Evidence for God from Science

This is kind of a pick up of a discussion started on another thread that got off topic, but was still interesting. The beginning of the conversation can be found on the first page of the "My dad's argument and my sister's stress?" thread started by Dallas. Basically it was a discussion on ID and evolution, specifically in regards to Michael Behe's work.


I never wanted to discredit Behe as a scholar and scientist. When I said he never published peer-reviewed material on ID or on debunking evolution, I mean all (or at least all I could find) of his peer-reviewed work is on separate areas of biology and biochemistry, such as his work on sickle-cell. So basically, just because he wrote a book doesn't mean much scientifically. I did find several not-so-kind reviews of his books from biologists in his field. I'm sure some agree, but an astounding proportion of biologists do not agree with ID as science for a number of reasons.

Irreducible complexity has been shot down on a number of occasions, most notably in the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Behe was the primary witness/expert for the defense, arguing against evolution using irreducible complexity and also trying to support ID as a legitimate science. Behe failed miserably on both counts in this case.

Case in point, the flagellum, one of the key aspects of Behe's case. Here's a neat video that sums it up with pictures and a description of research done in 2003 on the subject of how it could have evolved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

The gist of the argument against irreducible complexity is this: just because you remove the current pieces of the biological "machine" doesn't mean that it is irreducibly complex. The parts were not always used for the same purpose as they are now. It's not like evolution worked it's way like an assembly line that built the car, and it had to get every step along the way right or else it wouldn't function; rather, each step along the way served a new, useful function. The first building block did one thing that helped the cell more than not having this piece. The next piece improved that function. The next piece improved it further. Eventually you reach the modern flagellum, built through numerous intermediates that worked properly each step of the way.

The best example might be your engine: We have constantly been improving on the engine since it was initially built, adding parts and functions to improve the engine along the way. Each step of the way, that engine works. But, adding the next part or replacing a part with a better one improves that function, and thus, in nature that new, better functioning "engine" would be selected for. Now, if you take the modern day engine and remove a part that was added to the general engine design 10 years ago, it might not work. But that doesn't mean the intermediates including that part weren't functional.

more to come...

The problem with arguing that macroevolution and homology and so on are "thought experiments" is not really accurate. We can actually test and experiment on the methods and processes by which macroevolution take place. No, we cannot actually see macroevolution, but we can demonstrate that the process of natural selection works. You can also try to make experiments to disprove these concepts. But as far as Behe and ID go, their only arguments are non-testable ideas and arguments trying to disprove evolution.

When I say there is no actual published research on ID, I don't mean that there is nothing on the flagellum or anything. But no one has been able to actually, directly, and scientifically support ID in a peer-reviewed publication. Behe included in that. Part of the reason that ID is not scientific is because you simply cannot research it properly...there is no experimentation, no ability to expand the field, no way to disprove it, and no way of actually defining it. Behe admitted this in his testimony for the Dover case. He said it was a "fringe science" with little acceptance in the scientific community and that for ID to become part of the scientific community, science would have to broaden to an area that also embraced astrology. If that sounds like real science, then we're in trouble.

It should be pointed out that while Behe has used some other scientists' research to support his ID campaign, not even the scientists he takes research from agree with him. Russell Doolittle, whose work is used in Darwin's Black Box, actually spent some time utterly refuting that the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex in response to Behe's claims. Another example of irreducible complexity's "father" grasping at straws to find examples that people inevitably shoot down.

I'm gonna stop ranting for a bit now, so anyone who wants to comment on Michael Behe or ID's legitimacy feel free.

Kinda busy atm (watching cricket ) so will respond later tonight in full.

In short though, you really need to do some homework surrounding ID.

In the Kitzmiller trial for example, the judge ignored testimony and misrepresented Behe's own words in his judgement!
ID is only "not science" only when it suits certain evolutionists like Dawkins -- for example Dawkins himself admits that one could investigate whether or not life was either the result of a random process; or intelligent agent such as in directed panspermia. Such deliberate contradictions from leading critics of ID reveal just how much ideology and philosophy have been integrated within the evolutionary mindset.

Well, as a biology (specifically biochemistry and genetics) student at a major university here in the US, I disagree with your point. We did learn a ton about ID when discussing evolution in the required "Foundations of Biology" course for biology majors.

The biggest points against ID that I've come across are:
1) Arguments made by proponents of ID are always presented as attacks on evolution, and their conclusion being "because of this hole in evolution, ID is obviously correct." As stated repeatedly in courts and scientific talk, lack of evidence for evolution is not evidence for ID. Behe is best at this, his arguments in his books are obviously just attacks on evolution...which is fine until he inevitably says "so obviously there must have been a designer."
2) ID continues to not present a full, detailed, tested, testable, coherent, and scientific model to compete with evolution. It is a vague concept that even ID supporters don't agree with in terms of its details and ideas. Until then, ID is where it belongs in science...in the rabble of speculation without reasoning, on the same level of sting theory currently.
3) Kind of tied in with 2, ID has not presented a single experiment to test its concepts. All experiments presented in the court cases regarding ID weren't actually experiments for ID, but rather experiments testing evolution. See 1.
4) ID is modern day pseudo-science laced with creationism. That has been extensively debated, but when you start trying to force science to recognize the supernatural and the unseen, then you are treading on pseudo-science. Some say evolution is just religion too, but at least evolution didn't ask the entire scientific community to change its rules to fit their speculative ideas.

Respond at your leisure...it's 5 AM here so it's not like I'm busy lol

Although I'm not a proponent of I'D as a popular movement I think 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. He had independent peer reviewed material, as you noted outside of this and is a competent biologist. This is an example of the science community punishing differing points of view which sadly then in the end hinders the progress of the field.

I honestly have no clue about his standing at Lehigh University...I mean, if he was denied tenure solely for his religious belief, then yeah, that would be awful. but isn't Lehigh a religious institution? I might be wrong on that, but that seems somewhat unlikely if he works at a school that advocates his belief system. The only non-academic reason I could give for the school to not give him tenure would be maybe too much negative notoriety among academics or possibly his affiliation with the Discovery Institute (which I know some colleges seriously look down on, with good reason). But again, I'm not on the selection board, so I'll try not to judge him or the school on that topic.

Ivellious wrote:The best example might be your engine: We have constantly been improving on the engine since it was initially built, adding parts and functions to improve the engine along the way. Each step of the way, that engine works. But, adding the next part or replacing a part with a better one improves that function, and thus, in nature that new, better functioning "engine" would be selected for. Now, if you take the modern day engine and remove a part that was added to the general engine design 10 years ago, it might not work. But that doesn't mean the intermediates including that part weren't functional.

The most basic engine requires a number of different parts all working together. No one is denying that small changes occur to a fully finished 'engine'. But getting an engine in the first place requires small changes that provide no benefit and maybe even waste space/time/energy of the system slowly 'evolving' an engine.

I'll admit the engine wasn't a perfect example (it was 3 AM haha) but my point is still there. Behe has presented 3 big examples of irreducible complexity as arguments for ID.

The flagellum has been dealt with in court and in scientific journals. There is a clear, traceable pathway that each protein or set of proteins can be added in sequence, each providing a new and improved function for the bacteria, leading up to the current flagellum.

He's referenced the idea that no scientist has ever found an answer to how our immune system could have evolved. He went on trial stating that there was no peer reviewed material on the subject. In the Kitzmiller case he was presented with a stack of peer-reviewed articles and entire textbooks dedicated to the subject, so he was just lying on that point.

He's also used the example of how organisms can cause blood clots to stop bleeding (a vital function for all animals), and how it requires a system of numerous proteins that are not functional without a single one of them (basically the car example). Russell Doolittle proved that statement wrong with the pufferfish, which lack some of the proteins of that system, but still can clot its blood. That system can function, if less efficiently, without some of those proteins.

Irreducible complexity indeed has been refuted on all these fronts that Behe has commonly presented.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Ivellious wrote:The best example might be your engine: We have constantly been improving on the engine since it was initially built, adding parts and functions to improve the engine along the way. Each step of the way, that engine works. But, adding the next part or replacing a part with a better one improves that function, and thus, in nature that new, better functioning "engine" would be selected for. Now, if you take the modern day engine and remove a part that was added to the general engine design 10 years ago, it might not work. But that doesn't mean the intermediates including that part weren't functional.

The most basic engine requires a number of different parts all working together. No one is denying that small changes occur to a fully finished 'engine'. But getting an engine in the first place requires small changes that provide no benefit and maybe even waste space/time/energy of the system slowly 'evolving' an engine.

The counter-argument is that the different parts did in fact have different purposes, albeit not as part of a flagellum. How natural selection is smart enough to take parts functioning distinctly and independently for different purposes, and assemble them into a single unit with an entirely different purpose, is beyond me (and most scientists I would venture to guess) but there it is.

It's not necessarily true that natural selection is "thinking" about it...that would imply that natural selection is a designer (hehe...).

The video I posted earlier goes into the explanation of the flagellum quite well. To summarize, in semi-technical terms:
We begin with a basic protein channel that lets other proteins made inside the cell through the cell membrane (to outside the cell).
Another protein integrates into the protein already in place to make the channel selective (only certain proteins can pass through).
Another protein/set of proteins is added to promote active transport of proteins through the cell membrane.
Another protein added to secrete the proteins to the outside of the cell.
A secreted protein gets trapped or sticks to the outer portion of the protein system in place...more of these adhesive proteins stick together to form the early stages of a "tail"
A longer tail allows more chances for the "tail" to attach itself to a substrate. Ability to wiggle back and forth and spin help this function as well (those functions added by new proteins in the mechanism)
Eventually, these advances in the "tail" allow a new form of movement for the cell. It allows for faster and more agile movement than before.

So that's the short version, though the video is more specific and technical. But the process makes sense biologically. Each step imparts new and improved function, as selected for by natural selection.

Irreducible complexity has been shot down on a number of occasions, most notably in the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

A biology student saying that science is determined in the court room. Now, if that doesn't make you want to run for the hills, then I don't know what would.
I never new that courts determined facts, or were part of the peer review system. This is very enlightening. I'm certain that science has a bright future.

Regarding ID,
IC is one of many issues that is covered, but not the primary focus of ID. ID deals with how information and code are generated. Do we have testable, observable and repeatable methods by which information and code come into being. And can we then infer how genetic code came into being.

The video I posted earlier goes into the explanation of the flagellum quite well. To summarize, in semi-technical terms:
-We begin with a basic protein channel that lets other proteins made inside the cell through the cell membrane (to outside the cell). (How is the protein programmed to permit this process.) Also, has it been observed, tested and repeated. Or, is it speculative?
-Another protein integrates into the protein already in place to make the channel selective (only certain proteins can pass through). (Observed? Link to peer review study of tests and observations)
-Another protein/set of proteins is added to promote active transport of proteins through the cell membrane. (Why is the promotion of active transport selected? What determined the right set of proteins to add. Has this been observed and repeated, and if so link to peer reveiew studies?)
-Another protein added to secrete the proteins to the outside of the cell. (What determined their addition? Tested? Observed? Repeated? Link to per review?)
-A secreted protein gets trapped or sticks to the outer portion of the protein system in place...more of these adhesive proteins stick together to form the early stages of a "tail" (What programmed the protein to stick, and to stick to the outer portion? Tested? Observed? Repeated? Link to peer review)
-A longer tail allows more chances for the "tail" to attach itself to a substrate. Ability to wiggle back and forth and spin help this function as well (those functions added by new proteins in the mechanism)

Mechanism implies design, yet you are saying this is all unguided, and not designed. Even though you can't account for any of these processes above such as proteins adhering, trapped, transport, etc.,

The process only makes sense because it doesn't have to account for these. whic, I hope you realize is not science. Speculation is not testable, observable or repeatable.

I never said science was determined as fact in the courtroom. I was only pointing to a notable instance where irreducible complexity was presented, experts in biology debunked the argument, and the ID proponents who presented it (Michael Behe) had no answer.

I would watch the video if you want the more scientific version of my summary. The video is based on the peer-reviewed work of Nicholas Matzke, and is essentially the argument he used to tear down the idea that the flagellum is "too complex" to have evolved from incremental additions.

Mechanism does not imply design...it's just another word for a repeated process. I deal with "mechanisms" in chemistry all the time. It can imply design, in this case it just means that the proteins eventually work in sync for a certain purpose. Some ID pushers will say that every mechanism is just too complex to not have been designed, but there is no such evidence for that either...

Just because I gave you the shortened version of the process doesn't mean I can't tell you how proteins stick together or how they regulate protein movement through the cell membrane...but that's all just basic cellular biology. I could copy whole chapters out of my bio textbook across the room for me, but that would be a waste of time. The process makes sense because all the science going into it makes sense.

For example, it makes sense that active transport is favored, because then a protein channel can then facilitate transport (actively taking and moving the proteins using ATP), as opposed to passive transport, where the channel has to wait for the protein to float by and for the concentration gradient to be in its favor. The protein channel becomes more efficient, thus that trait is selected for.

As for the peer reviewed details, if you really want to dig into it: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
On this page, under the "2006 update" section there are titles and citations for two peer-reviewed articles that sum up the points presented in the video nicely imo.

Ivellius,

There is also something akin to 'God of the gaps" and that is "science of the gaps". Often, if you listen to the language used in evolution, the phrase "over time" or "over generations" is used over and over. There are observable parts of evolution, often termed microevolution, or population genetics, that absolutely can be tested and has been observed many, many, times. Very, very few Christians object to this and have no problem with selection seen in microevolution.

But here is the rub...when it comes to thing that have occurred over time, this also, at the heart of the matter, becomes speculative. We hypothesize that mutations are the driving cause of variation, as well as recombination/chromosomal fusion, but we must accept that we do not know whether "this" or "that" happened because of mutations. Everything becomes a matter of "well, it's just a matter of time". We *think* mutations can happen often enough to provide ths variability, but we don't know....in the end we still resort to "it just did"...

Even taking the model for IC mechanisms of the bacterial flagellum, you have statements like "this could have mutated" and "then this could have happened"...which is still a speculation. We as yet have not been able to test the ability or flexibility of mutations to provide the type of evolution required for those processes.

That was the purpose of Behe's second book "The Edge of Evolution", it looks at mutations and the boundary between what has been observed and what has actually happened to "what potentially could happen".

May I suggest that just as you are asking us to watch the movies, that you would consider reading not only Behe's book (I recommend Edge of Evolution) but also a Christian apologetics book? Seems only fair..... I would recommend both Francis COllins "The Language of God" as well as "Mere Christianity" for starters.

Sorry to add this since this is slightly off topic but because you are new and have been posting alot here in the past couple of days, I was wondering Ivellius, are you that one atheist dude on youtube who was bashing this website? I had thread on here a few months ago about that guy and many of the regulars here were trying to get that guy to come here and share his stuff and was just wondering if you are him. Just curious.

cubeus19: Nope. For one, I'm not an atheist (I've said that before). My religious views aren't really "mainstream" so to speak, but I'm not an atheist either. Two, I have no clue what you are talking about as far as some guy bashing the site. I have a youtube account, but I don't do much with it except subscribe to a handful of mostly humorous channels. I don't make videos or go trolling on people's videos personally, I think that's kind of a waste of time. To clarify my slightly ridiculous activity on this site, it's winter break for my college and I'm left with little to do but watch sports and documentaries...and spend too much time on the internet haha.