be simplified and still retain the the level of function needed for selective advantage.

Right now, as far as I can determine, which may not be too far, we can distinguish between designed and non-designed in two ways. One, if it is irreducibly complex, then it is designed, and secondly, supporting that, if there is no evolutionary pathway to that system.

As for your other question, what would be an example of something that is not intelligently designed, I don't have a ready-made answer for that. By implication, if we were to say that some things were intelligently designed and others not, then that raises further questions about the nature of the designer, and the mechanisms of ID. Of course, being a Christian, I am not ashamed to admit my bias and say that everything was intelligently designed, but the theory of ID stops short of that.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Dembski defined it (irreducibly complex, aka, tooo complex) in the article I posted, the one you claimed had logical fallacies-an argument you never supported, except with entry level examples of the logical fallacies you claimed exist.

If the definition is not robust against "entry level examples of the logical fallacies", it certainly won't be robust to further scrutiny. In any case, your points have been addressed multiple times now in this thread. I would appreciate it if you would refresh your memory and re-read this thread.

Let me give you a synopsis to bring you up to speed on just a couple of points (this won't substitute for re-reading):

Dembski's definitions are inconsistent within his paper. Moreover, he seems to restrict the definition by structure and function such that a change in either structure or function would constitute a fundamental change in the organism. Thus, he precludes the existence of reducibly complex organisms.

I stated that it seemed to me that Dembski made several untenable assumptions. You see, he argues that a complex structure would require multiple components that each lack utility on their own. Thus, he asserts that if you have a complex structure (such as a flagellum), it had to be brought into existence (i.e., created) all at once. There are at least two assumptions here.

First, there is the assumption that organisms with non-functional genetic mutations can't procreate. (In lieu of guidance from his paper, I will assume that functionality refers to the ability of the organism to procreate. Survival is antecedent to procreation.) If they could, it would be possible for multiple, non-functional mutations to accumulate. Of course, we know that plenty of animals (including human beings) are born with genetic defects that do not prevent them from surviving and procreating. Indeed, many people use such apparent disadvantages as a catalyst for unique coping strategies. (Adversity can breed success.) Thus, the first assumption is invalid.

Second, we must assume that it is impossible that individual mutations were functional to some end and then, by incorporation with other mutations, became functional to a different end.

We must also assume that the functionality of any mutation is apparent to us. I couldn't pretend to come up with every possible way that a mutation would have been useful to some organism 3 billion years ago, so I certainly wouldn't look at some component of an organism and state categorically, as Dembski implies we should, that it absolutely was not useful to an organism back then.

There are a number of other assumptions I find untenable with his definition.

In any case, I fail to see two important things:

1) How any of this constitutes too great a degree of complexity for current theory to explain

and 2) how showing that some other theory is wrong somehow shows that ID is right.

What's an example of something that's reducibly complex?

If the definition is not robust against "entry level examples of the logical fallacies", it certainly won't be robust to further scrutiny. In any case, your points have been addressed multiple times now in this thread. I would appreciate it if you would refresh your memory and re-read this thread.

All you did was quote logical fallacies, you never showed, and I failed to see, how Dembski had fallen into any of them.

I stated that it seemed to me that Dembski made several untenable assumptions. You see, he argues that a complex structure would require multiple components that each lack utility on their own. Thus, he asserts that if you have a complex structure (such as a flagellum), it had to be brought into existence (i.e., created) all at once. There are at least two assumptions here.

No, that is not the definition if irreducibly complex, I doubt he says that, because that's not Behe's definition, and is actually a strawmen used by many people. Show me when he said this, because that would be hilarious-contradicting Behe, the guy behind irrreducible complexity.

First, there is the assumption that organisms with non-functional genetic mutations can't procreate. (In lieu of guidance from his paper, I will assume that functionality refers to the ability of the organism to procreate. Survival is antecedent to procreation.) If they could, it would be possible for multiple, non-functional mutations to accumulate. Of course, we know that plenty of animals (including human beings) are born with genetic defects that do not prevent them from surviving and procreating. Indeed, many people use such apparent disadvantages as a catalyst for unique coping strategies. (Adversity can breed success.) Thus, the first assumption is invalid.

I don't see where he made the assumption that organisms with non-functional genetic mutations can't procreate. I do not think he ever says that, I think you misunderstood something, and I think I know what it is.

Dembski's definitions are inconsistent within his paper. Moreover, he seems to restrict the definition by structure and function such that a change in either structure or function would constitute a fundamental change in the organism. Thus, he precludes the existence of reducibly complex organisms.

I don't see how that's so, since he does say that evolution can explain reducibly complex systems...so I don't see why he'd preclude reducibly complex organisms. Where?

Second, we must assume that it is impossible that individual mutations were functional to some end and then, by incorporation with other mutations, became functional to a different end.

Are you referring to indirect pathways? Explain...

We must also assume that the functionality of any mutation is apparent to us. I couldn't pretend to come up with every possible way that a mutation would have been useful to some organism 3 billion years ago, so I certainly wouldn't look at some component of an organism and state categorically, as Dembski implies we should, that it absolutely was not useful to an organism back then.

I think you've contradicted yourself. When I quoted a few things that could show Intelligent Design to be false, you in fact pointed to the gall bladder, the small toe, and a few other items as (bad) examples...so I think you do in fact believe that function is apparent to us.

1) How any of this constitutes too great a degree of complexity for current theory to explain

Because an irreducibly complex system cannot be built gradually, and natural selection cannot save parts of a future system, because that'd be in fact begging the question.

2) how showing that some other theory is wrong somehow shows that ID is right.

Any theory must show how other theories fall short, obviously.

What's an example of something that's reducibly complex?

(in general?) a city

Just so you know I did read the article, so you can't run circles round me.

If I were the professor I'd fail you and never write you a letter of recommendations.

August wrote:

ncooty wrote:August,

Thank you so much for your post.

I have a couple of questions:

How do you operationalize (i.e., objectively define) "too complex" for nature to have created without direction?

How do you distinguish between something that appears to have been intelligently designed and something else that does not appear to have been intelligently designed? What would be an example of something that was not intelligently designed?

I have some other questions, but I don't want to bombard you. Thanks again.

By the way, the funny thing is that when my student brought this up on Thursday, several other students made some preliminary attacks on the idea and I was busy defending the idea that these kinds of novel, scientific theories are important to the growth of human knowledge. I was defending ID and the possibility that it has something important to offer. I reviewed the ordeals of Copernicus and Galileo and the dogmatic opposition from the church to their new ideas. I'm not against you guys at all. I have faith in the process.

Hi, no worries. I removed it in the meantime because it looked to be too basic for where the discussion was.

I appreciate your confidence, but I still feel like I'm on a basic level. I think I have a ways to go before I get my head all the way around this.

August wrote:Behe describes irreducible complexity as: "By irreducibly complex I mean 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." A further refinement of that (Griffith, 2004), is the concept of "strict irriducability", where any biological system cannot be simplified and still retain the the level of function needed for selective advantage.

I have a few issues here. First, I don't see how the existence of an irreducibly complex system shows that the components did not used to be individually functional. Second, I don't see how non-functional mutations preclude procreation. Third, I would argue that speciation does not require selective advantage, just viability. The mutation survives as long as it does not impede procreation; it doesn't have to improve the probability of procreation.

August wrote:Right now, as far as I can determine, which may not be too far, we can distinguish between designed and non-designed in two ways. One, if it is irreducibly complex, then it is designed, and secondly, supporting that, if there is no evolutionary pathway to that system.

You have taken a definitional sufficiency position on the role of irreducible complexity. What you wrote was that if it is irreducibly complex, then it is designed. This argument is useful for determining inclusivity, but not exclusivity (i.e., for deterimining what is not intelligently designed). A definitional necessity statement would read: If it is designed, then it is irreducibly complex. Would you agree that that is true? If not, your definition isn't really useful in determining what is not intelligently designed. Here's why. If I have an item in front of me and I want to determine whether or not it was designed, what do I do? According to your definition, I should seek to determine if the item meets the criteria of irreducible complexity (which still seems problematic). If it is irreducibly complex, then it is intelligently designed. If it is not irreducibly complex, it doesn't tell me anything (just that the item isn't necessarily intelligently designed). Thus, the definition doesn't help to distinguish between intelligently designed items and items that were not intelligently designed.

Moreover, regarding evolutionary pathways to irreducible complexity, I have just suggested two ways in which genetic mutation can lead to irreducible complexity. 1) Procreation by organisms with mutations that do not impede procreation or survival. Thus, apparently non-functional mutations might amass. The organism might use those amassed mutations (be they 2 or 200) in a novel way, to achieve some novel end (such as fulfilling a new niche). 2) Alternatively, singularly functional mutations might integrate with other singularly functional mutations to perform a novel function. Note that the change in function would explain why the functionality would be considered irreducible. Of course, this still assumes that you and I will perceive every possible use of a genetic mutation, such that we can deem whether or not it is in any way "functional". You might find either or both of these implausible, but given the amount of time and the number of opportunities for cellular mutation, I think even small probabilities (on the iteration level) are substantial overall. In any case, improbable is a long way from impossible.

What's something that has no evolutionary pathway leading to the system? (Again, this seems to state a dichotomous decision implicitly: either evolution can explain it or ID must be right. I would argue that this is a false dichotomy. Moreover, I don't understand why we keep getting dragged back into a reliance on falsification of evolutionary theory as a way to support ID.)

August wrote:As for your other question, what would be an example of something that is not intelligently designed, I don't have a ready-made answer for that. By implication, if we were to say that some things were intelligently designed and others not, then that raises further questions about the nature of the designer, and the mechanisms of ID. Of course, being a Christian, I am not ashamed to admit my bias and say that everything was intelligently designed, but the theory of ID stops short of that.

It seems to me that there are two options: either everything is intelligently designed or not everything is intelligently designed. So far, it seems that the shaky concept of irreducible complexity is the basis for determination of design. If I survive a haircut, I would suppose that would mean I was reducibly complex, and thus, not necessarily intelligently designed. (KMart and Thinker probably already think I'm not intelligently designed. ) If people aren't intelligently designed, what is? Thus, I doubt irreducible complexity is the best basis for intelligent design.

I think that's as far as I can go without a better understanding of the definition. It would help me to know if irreducible complexity is a necessary or sufficient component of intelligent design. If it is sufficient, what other sufficient components are there? (I still don't understand the "lack of an evolutionary pathway" statement, which I still see as presumptuous of a dichotomy.) I really want to flesh this out so we can discuss this in depth in class and really give ID the credit and representation it deserves.

Thanks.

I was reading some other articles and commentary on ID and I've noticed something that seems central to the disagreements between ID and some alternatives: the distinction between structure and function.

It seems to me that in order to say that something is intelligently designed, an observer must determine that a thing has specified complexity. Specification necessitates an inference about functionality. In one example, Dembski uses the example of a three-legged stool to explain the concept of irreducible complexity. If you remove a leg, it no longer functions as a stool. Of course, what he fails to recognize is that it is he who has made the functional specification. I might see it as something used to break a window in case of a fire, in which case, a three-legged stool is reducibly complex, because a two-legged stool could still break a window. My use of an inanimate object is also analogous to my use of any organic subsystem. Dembski would seek to define a flagellum or a wrench by what it accomplishes. The problem is that those functional definitions are perceptually based. I can use a wrench as a hammer without changing the item at all. Thus, some components that were necessary for the item to work as a wrench are not necessary for the item to work as a hammer. As such, it is my subjective impression of the purpose of the item that determines whether or not the item is irreducibly complex. Hence, irreducible complexity is a subjective perception that is not a property of the item. In other words, specified complexity has no meaning without someone to assert the function for which the item is supposed to be used. Functionality is in the eye of the beholder. As I have stated previously, it is a perception, not a percept. There is an entire body of psychological research on this topic. You can research it for yourself under the term "affordances".

From page 12 of the Dembski article here (http://www.designinference.com/document ... isited.pdf):

"...we might imagine that in the evolution of the heart its function was initially to make loud thumping sounds to ward off predators, and only later did it take on the function of pumping blood."

He is describing a structure (which could be described objectively) with its apparent (to him) function (which is subjective). The problem is that mutation-based evolution isn't goal-directed. Structures are made; that's it. Functions are a matter of interpretation. A rock might make a poor hammer, but a good skipping stone. The rock didn't change based on my interpretation of its function.

I'm beginning to see some very broad social themes that I hadn't seen before related to the use of teleological argumentation without an understanding of the shortcomings of teleology.

First paragraph reminds me of Miller's strawman (one of many) (first name wasn't Stanely, started with a K...I think). Don't have anything about that, so can't really respond...though I can say that is a problem with arguing through analogies...you'll argue using the points of the item that go for you...but your opponent goes with the other end of the stick...kinda like the saying:

"Men are like a fine wine. They all start out like grapes, and it's our job to stomp on them and keep them in the dark until they mature into something you'd like to have dinner with."

I can see the point being driven home...but then you'd take the other end and say well, no, men aren't grapes or any other main ingredient used to make wine (thus ruining the joke).

He is describing a structure (which could be described objectively) with its apparent (to him) function (which is subjective). The problem is that mutation-based evolution isn't goal-directed. Structures are made; that's it. Functions are a matter of interpretation. A rock might make a poor hammer, but a good skipping stone. The rock didn't change based on my interpretation of its function.

aahh, Dembski said at the beginning that evolution isn't goal-directed-that's why it cannot create irreducibly complex systems.