The ID Game
Frank J
one audience member. The goal is to get the audience on your side.
The game is played by answering - or avoiding - the following
questions:
1: Is life intelligently designed?
The choices are Yes, No, and I Don't Know. Regardless of the answer,
the questions that follow are the same, and contrary to common
misconceptions, the answers need not depend on the answer to Question 1
either.
Questions 2 to 4 include many specific follow on questions, which
answer the "parent" question in ever-increasing detail. They are:
2: How long has life existed on earth, and how long ago did certain
major events, such as the beginning of the Cambrian period, occur?
3: Is life related in a phylogenetic tree? Specific questions include
such ones as "Are humans related to dogs? dogwoods?"
4: By what mechanism(s) do species originate? Specific questions
include such ones as "Did past species originate by the same general
mechanisms that have been determined for those speciation events that
have been observed directly, or were other mechanisms involved, and if
so what are they and how can they be tested?"
The strategy for the ID critic is to move past Question 1, which
science can't answer anyway, and get the audience to learn as much as
possible about Questions 2 to 4. Extra points are earned if he can get
the ID advocate to state his alternative answers to Questions 2 to 4,
and how to test them, without referring to Question 1 or to any
incompleteness in current explanations. Note: no ID critic has ever
earned those points to date, but points can still be earned if the ID
critic gets the ID advocate to show clear signs of evasion.
The strategy for the ID advocate is to avoid Questions 2 and 3 at all
costs, and, whenever Questions 4 is addressed, to take the ID
critic's answers out of context and lure the audience back to
Question 1. Extra points are earned if he can lure the ID critic back
to Question 1 too, or if he can get the ID critic to call him a
"creationist" before he proposes any alternatives for Questions 2
to 4. Another trick is to vaguely suggest that incompleteness or
disagreement in mainstream science's answers to Question 4 implies an
alternative answer to Questions 2 and 3, and a "Yes" answer to
Question 1. This is often easy because most audiences are predisposed
to think that way.
Can you think of more strategies that will help the ID critic? The ID
advocate?
mutated...@web.com
>Can you think of more strategies that will help the ID critic? The ID advocate?
Well, yes I can. Man has not yet visited the far off planets in other
galaxies where positive proof exists of Divine Intervention. As soon
as we are able to replicate Star Trek technology**, we'll see that the
red-spotted zassafrage of Gropuls VI could not have evolved the
appendage it uses as a remote control to change television channels.
It'll all be obvious after we've taken the Tricorder readings.
**I don't mean the stagehands behind the sceens who opened the sliding
doors everytime there was that zoosh sound.
Muty
Frank J
You don't say who the strategy helps. But it sounds like it is stuck in
question 1, and feeds the misconception that design means "could not
have evolved." So even though there is no evidence of Divine
Intervention, it helps the ID advocate if anything. They get plenty of
mileage with their SETI analogy, despite the fact that SETI has yet to
produce a shred of evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
My point is this is the ID game, not the science game. Classic
creationists tried to play the science game and lost, because they made
extraordinary claims - the "what happened and when" part - and never
bothered to supply the evidence, extraordinary or otherwise. So IDers
decided wisely not to play the science game. But they sure have fooled
the public with their game. But there's no reason they can't lose that
too.
mutated...@web.com
obviously useless strategy to help the ID'ers. Next time, I'll
surround it with somthing like this:
SATIRE WARNING
THE FOLLOWING LINES BETWEEN THIS ONE AND THE ONE THAT SAYS 'END OF
SATIRE' WILL CONTAIN SATIRE. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THESE LINES.
S::::::: Well, yes I can. Man has not yet visited the far off planets
in other
S::::::: galaxies where positive proof exists of Divine Intervention.
As soon
S::::::: as we are able to replicate Star Trek technology**, we'll see
that the
S::::::: red-spotted zassafrage of Gropuls VI could not have evolved
the
S::::::: appendage it uses as a remote control to change television
channels.
S::::::: It'll all be obvious after we've taken the Tricorder readings.
S:::::::
S::::::: **I don't mean the stagehands behind the sceens who opened the
sliding
S::::::: doors everytime there was that zoosh sound.
END OF SATIRE
NO, REALLY. THIS IS THE END OF THE SATIRICAL BIT. HONEST.
NO MORE SATIRE FROM THIS POINT ON.
THIS IS DEFINITELY THE LAST PIECE OF SATIRE THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THIS
POST.
Better ?
Muty
Mark Isaak
>[...]
>Can you think of more strategies that will help the ID critic? The ID
>advocate?
My strategy is to ask,
1. What are the characteristics of design?
2. Of those characteristics, which do we also expect of evolution (and
why)?
3. Does life have those characteristics which are specific to ID?
4. If life is designed, what do its characteristics tell us about the
designers?
Question 1 gets people thinking that maybe ID can mean something,
which it never does in the mouths of ID proponents.
Question 2 gets people to start noticing that design is an
evolutionary process itself, so of course there will be similarities.
Question 3 drives home the fact that life does not, on the whole, look
designed.
Question 4 points out that ID, besides being bad science and just
plain wrong, is also anti-God.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Alan Wostenberg
Frank J wrote:
> The strategy for the ID critic is to move past Question 1, which
> science can't answer anyway, and get the audience to learn as much as
> possible about Questions 2 to 4.
The assertion that the answer to question 1 (is life designed?) "can't
be answered by science" would be disputed by ID theorists{1}. It is the
ID critic, not the advocate, who seeks to make queston 1 a matter of
religion, not science.
How about queston 0: is "is life designed" a scientific question?
{1} For example, see Dembski's article "science and design" at
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html . Or see
Dr. Behe's article "Whether intelligent design is science"
http://tinyurl.com/cbwmq .
Frank J
Introducing question 0 is another good strategy for the ID advocate
(IDer), as it diverts attention from the fact that they have no
alternatives to 2-4.
The strategy for the ID critic is to get the audience to ignore
questions 1 and 0 altogether, not to argue that 1 is not scientific.
Not sure if is's a real trend or if I'm just noticing it more, but ever
since Dover, IDers have been talking more question 0 than question 1.
Either way, it seems like a further retreat from 2-4, much to the
chagrin of classic creationists who are clinging to their failed
alternatives.
Frank J
Yes, I knew it was satire, but leave out the comical names and it's
essentially the ID critic's answer to Dembski's SETI analogy. Good
answers that "preach to the choir" but have little effect on most
audiences, and perhaps draw even more attention to Dembski, SETI, and
sound bites that sell (aka memes that "replicate"). IOW, just what
IDers want.
Zachriel
"Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:1139109284.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frank J wrote:
>
>> The strategy for the ID critic is to move past Question 1, which
>> science can't answer anyway, and get the audience to learn as much as
>> possible about Questions 2 to 4.
>
> The assertion that the answer to question 1 (is life designed?) "can't
> be answered by science" would be disputed by ID theorists{1}. It is the
> ID critic, not the advocate, who seeks to make queston 1 a matter of
> religion, not science.
>
> How about queston 0: is "is life designed" a scientific question?
Are planets pushed by angels on crystal spheres? Are storms the creation of
an angry Sky-God? Are snowflakes each a unique tapestry woven by fairies?
If your question is actually presented as a scientific query, then the
answer is that there is no evidence that life is designed, and on the
contrary, there is strong scientific evidence which indicates that life
diversified from common origins through natural mechanisms.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
However, "Intelligent Design" is a modern cultural movement that falsely
uses the language of science to push a political and quasi-religious agenda.
It has nothing to do with actual science. It poses.
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Alan Wostenberg
Frank J wrote:
> Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> > Frank J wrote:
> >
> > > The strategy for the ID critic is to move past Question 1, which
> > > science can't answer anyway, and get the audience to learn as much as
> > > possible about Questions 2 to 4.
> >
> > The assertion that the answer to question 1 (is life designed?) "can't
> > be answered by science" would be disputed by ID theorists{1}. It is the
> > ID critic, not the advocate, who seeks to make queston 1 a matter of
> > religion, not science.
>
> >
> > How about queston 0: is "is life designed" a scientific question?
> >
> > {1} For example, see Dembski's article "science and design" at
> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html . Or see
> > Dr. Behe's article "Whether intelligent design is science"
> > http://tinyurl.com/cbwmq .
>
> Introducing question 0 is another good strategy for the ID advocate
> (IDer), as it diverts attention from the fact that they have no
> alternatives to 2-4.
Your design theorist has no horse in questions 2-4 because design can
be detected independent of the question of age of earth, common
ancestry, or origins of higher taxa.
> The strategy for the ID critic is to get the audience to ignore
> questions 1 and 0 altogether, not to argue that 1 is not scientific.
> Not sure if is's a real trend or if I'm just noticing it more, but ever
> since Dover, IDers have been talking more question 0 than question 1.
> Either way, it seems like a further retreat from 2-4, much to the
> chagrin of classic creationists who are clinging to their failed
> alternatives.
Well, given the Judge's decree that ID is not science, is it any
surprise there is focus on question 0? First things first.
Alan Wostenberg
Zachriel wrote:
> "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
> news:1139109284.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > How about queston 0: is "is life designed" a scientific question?
>
>
> Are planets pushed by angels on crystal spheres? Are storms the creation of
> an angry Sky-God? Are snowflakes each a unique tapestry woven by fairies?
This is a good example of a certain habit of thought of naturalists:
it's either all natural causes, or all supernatural. No middle ground.
Design theory takes the middle ground: maybe it's designed, maybe not.
Let's look at the evidence and seen.
Applying Dr. Behe's theory of irreducible complexity{1} to your
examples, the answer is no, no, and no. None are "a single system which
is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic
function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the
system to effectively cease functioning". Applying Dr. Behe's theory
to living systems like the flagelum, the answer is "yes".
By the way, your web site mentioned "direct manipulation of the
genome". Help me out here, Zach. Are you saying man's ability to
genetically engineer organisms is evidence organisms were not
engineered in the beginning, 3.9 billion years ago?
Zachriel
>
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139109284.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > How about queston 0: is "is life designed" a scientific question?
>>
>>
>> Are planets pushed by angels on crystal spheres? Are storms the creation
>> of
>> an angry Sky-God? Are snowflakes each a unique tapestry woven by fairies?
>
> This is a good example of a certain habit of thought of naturalists:
> it's either all natural causes, or all supernatural. No middle ground.
> Design theory takes the middle ground: maybe it's designed, maybe not.
You are conflating two defintions of "natural" as can be seen in these
converses:
natural — supernatural
natural — artificial (designed)
Science is more than capable of studying design. Archaeology is one such
scientific endeavor.
> Let's look at the evidence and seen.
>
> Applying Dr. Behe's theory of irreducible complexity{1} to your
> examples, the answer is no, no, and no. None are "a single system which
> is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic
> function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the
> system to effectively cease functioning". Applying Dr. Behe's theory
> to living systems like the flagelum, the answer is "yes".
Behe's "theory" is just an argument from ignorance. Because he can't
understand or can't imagine how something arose from natural processes, he
concludes it couldn't have. It is no different than ancient peoples not
being able to explain the origin of storms, or the intricacies of plantary
orbits, ascribing their complex patterns to supernatural causes. These
assertions are not scientific because they are not based on the scientific
method, and make no valid predictions concerning empirical observations. It
is always possible to point to areas of ignorance in human knowledge,
especially historical occurences clouded by intervening events. That does
not negate what is known, e.g. vertebrates are related by common descent.
If you believe otherwise, then please make a specific verifiable empirical
prediction from the "theory" of irreducible complexity.
>
> By the way, your web site mentioned "direct manipulation of the
> genome". Help me out here, Zach. Are you saying man's ability to
> genetically engineer organisms is evidence organisms were not
> engineered in the beginning, 3.9 billion years ago?
genetics, a branch of biology that deals with the heredity
The Theory of Evolution is a theory of heredity. The ability to directly
manipulate genetics means the ability to perform direct experimentation on
the mechanism of heredity. Of course, we could actually check with working
geneticists:
Google on the Journal of Genetics for "evolution", 37600 articles
http://tinyurl.com/9g4jn
Google on the Journal of Genetics for "natural selection", 969 articles
http://tinyurl.com/d9gwy
Google on the Journal of Genetics for "intelligent design", 0 articles
http://tinyurl.com/as9yn
A cursory look at the literature,
"The sustained, high rate of adaptive evolution..."
"Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size"
"Impact of Taxon Sampling on the Estimation of Rates of Evolution"
"Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution"
"Interactions Between Natural Selection, Recombination and Gene Density"
"The Role of Natural Selection in Genetic Differentiation of Worldwide
Populations"
I mean, if you were actually interested in the science of heredity.
>
>
> {1} http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
>
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Zachriel
>
> Frank J wrote:
>> Alan Wostenberg wrote:
>> > Frank J wrote:
>> >
>> > > The strategy for the ID critic is to move past Question 1, which
>> > > science can't answer anyway, and get the audience to learn as much as
>> > > possible about Questions 2 to 4.
>> >
>> > The assertion that the answer to question 1 (is life designed?) "can't
>> > be answered by science" would be disputed by ID theorists{1}. It is the
>> > ID critic, not the advocate, who seeks to make queston 1 a matter of
>> > religion, not science.
>>
>> >
>> > How about queston 0: is "is life designed" a scientific question?
>> >
>> > {1} For example, see Dembski's article "science and design" at
>> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html . Or see
>> > Dr. Behe's article "Whether intelligent design is science"
>> > http://tinyurl.com/cbwmq .
>>
>> Introducing question 0 is another good strategy for the ID advocate
>> (IDer), as it diverts attention from the fact that they have no
>> alternatives to 2-4.
>
> Your design theorist has no horse in questions 2-4 because design can
> be detected independent of the question of age of earth, common
> ancestry, or origins of higher taxa.
That's funny.
'Design can be detected by ignoring the evidence.'
You put that very succinctly.
>
>> The strategy for the ID critic is to get the audience to ignore
>> questions 1 and 0 altogether, not to argue that 1 is not scientific.
>
>> Not sure if is's a real trend or if I'm just noticing it more, but ever
>> since Dover, IDers have been talking more question 0 than question 1.
>> Either way, it seems like a further retreat from 2-4, much to the
>> chagrin of classic creationists who are clinging to their failed
>> alternatives.
> Well, given the Judge's decree that ID is not science, is it any
> surprise there is focus on question 0? First things first.
>
"Intelligent Design" is a specific set of assertions that pose as science —
but are not. "Intelligent Design" is a cultural movement that arose on the
ashes of Creationism, and uses the language of science to disguise a
political agenda. It is a falsehood.
--
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/12/random-walkers.html
RANDOM WALKERS: And it might just take "zillions" of years!
Zachriel
>
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139109284.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > How about queston 0: is "is life designed" a scientific question?
>>
>>
>> Are planets pushed by angels on crystal spheres? Are storms the creation
>> of
>> an angry Sky-God? Are snowflakes each a unique tapestry woven by fairies?
>
> This is a good example of a certain habit of thought of naturalists:
> it's either all natural causes, or all supernatural. No middle ground.
> Design theory takes the middle ground: maybe it's designed, maybe not.
> Let's look at the evidence and seen.
>
> Applying Dr. Behe's theory of irreducible complexity{1} to your
> examples, the answer is no, no, and no.
Hold it now. You just changed subjects. The question was, could "is life
designed" be phrased as a scientific question. It is analogous to other such
questions, that could plausibly be phrased scientifically, but are simply
unsupported by the evidence. Concerning crystal spheres, Galileo's discovery
of the moons of Jupiter pretty well resolved that issue.
> None are "a single system which
> is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic
> function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the
> system to effectively cease functioning".
You have presupposed the answer by your use of the word "function".
What is the function of weather?
What is the function of the planetary orbits?
If the function of planetary orbits is to mark time, then the Sun, the Moon,
the planets are all essential. Change even one, and the Great Time Keeper
will cease to fulfill His function.
> Applying Dr. Behe's theory
> to living systems like the flagelum, the answer is "yes".
<snip>
Reasonable evolutionary pathways exist for the flagellum. But even it this
was a great unknown, it would not change the evidence supporting common
ancestry among vertebrates.
Alan Wostenberg
Zachriel wrote:
> Behe's "theory" is just an argument from ignorance. Because he can't
> understand or can't imagine how something arose from natural processes, he
> concludes it couldn't have. It is no different than ancient peoples not
> being able to explain the origin of storms, or the intricacies of plantary
> orbits, ascribing their complex patterns to supernatural causes. These
> assertions are not scientific because they are not based on the scientific
> method, and make no valid predictions concerning empirical observations. It
> is always possible to point to areas of ignorance in human knowledge,
> especially historical occurences clouded by intervening events. That does
> not negate what is known, e.g. vertebrates are related by common descent
Remember Dr. Behe finds common ancestry plausible... it's just natural
evolution he doubts.
We saw when Dr. Behe's theory is applied to storms, or planetary
orbits, it does not detect design. When applied to mousetraps and life,
it does. It is based on what we know, as designers, about design
patterns. So why do you believe irreducible complexity is "no
different than ancient peoples not being able to explain the origns of
storms..planets" ?
> If you believe otherwise, then please make a specific verifiable empirical
> prediction from the "theory" of irreducible complexity.
I'm not sure what you mean by "prediction". If you give me an example
of archeology predicting something, and I'll give you a comparable
example of a design theory prediction.
> >
> > By the way, your web site mentioned "direct manipulation of the
> > genome". Help me out here, Zach. Are you saying man's ability to
> > genetically engineer organisms is evidence organisms were not
> > engineered in the beginning, 3.9 billion years ago?
>
>
> genetics, a branch of biology that deals with the heredity
>
> The Theory of Evolution is a theory of heredity. The ability to directly
> manipulate genetics means the ability to perform direct experimentation on
> the mechanism of heredity.
Zach, we've known traits are inherited since Mendel. How does our
present abililty to *artificially* manipulate the genome show it was a
*natural* product, eons ago?
Alan Wostenberg
> > None are "a single system which
> > is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic
> > function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the
> > system to effectively cease functioning".
>
> You have presupposed the answer by your use of the word "function".
>
> What is the function of weather?
> What is the function of the planetary orbits?
>
> If the function of planetary orbits is to mark time, then the Sun, the Moon,
> the planets are all essential. Change even one, and the Great Time Keeper
> will cease to fulfill His function.
Good question and example. I think there would be no scientific
consensus that the function of the planets is to mark time. Therefore,
they do not comprise an irreducibly complex system. Contrast this with
the case of the bacterial flagellum.
The scientific consensus is that it's function is to move the little
critter.
You want to know if it's irreducibly complex? Go into the lab, knock
out a part, and see if it still propels the critter. The experimental
results are that it does not. Therefore, we conclude it is irreducibly
complex. Consequently, it cannot be the product of gradual refinement
of functional precursors, as natural evolution postulates.
Notice this design inference neither refutes nor supports the theory of
universal common ancestry. It works by a method (viability analysis)
that is is independent of the historical questions.
Zachriel
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> Zachriel wrote:
>
> > Behe's "theory" is just an argument from ignorance. Because he can't
> > understand or can't imagine how something arose from natural processes, he
> > concludes it couldn't have. It is no different than ancient peoples not
> > being able to explain the origin of storms, or the intricacies of plantary
> > orbits, ascribing their complex patterns to supernatural causes. These
> > assertions are not scientific because they are not based on the scientific
> > method, and make no valid predictions concerning empirical observations. It
> > is always possible to point to areas of ignorance in human knowledge,
> > especially historical occurences clouded by intervening events. That does
> > not negate what is known, e.g. vertebrates are related by common descent
>
> Remember Dr. Behe finds common ancestry plausible... it's just natural
> evolution he doubts.
Ok. As the vast majority of vertebrates are only minor modifications of
one another, same organs, same skeletal structures, it requires no
particular claim to intervention.
>
> We saw when Dr. Behe's theory is applied to storms, or planetary
> orbits, it does not detect design.
We did? Remove the sun, the atmosphere, the rotation of the Earth, the
revolution of the Earth, the Moon, the oceans, or the continents, the
formation of storms is disrupted or stopped. Storms are complex, not
simple, and require the interaction of many interrelated components.
If the function of planetary orbits is to mark time, which was the
consensus in ancient times, then a single planet out of place would
disrupt the arc of human history.
> When applied to mousetraps and life,
> it does. It is based on what we know, as designers, about design
> patterns. So why do you believe irreducible complexity is "no
> different than ancient peoples not being able to explain the origns of
> storms..planets" ?
Natural arches are irreducible. Just because Behe can't imagine that a
given biological structure didn't have antecedents doesn't mean he is
correct. It may just indicate his lack of imagination.
>
> > If you believe otherwise, then please make a specific verifiable empirical
> > prediction from the "theory" of irreducible complexity.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "prediction". If you give me an example
> of archeology predicting something, and I'll give you a comparable
> example of a design theory prediction.
If you believe you have found a stone tool, you might start looking for
indications of the designer. Perhaps, his physical remains, or residues
of his food, a fire pit. So when you have the purported tool, the chips
from the manufacturing process, the fire pit, the animal bones, the
painted cave walls, you can begin to understand the nature of the
designer in question.
This is how science works. Not by finding a sharp stone, jumping to
conclusions, then refusing to look further.
>
> > >
> > > By the way, your web site mentioned "direct manipulation of the
> > > genome". Help me out here, Zach. Are you saying man's ability to
> > > genetically engineer organisms is evidence organisms were not
> > > engineered in the beginning, 3.9 billion years ago?
> >
> >
> > genetics, a branch of biology that deals with the heredity
> >
> > The Theory of Evolution is a theory of heredity. The ability to directly
> > manipulate genetics means the ability to perform direct experimentation on
> > the mechanism of heredity.
>
> Zach, we've known traits are inherited since Mendel. How does our
> present abililty to *artificially* manipulate the genome show it was a
> *natural* product, eons ago?
Um, good example. Mendel used artificial crossing of peas to understand
how genetics works in nature. Is that really so hard to understand?
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Zachriel
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> Zachriel wrote:
> > "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
> > news:1139277579.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > None are "a single system which
> > > is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic
> > > function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the
> > > system to effectively cease functioning".
> >
> > You have presupposed the answer by your use of the word "function".
> >
> > What is the function of weather?
> > What is the function of the planetary orbits?
> >
> > If the function of planetary orbits is to mark time, then the Sun, the Moon,
> > the planets are all essential. Change even one, and the Great Time Keeper
> > will cease to fulfill His function.
>
> Good question and example. I think there would be no scientific
> consensus that the function of the planets is to mark time.
At one time, that *was* the consensus.
> Therefore,
> they do not comprise an irreducibly complex system.
So your conclusion does not follow. Rather, the opposite conclusion was
drawn that the planets were part of an irreducibly complex system that
foretold the future, telling when to sow, when to reap, and when kings
would be born. And each planet in itself represented a complex of
traits associated with anthropomorphized gods of Love, War and
Sovereignty.
> Contrast this with
> the case of the bacterial flagellum.
Let's do.
>
> The scientific consensus is that it's function is to move the little
> critter.
I pointed out that your use of the word function was leading you to
false conclusions.
>
> You want to know if it's irreducibly complex? Go into the lab, knock
> out a part, and see if it still propels the critter. The experimental
> results are that it does not.
No. It creates two different functions.
So, we can see that the function of movement can be created by
combining the physical structures used for other purposes. This is
precisely how evolution works. It takes fins designed for swimming and
modifies then into limbs designed for walking on land, and then adapts
them into wings for flight, and hands to fashion tools.
> Therefore, we conclude it is irreducibly
> complex. Consequently, it cannot be the product of gradual refinement
> of functional precursors, as natural evolution postulates.
As I indicated, just because you can't imagine how something happened,
doesn't mean that it didn't. It's an argument from ignorance.
Even if we didn't know how the flagellum evolved does not indicate that
an intelligent designer was involved. The conclusion from not knowing
is that we don't know. To substantiate a claim of an intelligent
designer takes specific scientific evidence of the designer.
>
> Notice this design inference neither refutes nor supports the theory of
> universal common ancestry. It works by a method (viability analysis)
> that is is independent of the historical questions.
Yes. Just ignore that vast majority of evidence that doesn't support
your conclusions. It's easier that way.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Frank J
Except that ID pretends not only to be science, but specifically an
alternative to evolution. So if IDers insist on evading questions 2-4
(except to misrepresent evolution), then the best ID could ever be is a
complementary idea that agrees with evolution.
Of course is the answer to question 0 were yes, IDers would be playing
the science game instead of the ID game.
Richard Forrest
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> Zachriel wrote:
> > "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
> > news:1139109284.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > How about queston 0: is "is life designed" a scientific question?
> >
> >
> > Are planets pushed by angels on crystal spheres? Are storms the creation of
> > an angry Sky-God? Are snowflakes each a unique tapestry woven by fairies?
>
> This is a good example of a certain habit of thought of naturalists:
> it's either all natural causes, or all supernatural. No middle ground.
> Design theory takes the middle ground: maybe it's designed, maybe not.
> Let's look at the evidence and seen.
There is no "middle ground".
The conceptual basis of science is that no such interference happens,
and that any phenomenon we can observe and measure can be described by
a descriptive model which can be used to predict the behaviour of the
system . You can't throw into that model the idea that in some cases
God tinkers with the normal functioning of the universe in an
apparently random and unpredictable way.
>
> Applying Dr. Behe's theory of irreducible complexity{1} to your
> examples, the answer is no, no, and no. None are "a single system which
> is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic
> function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the
> system to effectively cease functioning". Applying Dr. Behe's theory
> to living systems like the flagelum, the answer is "yes".
Behe does not have a theory, at least not in the sense that science
uses the word. Quite apart from the fact that his supposed evidence for
irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked, his argument is
not a scientific argument. It's not even a logical argument.
You can't prove that an intelligent designer interferes with normal
evolutionary processes by trying to falsify evolution by small
incremental steps. Even if such a fallsification were successful, it
would not provide one iota of evidence in support of intelligent
design. If I were on trial for murder, you could not prove my guilt by
proving your innocence. It's logically incoherent. For intelligent
design to qualify as a scientific hypothesis, it's proponents need to
put forward a way by which it could be falsified. I can't think of any
way of testing whether or not an "intelligent designer" of unspecified
but possibly supernatural powers interferes with the normal functioning
of the universe in an unspecified but possibly supernatural way for
unknown and possibly unknowable purposes. If you can, or any other ID
supporter can, please come forward with such a test.
RF
Frank J
You're missing the point. Alan is playing "the ID game" (the original
title of this thread before someone (who? why?) changed it), and quite
well I must add. Question 0 is a nice touch, as is the "natural
evolution" part. While it's still a well-kept secret that many
chief critics of ID/creationism answer "yes" to Question 1, it
can't remain a secret forever. So the way to play up the
irreconcilable differences between, say, Behe and Kenneth Miller, is to
focus on Question 0 instead. And the best players lately seem to be
headed in that direction.
Another good tactic is to throw the "Behe accepts common decent"
bone as Alan did, and quickly move on to safer turf. But this one is
tricky. If an IDer gets trapped on Question 3 he can have a DaveScot
meltdown, and that's not good for the big tent. Notice Alan's 3rd
person touch, a-la William Dembski. While Dembski defers to Behe on
common descent, he nevertheless, plays up the "outsider" card like
Phillip Johnson. That one especially works on non-scientist audiences
who disproportionately root for "outsiders" like Dembski (not a
biologist) who "think outside the box" while thinking that Behe may
be blinded. So Dembski induces doubt about CD while not committing
either way. Neat, huh?
While it does happen on occasion that an outsider provides a fresh
perspective, it is not nearly as prevalent as the public thinks, and ID
is clearly not such a case. If it were, Dembski would be playing the
science game, not "the ID game."
Alan Wostenberg
Zachriel wrote:
> Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> > Good question and example. I think there would be no scientific
> > consensus that the function of the planets is to mark time.
>
> At one time, that *was* the consensus.
>
> > Therefore,
> > they do not comprise an irreducibly complex system.
>
>
> So your conclusion does not follow. Rather, the opposite conclusion was
> drawn that the planets were part of an irreducibly complex system that
> foretold the future, telling when to sow, when to reap, and when kings
> would be born. And each planet in itself represented a complex of
> traits associated with anthropomorphized gods of Love, War and
> Sovereignty.
So if we lost the planets and it was just earth and sun we could not
tell the time of plantings and reapings? That may well be true, that
without the outter gas giants earth would kareen into the sun and
die... or without the moon we'd have a destabilized axial tilt and no
regular seasons... but the ancients could not know that, because they
had no theory of gravity.
So I am doubtful the ancients knew the solar system was irreducibly
complex, therefore the product of a designer. They may have held that
conclusion on some non-scientific basis, but they did not know enough
about gravity, to apply Dr. Behe's theory.
Later, when scientists abandoned teleology, to learn about gravity,
they gave up the idea that the planets are *for* anything, and
therefore, can't apply the theory of irreducible complexity.
Now if modern scientists are willing to revisit teleology, and consider
the planets have a purpose, they may well find as a scientific
conclusion, the solar system is irreducibly complex, and therefore the
product of an inhuman intelligence.
The situation is quite different in modern biology, where the consensus
was and is, things have purpose: flagella are for movement; eyes are
for seeing, and so forth. So in biology, where teleology was never
banished, there remains the possibility of a design inference.
> > Contrast this with
> > the case of the bacterial flagellum.
>
>
> Let's do.
>
>
> >
> > The scientific consensus is that it's function is to move the little
> > critter.
>
>
> I pointed out that your use of the word function was leading you to
> false conclusions.
>
>
> >
> > You want to know if it's irreducibly complex? Go into the lab, knock
> > out a part, and see if it still propels the critter. The experimental
> > results are that it does not.
>
>
> No. It creates two different functions.
>
> So, we can see that the function of movement can be created by
> combining the physical structures used for other purposes. This is
> precisely how evolution works. It takes fins designed for swimming and
> modifies then into limbs designed for walking on land, and then adapts
> them into wings for flight, and hands to fashion tools.
We were talking about the bacterial flagellum, something prior to fins
and limbs. In the science of molecular biology, word pictures don't
suffice. According to Dr. Behe, in the case of these molecular motors,
nobody offers a rigorous scientific explanation of even *potential*
indirect pathays. Or if they do, they are not publishing papers. When
the'll do, he says he'll revise his scientific conclusion, in light of
the new evidence.
Until then, the working hypothesis is we are reverse-engineering
molecular machines made by an ancient inhuman intelligence. In light of
that, did you know the flagela rotate at 10,000 rpm and can reverse
directions in a quarter revolution? Can your blender do that? Is it
inconcievable we are in the presence of a Great Engineer?
> > Therefore, we conclude it is irreducibly
> > complex. Consequently, it cannot be the product of gradual refinement
> > of functional precursors, as natural evolution postulates.
>
>
> As I indicated, just because you can't imagine how something happened,
> doesn't mean that it didn't. It's an argument from ignorance.
Would you also say the scientific conclusion there are no perpetual
motion machines is a failure of imagination? An argument from
ignorance? If not, why not?
Zachriel
>
> Zachriel wrote:
>> Alan Wostenberg wrote:
>
>> > Good question and example. I think there would be no scientific
>> > consensus that the function of the planets is to mark time.
>>
>> At one time, that *was* the consensus.
>
>>
>> > Therefore,
>> > they do not comprise an irreducibly complex system.
>>
>>
>> So your conclusion does not follow. Rather, the opposite conclusion was
>> drawn that the planets were part of an irreducibly complex system that
>> foretold the future, telling when to sow, when to reap, and when kings
>> would be born. And each planet in itself represented a complex of
>> traits associated with anthropomorphized gods of Love, War and
>> Sovereignty.
>
> So if we lost the planets and it was just earth and sun we could not
> tell the time of plantings and reapings? That may well be true, that
> without the outter gas giants earth would kareen into the sun and
> die... or without the moon we'd have a destabilized axial tilt and no
> regular seasons... but the ancients could not know that, because they
> had no theory of gravity.
Without the planets, the ancients could not determine (by their reckoning)
when a king should be crowned, or when a marriage should be consumated. That
was the purpose, the function, they assigned to the orbits of planets.
>
> So I am doubtful the ancients knew the solar system was irreducibly
> complex, therefore the product of a designer. They may have held that
> conclusion on some non-scientific basis, but they did not know enough
> about gravity, to apply Dr. Behe's theory.
It was non-scientific. As are your assertions. Make a specific testable
observational prediction from the so-called theory of Intelligent Design
(other than humans are ignorant of many things).
>
> Later, when scientists abandoned teleology, to learn about gravity,
> they gave up the idea that the planets are *for* anything, and
> therefore, can't apply the theory of irreducible complexity.
The definition of irreducible complexity depends on the assignation of
"function". And that is the root of Behe's fallacy.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
As I posted elsewhere, it is fallacious because of the inherent problem of
assigning "function". If a structure is created by the combination of other
structures with other functions, for instance, then the argument fails. If
it is created by simplification (optimization!) of a more complicated
structure with the same function (such as an arch created by removing the
scaffold), then the argument fails.
And if we just don't know, then that is scientific evidence only of our
ignorance. And if Behe can't imagine how, then that may just be a failure of
Behe's imagination.
>
> Now if modern scientists are willing to revisit teleology, and consider
> the planets have a purpose, they may well find as a scientific
> conclusion, the solar system is irreducibly complex, and therefore the
> product of an inhuman intelligence.
Parody? If there is a purpose to the arrangement of planets, it is not
discerned by the scientific method.
Um, the fact that people may not know how a particular structure evolved is
not evidence. But within the vast reservoir of biological knowledge, there
is a great deal of evidence that life evolved and diversified from common
ancestors. In order to maintain their illusion of scientific merit,
advocates of creationism, er Intelligent Design, have been forced to look
towards the origin of molecular structures that evolved hundreds of millions
of years ago, an origin that is necessarily shrouded by intervening events,
and the final result highly optimized (irreducible).
In any case, plausible scenarios for the evolution of the flagellum have
been posited. It is a fact that the flagellum is composed of two separate
components that have other purposes within the cell, a motor and rotatable
whip.
You could try Google Scholar, or this article by Ian Musgrave.
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm
Or this thread on alt.talkorigins by hersheyhv.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=insubject%3A%22FliG+and+the+function+of+rotary+motility
Regardless of the actual history of the evolution of the flagellum, it is
clear that it is composed of sub-structures with homologies elsewhere in the
cell, as would be expected if it evolved. Please note that Behe's own
definition (provided in the link above) does not allow for the possibility
that a new function could arise from a combination of strucutures involved
in other functions. His argument is clearly fallacious.
>
> Until then, the working hypothesis is we are reverse-engineering
> molecular machines made by an ancient inhuman intelligence. In light of
> that, did you know the flagela rotate at 10,000 rpm and can reverse
> directions in a quarter revolution? Can your blender do that?
Nor can it vibrate like a water molecule, or change directions as fast as
two colliding gas molecules.
> Is it
> inconcievable we are in the presence of a Great Engineer?
You are conflating. There is no *scientific evidence* of a Great Engineer.
If you wish to believe in Him, I have absolutely no problem with that.
However, the scientific evidence clearly indicates that the rotation of the
planets is governed by gravity and by the happenstance of their origins
during the formation of the Solar System. Oh, and life evolves.
>
>> > Therefore, we conclude it is irreducibly
>> > complex. Consequently, it cannot be the product of gradual refinement
>> > of functional precursors, as natural evolution postulates.
>>
>>
>> As I indicated, just because you can't imagine how something happened,
>> doesn't mean that it didn't. It's an argument from ignorance.
>
> Would you also say the scientific conclusion there are no perpetual
> motion machines is a failure of imagination? An argument from
> ignorance? If not, why not?
That's called an observation. It is observed that "work" will involve
inefficiencies, and some energy will always be dissipated in every
transformation. As the observation has been replicated a million times, in
widely varied types of interactions, and is consist with other fields of
study such as statistical analysis, it is considered a scientific fact, a
law of thermodynamics.
--
Zachriel
The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Alan Wostenberg
Zachriel wrote:
> In any case, plausible scenarios for the evolution of the flagellum have
> been posited. It is a fact that the flagellum is composed of two separate
> components that have other purposes within the cell, a motor and rotatable
> whip.
>
> You could try Google Scholar, or this article by Ian Musgrave.
> http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm
Thanks. When I read the article, I noticed the Musgrave conclusion
"..This is a very tentative sketch, but it does seem that a fully
detailed evolutionary explanation for eubacterial flagella is not so
distant".
The article was copyrighted 5 years ago. Have we arrived at that
not-to-distant future where Musgrave delivered on the promise of
developing that tentative sketch into a detailed evolutionary
explanation? Or is he still sketching?
Elsewhere you asked me to please note "Behe's own definition
(provided in the link above) does not allow for the possibility that a
new function could arise from a combination of structures involved in
other functions". Thanks, I noted it. It sounds bad. You got me
wondering what our hero, Dr. Behe, would say. Is he kocked out cold? Or
does he have a counterpunch?
Dr. Behe warms up to this criticism by pointing out
"Opponents of design want to assert that if the individual parts of a
putatively IC structure can be used for anything at all other than
their role in the system under consideration, then the system itself is
not IC."
As I have a read the Musgrave essay, won't you read Dr. Behe's
response to your point at http://tinyurl.com/3qe7r ?
wf...@comcast.net
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
>
>Zachriel wrote:
>
>> Behe's "theory" is just an argument from ignorance. Because he can't
>> understand or can't imagine how something arose from natural processes, he
>> concludes it couldn't have. It is no different than ancient peoples not
>> being able to explain the origin of storms, or the intricacies of plantary
>> orbits, ascribing their complex patterns to supernatural causes. These
>> assertions are not scientific because they are not based on the scientific
>> method, and make no valid predictions concerning empirical observations. It
>> is always possible to point to areas of ignorance in human knowledge,
>> especially historical occurences clouded by intervening events. That does
>> not negate what is known, e.g. vertebrates are related by common descent
>
>Remember Dr. Behe finds common ancestry plausible... it's just natural
>evolution he doubts.
well, no. when i talked to him a few years ago at the cathedral church
of the nativity in bethlehem, PA, he said that evolution explained
many features of organisms. it just couldnt explain them all.
>
>We saw when Dr. Behe's theory is applied to storms, or planetary
>orbits, it does not detect design. When applied to mousetraps and life,
>it does. It is based on what we know, as designers, about design
>patterns. So why do you believe irreducible complexity is "no
>different than ancient peoples not being able to explain the origns of
>storms..planets" ?
again, no. there is no intelligence that can be detected because we
simply can't say that intelligence has a mechanism. when the ID folks
can tell us how being intelligent allows us to go faster than light,
then they can tell us how it can design living organisms.
because if they deny the natural processes, they're left with
supernatural ones.
Alan Wostenberg
Zachriel wrote:
> "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
> news:1139676223.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> Zach: As I indicated, just because you can't imagine how something happened,
> >> doesn't mean that it didn't. It's an argument from ignorance.
> >
> > Alan: Would you also say the scientific conclusion there are no perpetual
> > motion machines is a failure of imagination? An argument from
> > ignorance? If not, why not?
>
>
> Zach: That's called an observation. It is observed that "work" will involve
> inefficiencies, and some energy will always be dissipated in every
> transformation. As the observation has been replicated a million times, in
> widely varied types of interactions, and is consist with other fields of
> study such as statistical analysis, it is considered a scientific fact, a
> law of thermodynamics.
Glad we agree it's not a failure of imagination, or argument from
ignorance, there are no perpetual motion machines. Just as the
conclusion there are no perpetual motion machines is not an argument
from ignorance, so the conclusion those molecular motors cannot be the
process of gradual refinement of functional precursors, is not an
argument from ignorance.
wf...@comcast.net
<awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
>
>Your design theorist has no horse in questions 2-4 because design can
>be detected independent of the question of age of earth, common
>ancestry, or origins of higher taxa.
that's true. ID theorists, since they dont have to tell us what design
is, what intelligence is, or how they work, are completely
unrestricted in making up anything they want.
>
Richard McBane
Somehow your analogy between molecular motors and perpetual motion
machines seems wrong. If perpetual motion machines existed, then
stating that a perpetual motion machine can not be built because we
don't understand how to build one would be more similar similar to
observing molecular motors and stating that they can not have evolved
because we don't understand how a process of gradual refinement of
functional precursors could have evolved one.
--
Richard McBane
Zachriel
>
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139676223.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>
>> >> Zach: As I indicated, just because you can't imagine how something
>> >> happened,
>> >> doesn't mean that it didn't. It's an argument from ignorance.
>> >
>> > Alan: Would you also say the scientific conclusion there are no
>> > perpetual
>> > motion machines is a failure of imagination? An argument from
>> > ignorance? If not, why not?
>>
>>
>> Zach: That's called an observation. It is observed that "work" will
>> involve
>> inefficiencies, and some energy will always be dissipated in every
>> transformation. As the observation has been replicated a million times,
>> in
>> widely varied types of interactions, and is consist with other fields of
>> study such as statistical analysis, it is considered a scientific fact, a
>> law of thermodynamics.
>
> Glad we agree it's not a failure of imagination, or argument from
> ignorance, there are no perpetual motion machines.
There are no known method of constructing a perpetual motion machine because
all known macroscopic physical processes involve the dissipation of energy,
and the loss of available work. No combination of such processes could be
constructed that would create perpetual motion. Constructing a complicated
device with wheels, gears, springs and other gizmos won't change this
result. So if you see such a device, then you can conclude that it is not a
perpetual motion machine. This is not an argument from ignorance, but a
valid scientific conclusion based on extensive observation.
> Just as the
> conclusion there are no perpetual motion machines is not an argument
> from ignorance, so the conclusion those molecular motors cannot be the
> process of gradual refinement of functional precursors, is not an
> argument from ignorance.
That does not follow whatsoever. There are no known physical obstructions
preventing the "gradual refinement of functional precursors". However, it
can be stated that there will be a dissipation of usable energy in each and
every step of the process.
Zachriel
>
> Zachriel wrote:
>
>> In any case, plausible scenarios for the evolution of the flagellum have
>> been posited. It is a fact that the flagellum is composed of two separate
>> components that have other purposes within the cell, a motor and
>> rotatable
>> whip.
>>
>> You could try Google Scholar, or this article by Ian Musgrave.
>> http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm
>
> Thanks. When I read the article, I noticed the Musgrave conclusion
> "..This is a very tentative sketch, but it does seem that a fully
> detailed evolutionary explanation for eubacterial flagella is not so
> distant".
>
> The article was copyrighted 5 years ago. Have we arrived at that
> not-to-distant future where Musgrave delivered on the promise of
> developing that tentative sketch into a detailed evolutionary
> explanation? Or is he still sketching?
I have responded to this. There are always gaps in human knowledge. The
flagellum evolved early in the evolution of life and so the exact history is
shrouded by intervening events. It isn't necessary to explain every possible
event in evolution, any more than it is necessary to explain how the Moon
formed to consider the Theory of Gravity to be well-established scientific
fact.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
>
> Elsewhere you asked me to please note "Behe's own definition
> (provided in the link above) does not allow for the possibility that a
> new function could arise from a combination of structures involved in
> other functions". Thanks, I noted it. It sounds bad. You got me
> wondering what our hero, Dr. Behe, would say. Is he kocked out cold? Or
> does he have a counterpunch?
>
> Dr. Behe warms up to this criticism by pointing out
> "Opponents of design want to assert that if the individual parts of a
> putatively IC structure can be used for anything at all other than
> their role in the system under consideration, then the system itself is
> not IC."
No. That's Behe's strawman. If you read his statement (posted below), you
should be able to discover the strawman yourself.
Behe claims that being irreducibly complex means not being capable of having
evolved in a step-by-step process. This is false. Irreducible structures are
the natural result of optimization and can easily be explained by stepwise
evolution.
>
> As I have a read the Musgrave essay, won't you read Dr. Behe's
> response to your point at http://tinyurl.com/3qe7r ?
Yes, I read the article, not for the first time. Please note that Behe
truncated his own statement.
Behe: 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. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly
(that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to
work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a
precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system
that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
Well, this is the error which he does not address, and he claims it is
*definitional*. That means the conclusion is encapsulated within the first
sentence, the definition. But note how he has added some additional terms.
"continuously improving the initial function"
"work by the same mechanism"
"missing a part"
Why must successive changes improve the initial function? Two separate
functions might be combined in a single step to create a new function,
plausibly a rotating pore and a motor forming a flagellum. Behe waves his
hands. Or perhaps a single function is co-opted for a new function. A nose
made for smelling food might elongate to grasp, a new function with a
stepwise modification of an old function. And what about this "missing a
part" business. Well, irreducible structures can be created by subtracting
parts, such as a natural arch.
http://gfx.download-by.net/screen/6/6311-natural-arches.jpg
You so want Behe to be right, but he's not. His argument is fallacy.
--
Zachriel
"Evolution is... The Theory of Evolution explains...
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
Matt Silberstein
<angelma...@zachriel.com> in <11v4pqd...@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Wow, Behe is still re-defining IC? He just knows that IC is the
greatest scientific discovery since Newton and he just knows that IC
shows that evolution is not sufficient to explain the diversity of
life, but somehow he does not actually know yet what IC means. I am
impressed, dented even.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Christopher Heiny
>
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139109284.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > How about queston 0: is "is life designed" a scientific question?
>>
>>
>> Are planets pushed by angels on crystal spheres? Are storms the creation
>> of an angry Sky-God? Are snowflakes each a unique tapestry woven by
>> fairies?
>
> This is a good example of a certain habit of thought of naturalists:
> it's either all natural causes, or all supernatural. No middle ground.
> Design theory takes the middle ground: maybe it's designed, maybe not.
> Let's look at the evidence and seen.
>
> Applying Dr. Behe's theory of irreducible complexity{1} to your
> examples, the answer is no, no, and no. None are "a single system which
> is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic
> function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the
> system to effectively cease functioning". Applying Dr. Behe's theory
> to living systems like the flagelum, the answer is "yes".
Actually, a thunderstorm tends to fall apart if you remove or disrupt the
vertical convection element. Hurricanes dissipate soon after the warm
surface water element is removed. Therefore, by your own assertion, these
weather phenomena are irreducibly complex, and can only be acts of the
Intelligent Weather designer.
I am certain the meteorological community will welcome your discovery of
this fact.
--
Christopher Heiny
Professor of Bizarre Theories
University of Ediacara
.