Finally lost faith in I.D.

15 views
Skip to first unread message

ReidRover

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 7:58:51 PM1/15/02
to
Although as recently as last month i held out some sort of hope for I.D. ( i am
a theist), i have now lost it with the bunch of em, the last two or three
things i have heard from Dembski,Wells and Johnson ,have now convinced me they
had nothing all along, just the same methods the YEC creationists used.Didn't
the Discovery Institute have some sort of 5 -year plan or something? Well has
this plan failed and this is the reason we are hearing nothing but gobbldygook
and the old creationist standby ,misquotes?
I still think there may be hope for Behe,IF he actually decides to do some
serious research into the problems his Irreducable Complexity face, instead of
sitting back on his laurels and doing the lecture circuit.Maybe i am mistaken
and he has done some papers on I.C. since Darwins Black Box?

J Forbes

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 8:08:53 PM1/15/02
to

Good to see you are seeing the light....

Don't count on any serious research into ID, it's
not science, it's religion. If you want to keep
your religion, you probably ought to avoid looking
too deeply into these issues :)

Jim

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 8:11:20 PM1/15/02
to
ReidRover <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...

> Although as recently as last month i held out some sort of hope for I.D.
i am
> a theist), i have now lost it with the bunch of em, the last two or three
> things i have heard from Dembski,Wells and Johnson ,have now convinced me
they
> had nothing all along, just the same methods the YEC creationists
used.Didn't
> the Discovery Institute have some sort of 5 -year plan or something? Well
has
> this plan failed and this is the reason we are hearing nothing but
gobbldygook
> and the old creationist standby ,misquotes?

No, that *is* the plan. Keep spewing forth their gobbledygook and misquotes
until someone falls for them.

> I still think there may be hope for Behe,IF he actually decides to do
some
> serious research into the problems his Irreducable Complexity face,
instead of
> sitting back on his laurels and doing the lecture circuit.Maybe i am
mistaken
> and he has done some papers on I.C. since Darwins Black Box?

"Since"? Has he *ever* done any papers on IC?

--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"

http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843

Rubystars

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 8:11:32 PM1/15/02
to

"ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...

ID can certainly be philosophically valid, in that design can be inferred
from nature. However, it is not a scientific concept because the things that
appear to be designed have a probability of coming about by natural process
(even a low probability could have happened).

I enjoy reading up on ID because I find it fascinating, and I agree with
some of the points raised. However, it should remain a philosophy.. not
science.

There's no reason to give up on ID if you find it a good philosophy, but if
you try to make it fit into science you're going to be banging that puzzle
piece with a hammer for a long time.

-Rubystars


ReidRover

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 8:18:22 PM1/15/02
to
>lost faith in I.D.
>From: J Forbes jfor...@yahoo.com
>Date: 1/15/02 5:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C44D278...@yahoo.com>

Oh i have always though The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation science
can give..i just had hoped that at least I.D. could back up the "Thiestic" side
of thiestic evolution.
But for some reason they argue the Intelligent designer could not design a
system with built in evolution of organisms!!
Never understood the insistence of some in the Discovery Institute that
evolution MUST be ruled out..seems a triffle ideological.
Also very curious given that Behe suggests in his "Black Box" that he thinks
some sort of common descent is probable.

Frank J

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 8:24:15 PM1/15/02
to

"ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...
Behe does research, but not in the field of evolutionary biology. Most of
his writings are rehashes of his IC=ID assertion; his onlione debates with
Kenneth Miller show his skill at avoiding the main points. I had hope for
him when I first read DBB in 1998, and finally discovered an
anti-evolutionist who accepted common descent, but he appears to have
succumbed to the political correctness of the other IDCs. As for the "wedge
strategy," it seems to have fast-forwarded to phase 3, to no one's surprise.

ReidRover

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 8:26:18 PM1/15/02
to
>ally lost faith in I.D.
>From: "Adam Marczyk" ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com
>Date: 1/15/02 5:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <u49kpl7...@corp.supernews.com>

>
>ReidRover <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...
>> Although as recently as last month i held out some sort of hope for I.D.
> i am
>> a theist), i have now lost it with the bunch of em, the last two or three
>> things i have heard from Dembski,Wells and Johnson ,have now convinced me
>they
>> had nothing all along, just the same methods the YEC creationists
>used.Didn't
>> the Discovery Institute have some sort of 5 -year plan or something? Well
>has
>> this plan failed and this is the reason we are hearing nothing but
>gobbldygook
>> and the old creationist standby ,misquotes?
>
>No, that *is* the plan. Keep spewing forth their gobbledygook and misquotes
>until someone falls for them.
>
>> I still think there may be hope for Behe,IF he actually decides to do
>some
>> serious research into the problems his Irreducable Complexity face,
>instead of
>> sitting back on his laurels and doing the lecture circuit.Maybe i am
>mistaken
>> and he has done some papers on I.C. since Darwins Black Box?
>
>"Since"? Has he *ever* done any papers on IC?
>

Call me niave but i thought he would have done at least ONE before his famous
book?
Well maybe i am rather a hayseed : )

ReidRover

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 8:41:16 PM1/15/02
to
>faith in I.D.
>From: reid...@aol.com (ReidRover)
>Date: 1/15/02 5:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020115201641...@mb-md.aol.com>

>
>>lost faith in I.D.
>>From: J Forbes jfor...@yahoo.com
>>Date: 1/15/02 5:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3C44D278...@yahoo.com>
>>
>>ReidRover wrote:
>>>

SNIP

>
>Oh i have always though The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation
>science
>can give..i just had hoped that at least I.D. could back up the "Thiestic"
>side
>of thiestic evolution

apologies for the spelling should of course have been "Theistic"


J Forbes

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 10:25:16 PM1/15/02
to

The mission of the DI is to use science to prove the
bible is literally true, isn't it?

And ID seems to be merely the latest cloaking for
literal creationism. There is still no explanation
of how it all came to be the way it is...only wild
criticism of the ToE.

I guess anyone who isn't blind probably thinks that
some sort of common descent is probable :) but
there do seem to be some quite blind people here on
t.o....

Jim

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 10:59:37 PM1/15/02
to
ReidRover <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115202504...@mb-md.aol.com...

[snip]

> >> I still think there may be hope for Behe,IF he actually decides to do
some
> >> serious research into the problems his Irreducable Complexity face,
instead of
> >> sitting back on his laurels and doing the lecture circuit.Maybe i am
mistaken
> >> and he has done some papers on I.C. since Darwins Black Box?>
> >
> >"Since"? Has he *ever* done any papers on IC?
> >
>
> Call me niave but i thought he would have done at least ONE before his
famous
> book?
> Well maybe i am rather a hayseed : )

Not that I'm aware of. I believe he went straight to the book without even
attempting to make a scientific case for this in the journals.

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 11:29:33 PM1/15/02
to
On 15 Jan 2002 22:59:37 -0500, in talk.origins
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in
<u49ul9s...@corp.supernews.com>:


>ReidRover <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020115202504...@mb-md.aol.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> I still think there may be hope for Behe,IF he actually decides to do
>some
>> >> serious research into the problems his Irreducable Complexity face,
>instead of
>> >> sitting back on his laurels and doing the lecture circuit.Maybe i am
>mistaken
>> >> and he has done some papers on I.C. since Darwins Black Box?>
>> >
>> >"Since"? Has he *ever* done any papers on IC?
>> >
>>
>> Call me niave but i thought he would have done at least ONE before his famous
>> book?

I was under the impression that he knows how the system works. This may
explain why he chose not to follow the system.

>> Well maybe i am rather a hayseed : )
>
>Not that I'm aware of. I believe he went straight to the book without even
>attempting to make a scientific case for this in the journals.

If maximum embarrassment is your goal, it works. I wonder if we can
start including Behe in with Pons and Fleishman....

Tracy P. Hamilton

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:01:22 AM1/16/02
to

"ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115201641...@mb-md.aol.com...

[snip]

> Oh i have always though The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation
science
> can give..i just had hoped that at least I.D. could back up the "Thiestic"
side
> of thiestic evolution.
> But for some reason they argue the Intelligent designer could not design
a
> system with built in evolution of organisms!!

In spite of examples of intelligent designers (humans) doing just that.

> Never understood the insistence of some in the Discovery Institute that
> evolution MUST be ruled out..seems a triffle ideological.

They are just trying to sneak God into everything. They are afraid
that since evolution used no religion to get to its knowledge, and
hence it does not show up in the theory, that some people may get
the idea that maybe God was not involved after all. They falsely
claim that the latter is actually taught as part of the theory of evolution,
and hence it should not be taught. *They* are doing it for our good.

> Also very curious given that Behe suggests in his "Black Box" that he
thinks
> some sort of common descent is probable.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy P. Hamilton |"All right brain, I don't like you
Building Manager, Alco Hall |and you don't like me, so let's get
University of Ediacara |this done and I will go back to
|killing you with beer" - Homer Simpson
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Tracy P. Hamilton

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:07:33 AM1/16/02
to

"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:r80a4ucj5113g9j8k...@4ax.com...

> On 15 Jan 2002 22:59:37 -0500, in talk.origins
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in
> <u49ul9s...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>
> >ReidRover <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20020115202504...@mb-md.aol.com...

[snip]

> >> >"Since"? Has he *ever* done any papers on IC?


> >> >
> >>
> >> Call me niave but i thought he would have done at least ONE before his
famous
> >> book?

The thought of the spectacle gives me a sadistic smile. I would just
love to see the ACS meeting where Behe would peddle such nonsense.

> I was under the impression that he knows how the system works. This may
> explain why he chose not to follow the system.

He would have been forced (how was that phrased - oh, yeah hounded)
to recant. :)

> >> Well maybe i am rather a hayseed : )
> >
> >Not that I'm aware of. I believe he went straight to the book without
even
> >attempting to make a scientific case for this in the journals.
>
> If maximum embarrassment is your goal, it works. I wonder if we can
> start including Behe in with Pons and Fleishman....

No. Behe was obviously wrong because biochemists knew all
about the systems he discussed. At least Pons and Fleischmann
reported new experiments.

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:19:57 AM1/16/02
to
On 16 Jan 2002 10:07:33 -0500, in talk.origins
"Tracy P. Hamilton" <che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote in
<a244v2$57a$1...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>:

Ah, he should be too embarrassed to be in their company. I see.

George Acton

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 12:14:05 PM1/16/02
to
Tracy P. Hamilton wrote:
>
> "David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> news:r80a4ucj5113g9j8k...@4ax.com...
> > On 15 Jan 2002 22:59:37 -0500, in talk.origins
> > "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in
> > <u49ul9s...@corp.supernews.com>:
> >
> >
> > >ReidRover <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >news:20020115202504...@mb-md.aol.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > >> >"Since"? Has he *ever* done any papers on IC?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Call me niave but i thought he would have done at least ONE before his
> famous
> > >> book?
>
> The thought of the spectacle gives me a sadistic smile. I would just
> love to see the ACS meeting where Behe would peddle such nonsense.
>
> > I was under the impression that he knows how the system works. This may
> > explain why he chose not to follow the system.
>
> He would have been forced (how was that phrased - oh, yeah hounded)
> to recant. :)

I don't think so. Nobody would try to tak away his tenure. No
journal would refuse to publish a good paper on real biochemistry.
In fact, based on the example of Duesberg, they'd probably lean over
backwards to treat him fairly about that.
What would happen is that few people would show up for a
presentation and he'd get embarrassing questions, and AFIK no
speaking fee. The people who heard him might be more inclined
to denounce ID in letters to editors, statements to the press, etc.
And that he doesn't want.

> > >> Well maybe i am rather a hayseed : )
> > >
> > >Not that I'm aware of. I believe he went straight to the book without
> even
> > >attempting to make a scientific case for this in the journals.
> >
> > If maximum embarrassment is your goal, it works. I wonder if we can
> > start including Behe in with Pons and Fleishman....
>
> No. Behe was obviously wrong because biochemists knew all
> about the systems he discussed. At least Pons and Fleischmann
> reported new experiments.

P&F did incorrect science, but it was science, because it was open
to experimental testing. "Intelligent Design" doesn't even do that.
It's religious faith masquerading as science, to the detriment
of real science, not to mention religious faith.
--George Acton

howard hershey

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 1:03:26 PM1/16/02
to

----------
In article <EE418.379132$5A3.14...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, "Frank J"
<FN...@home.com> wrote:


>
> "ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...
>> Although as recently as last month i held out some sort of hope for I.D.
> ( i am
>> a theist), i have now lost it with the bunch of em, the last two or three
>> things i have heard from Dembski,Wells and Johnson ,have now convinced me
> they
>> had nothing all along, just the same methods the YEC creationists
> used.Didn't
>> the Discovery Institute have some sort of 5 -year plan or something? Well
> has
>> this plan failed and this is the reason we are hearing nothing but
> gobbldygook
>> and the old creationist standby ,misquotes?
>> I still think there may be hope for Behe,IF he actually decides to do
> some
>> serious research into the problems his Irreducable Complexity face,
> instead of
>> sitting back on his laurels and doing the lecture circuit.Maybe i am
> mistaken
>> and he has done some papers on I.C. since Darwins Black Box?
>>
> Behe does research, but not in the field of evolutionary biology.

He did do one set of experiments (reported in Journal of Molecular Biology a
year or so before DBB) that tried to indicate that the histone gene (which
is highly conserved in eucaryotes) was highly conserved even at positions
which were not *selectively* useful. This would have some relevance to
ideas about hidden information for future uses in the DNA sequence of an
ur-eucaryote (one of the ideas he tossed out as a possible explanation in
DBB). Alas, the way the experiment was done could only demonstrate that,
under laboratory conditions with rich media and with the presence of
multiple copies, one could perform a switch of a lysine for an arginine (or
vice versa, I don't remember) in the histone sequence, a difference which
was never seen in nature, without that difference having any statistically
significant effect on growth rates. Also, alas, a couple of articles in the
Journal of Molecular Evolution (in the same year, but published later, so
there is no implication here that Behe should have known about it) showed
that several major groups of ciliates had this particular arg -> lys switch
in their histones, belieing the premise that all organisms retained this
particular "selectively neutral" (apparently Behe thinks that growth in rich
media represents all possible environmental conditions as well) amino acid
despite its "selective neutrality".

I know of no experiments he has done to demonstrate that his ideas on ICness
are anything but a reflection of his personal level of ignorance.

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 1:27:08 PM1/16/02
to

"ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...


You are premature my friend. The cat is already out the bag, the
horses
out of the barns, and the dirty little secret of evolutionary biology
there for all
to see. *Science* has refuted the claims of evolutionary naturalists.

The language of description of the detailed workings of the
microbiological
basis of life even among evolutionary biologists is *already* the
language of
design. How silly to refuse to consider that the *already admitted*
design
is anything other than only apparent!

The discoveries of biological information storage, retrieval, media
transcription, compression/descompression, cybernetic feedback
inhibition, positive/negative feedback loops, 'cryptic' genes,
regulation, repression, genetic 'battle-short' mode, 'back' mutations,
non-random mutations, etc. The list goes on. All at a scale of
process
and material integration exceeding anything ever concieved or
discovered.

In the face of these extraordinary discoveries the evolutionary
biological
Establishment continues to retreat to 'explanations' which are
apologetic
tautalogies, driven by metaphysical precommitments, which only seek to
artificially insulate their 'theory' from competition All of these
considerations and more show the monopolistic recalcitrance of this
prejudiced view.

We are seeing the death throws of a dying paradigm resting on it's
collective laurels, lacking the imagination and courage to deal with
the
emerging facts of the cybernetic/design basis of life.

I advise you not to give in to it. It is very early in the emerging
paradigm
shift. Despite the Establishments consistent efforts to sabotage the
efforts of the ID movement to establish and grow a healthy research
environment, the truth cannot be denied but for so long.

And they are using the classic techniques of propoganda to do it!

But *science* my friend is openly refuting them.

I hope you will reconsider, and get in on the paradigm shift early.

cheers,

-mg

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 2:09:18 PM1/16/02
to
On 16 Jan 2002 13:27:08 -0500, in talk.origins
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote in
<IBj18.57614$K36.18...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>:


>You are premature my friend. The cat is already out the bag, the
>horses
>out of the barns, and the dirty little secret of evolutionary biology
>there for all
>to see. *Science* has refuted the claims of evolutionary naturalists.

Now, someone who understood science would have included the reference
from an appropriate journal to show why rather than just making a
totally unsupported (and, as we know from other sources, wrong)
assertion.

>The language of description of the detailed workings of the
>microbiological
>basis of life even among evolutionary biologists is *already* the
>language of
>design. How silly to refuse to consider that the *already admitted*
>design
>is anything other than only apparent!

Reference, please.

Mike, the next step is full fledged paranoia. Ed can help you.

Michael Altarriba

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 2:51:17 PM1/16/02
to

Mike Goodrich wrote:


Do you have any actual evidence to support this rather spectacular
collection of assertions? Support them to my satisfaction, and I'll be
the first to adopt this "emerging paradigm." I want the explanation that
best fits the facts, regardless of its effect on my current worldview.
I'll take an ugly truth over a beautiful lie every...single...time.


Aron-Ra

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 3:02:09 PM1/16/02
to

"ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> Although as recently as last month i held out some sort of hope for I.D.
( i am
> a theist), i have now lost it with the bunch of em, the last two or three
> things i have heard from Dembski,Wells and Johnson ,have now convinced me
they
> had nothing all along, just the same methods the YEC creationists
used.Didn't
> the Discovery Institute have some sort of 5 -year plan or something? Well
has
> this plan failed and this is the reason we are hearing nothing but
gobbldygook
> and the old creationist standby ,misquotes?

Welcome to the club.
That was my lament about two years ago. What a disappointment!
And I'm nearly forty years old.

> I still think there may be hope for Behe,

I doubt it.

Aron-Ra

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 3:05:11 PM1/16/02
to
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:27:08 -0600, Mike Goodrich wrote:


> Despite the Establishments consistent efforts to sabotage the
> efforts of the ID movement to establish and grow a healthy research
> environment, the truth cannot be denied but for so long.

So, it's The Establishment's fault that IDers are generating hot air
instead of sound results?

Well, they *do* need an excuse.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Richard Alexander

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 3:17:36 PM1/16/02
to
"Frank J" <FN...@home.com> wrote in message news:<EE418.379132$5A3.14...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>...

> "ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...

[snip]

> Behe does research, but not in the field of evolutionary biology. Most of
> his writings are rehashes of his IC=ID assertion; his onlione debates with
> Kenneth Miller show his skill at avoiding the main points. I had hope for
> him when I first read DBB in 1998, and finally discovered an
> anti-evolutionist who accepted common descent,

Why do you call Behe an anti-evolutionist? He states right in the
front of "Darwin's Black Box" (among other places) that he is an
evolutionist; various Creationist Web sites also identify him as an
evolutionist. Behe's point was not that evolution or common descent
did not occur; his argument is that Darwinian descent with
modification cannot explain certain biological objects, but biology is
so wrapped up in Darwinianism that biologists cannot bring themselves
to addressing this issue.

[snip]

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 3:35:52 PM1/16/02
to
On 16 Jan 2002 15:17:36 -0500, in talk.origins
po...@aol.com (Richard Alexander) wrote in
<d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com>:


>Why do you call Behe an anti-evolutionist? He states right in the
>front of "Darwin's Black Box" (among other places) that he is an
>evolutionist; various Creationist Web sites also identify him as an
>evolutionist. Behe's point was not that evolution or common descent
>did not occur; his argument is that Darwinian descent with
>modification cannot explain certain biological objects, but biology is
>so wrapped up in Darwinianism that biologists cannot bring themselves
>to addressing this issue.

Well, if his criticisms held water, maybe I wouldn't think that he is a
fraud who is only interested in playing politics, but until he manages
to provide evidence that satisfies more than the DI and YECultists, I
will consider him (along Johnson et al.) to be a stalking-horse for
creationism. His argument is unsupported.

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 3:58:51 PM1/16/02
to
Mike Goodrich <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:IBj18.57614$K36.18...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...

You have to admire that awesome burst there at the end. However, he forgot
to work in the terms "materialism", "reductionism", and "preconceived bias".
Also, judging by the second-to-last paragraph, this post came perilously
close to containing actual content - always a no-no for IDers. I give it a
2.5.

[snip]

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 4:00:10 PM1/16/02
to
Richard Alexander <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com...

In other words, his point is that evolution did not occur, at least not when
it comes to certain structures. Rather, it seems, evolution happened almost
everywhere, but some mysterious unspecified intelligent agency intervened at
some point to somehow do something that caused some structure to form that
evolution probably could not have produced. This sounds like creationism to
me.

--
a.a. #2001
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime."
Director, EAC Black Monolith Division - "My God, it's full of stars"
Operative: EAC Electronic Warfare Division
EAC Subversive Fiction Division

http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843

Elmer Bataitis

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 4:29:22 PM1/16/02
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:
(snip)

> The language of description of the detailed workings of the microbiological
> basis of life even among evolutionary biologists is *already* the language of
> design. How silly to refuse to consider that the *already admitted* design
> is anything other than only apparent!

And the detailed workings of the atomic basis of existence is also in
the language of design. Hydrogen combines with 2 oxygen atoms in a
precisely designed way. How is this different?

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 6:14:03 PM1/16/02
to
On 16 Jan 2002 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Mike Goodrich"
<tachy...@home.com>:

<snip>

>*Science* has refuted the claims of evolutionary naturalists.

Cite to the relevant literature, please. Or retract.

<snip>

--

(Note followups, if any)

Bob C.

Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)

"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken

Mike Goodrich

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 6:21:15 PM1/16/02
to

"Michael Altarriba" <mik...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:3C45D941...@jps.net...


Don't know what "your satisfaction" means. In any case if you are
really that open minded then start reading around the ID literature
and
others who take issue with the basic NDT dogma.


> and I'll be
> the first to adopt this "emerging paradigm." I want the explanation
that
> best fits the facts, regardless of its effect on my current
worldview.
> I'll take an ugly truth over a beautiful lie every...single...time.


'Best' is likely to be subjective and predicated on your a priori
metaphysical commitments. Thus you have good reason to re-examine
them just in case you are prefiltering information, concepts, and
arguments and rejecting them. It's up to you.

regards,

-mg

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 6:43:42 PM1/16/02
to
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:02:09 -0600, Aron-Ra wrote:

> "ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...

>> I still think there may be hope for Behe,
>
> I doubt it.

Hope that he'll switch to selling used cars, maybe.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

stew dean

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 7:30:51 PM1/16/02
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message news:<IBj18.57614$K36.18...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>...

>

> You are premature my friend. The cat is already out the bag, the
> horses
> out of the barns, and the dirty little secret of evolutionary biology
> there for all
> to see. *Science* has refuted the claims of evolutionary naturalists.
>

This is news. Got some references?


> The language of description of the detailed workings of the
> microbiological
> basis of life even among evolutionary biologists is *already* the
> language of
> design.

Very much not so.

> How silly to refuse to consider that the *already admitted*
> design is anything other than only apparent!

Which means?

> The discoveries of biological information storage, retrieval, media
> transcription, compression/descompression, cybernetic feedback
> inhibition, positive/negative feedback loops, 'cryptic' genes,
> regulation, repression, genetic 'battle-short' mode, 'back' mutations,
> non-random mutations, etc. The list goes on. All at a scale of
> process
> and material integration exceeding anything ever concieved or
> discovered.
>

Sounds like a mixture of topics that may well becovered by neural
network and artificial life. Life is a self organising sytem -
evolution is the main process it uses that is wonderfully universal.
You can't disprove something that people are already using to design
aircraft?

Look evolution is a very simple system. It's an iterative system (aka
a feedback loop) that is fueled by a low level of random alteration
filtered by the environment. The only way evolution can't happen for a
population is if there is not environment or it is 100% benign.

> In the face of these extraordinary discoveries the evolutionary
> biological
> Establishment continues to retreat to 'explanations' which are
> apologetic
> tautalogies, driven by metaphysical precommitments, which only seek to
> artificially insulate their 'theory' from competition All of these
> considerations and more show the monopolistic recalcitrance of this
> prejudiced view.

Read up on artificial life. You'll find more has been covered than you
appear to be aware of. Evolution is now very useful.

> We are seeing the death throws of a dying paradigm resting on it's
> collective laurels, lacking the imagination and courage to deal with
> the
> emerging facts of the cybernetic/design basis of life.
>

We are seeing increasing use of evolution and a new paradigms of
developing software and other solutions. Design is top down, it's
about building. Evolution is bottom up, its about growing. By evolving
a system you can allow for decentralisation and increased resiliance.
Take the internet for example. Try and build what we have today and
you'd fail. Let it grow, evolve and adapt and it works amazingly. When
was the last time the Internet was rebooted?!?

Chaos theory, complexity, information theory, neural networks,
evolution and emergence are all concepts driving deeper and deeper
understanding of the world around us. After all can you answer 'what
is life?'.

Stew Dean

George Acton

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 7:54:21 PM1/16/02
to

I've run into the following quotes from Behe:

"Once I read Denton's book I was amazed that people believed
in evolution when there was this clear argument against it."

"In reality, [common descent] draws most of its strength not from
the spotty fossil record, but from the scientific community's
predisposition to view nature as an uninterrupted whole. For
intellectually honest people ... the evidence for common descent
may be unpersuasive."

"If it was designed by an intelligent agent through natural
selection, that's not Darwinism. Darwinism says that it was
essentially, philosophically, random. That there was no purpose."
http://www.arn.org/arn/techno/techno1297.htm

The last quote indicates not that he's against some theory
specifically identified with Darwin, but against any naturalistic
explanation at all. This is reinforced by the closing passages
of his book, in which he warns scientists to get ready for the
re-introduction of the supernatural. A theological version of
the warning, "Buckle your seatbelts. It's going to be a rough night."
--George Acton

Michael Altarriba

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 9:04:36 PM1/16/02
to

Mike Goodrich wrote:


I have... and so far, I'm not impressed. The reading I've done hasn't
managed to pursuade me that there is anything of value to the concept of
Intelligent Design as it applies to the origin of life on this planet,
or on how life changes over time.


>
>
>
>>and I'll be
>>the first to adopt this "emerging paradigm." I want the explanation
>>
> that
>
>>best fits the facts, regardless of its effect on my current
>>
> worldview.
>
>>I'll take an ugly truth over a beautiful lie every...single...time.
>>
>
>
> 'Best' is likely to be subjective and predicated on your a priori
> metaphysical commitments. Thus you have good reason to re-examine
> them just in case you are prefiltering information, concepts, and
> arguments and rejecting them. It's up to you.


I tend to prefer those theories that explain the phenomena I observe,
and predict new phenomena that I (or others) can go out and look for.
The physics and engineering that went into my computer's design would
seem to be independent of the metaphysical stance of it's designers, or
mine as a user.

Perhaps you can tell me: what exactly is Intelligent Design Theory, and
what testable predictions does it make?

>
> regards,
>
> -mg
>
>

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:55:47 PM1/16/02
to
Mike Goodrich <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:iVn18.57959$K36.18...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...

[snip]

> > Do you have any actual evidence to support this rather spectacular
> > collection of assertions? Support them to my satisfaction,
>
> Don't know what "your satisfaction" means. In any case if you are
> really that open minded then start reading around the ID literature and
> others who take issue with the basic NDT dogma.

What "literature"?? Michael Behe's demonstrably false claim that evolution
cannot create irreducibly complex structures? Dembski's "design inference"
which assumes that the combination of selection and randomness cannot create
information when that is exactly the thing he's trying to prove? Are there
journals devoted to this? Where is this non-existent literature?

> > and I'll be
> > the first to adopt this "emerging paradigm." I want the explanation
> that
> > best fits the facts, regardless of its effect on my current
> worldview.
> > I'll take an ugly truth over a beautiful lie every...single...time.
>
> 'Best' is likely to be subjective and predicated on your a priori
> metaphysical commitments. Thus you have good reason to re-examine
> them just in case you are prefiltering information, concepts, and
> arguments and rejecting them. It's up to you.

The poster would be well advised to consider the 2x4 sticking out of his own
eye before he starts lecturing others about specks of sawdust. At least we
have actual, physical evidence we can point to, whereas your entire argument
seems to consist of vague whining about naturalism and handwaving arguments
from incredulity. You haven't even attempted to deal realistically with the
many intractable problems that would result from allowing arbitrary
supernatural action into science and thus robbing it of all explanatory and
predictive power.

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jan 16, 2002, 10:57:25 PM1/16/02
to
George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote in message
news:3C4620...@softdisk.com...

If you read each of those quotes carefully, there's an escape hatch in each
of them. Behe's doing his best to straddle the fence here and kowtow to both
sides, though he seems more concerned with assuaging the creationists.

George Acton

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 4:40:49 AM1/17/02
to

Perhaps "assuage" is inaccurate. If he wanted to do that, he'd
explain to the Creationists that scientists arrive at evolution by
a process of trying to interpret the data in good faith, and that
they are open to contradictory evidence. Instead, he tells his
readers that scientists are ignoring obvious evidence that
evolution is wrong. In one of the quotes above he says that
the scientific community is intellectually dishonest. His
Parable of the Elephant says that scientists are trying to advance
atheism by ignoring the evidence for design.
It may be more accurate to say that he's trying to incite
laymen to distrust and hate the scientific community, while
phrasing the incitement in a way that slips under the radar.
--George Acton

Derek Stevenson

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 9:32:34 AM1/17/02
to
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:iVn18.57959$K36.18...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...

> Don't know what "your satisfaction" means. In any case if you are


> really that open minded then start reading around the ID literature
> and
> others who take issue with the basic NDT dogma.

The IDers are taking on non-destructive testing now?

Can they afford to lose the support of all of those creationist engineers?

(I suppose it's possible that creationist engineers don't believe in NDT --
if God chooses not to preserve the item being tested, that indicates that
it's Satanic and *should* be destroyed.)

[snip]


Derek Stevenson

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 9:35:44 AM1/17/02
to
"Richard Alexander" <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com...

> Why do you call Behe an anti-evolutionist? He states right in the


> front of "Darwin's Black Box" (among other places) that he is an
> evolutionist; various Creationist Web sites also identify him as an
> evolutionist. Behe's point was not that evolution or common descent
> did not occur; his argument is that Darwinian descent with
> modification cannot explain certain biological objects, but biology is
> so wrapped up in Darwinianism that biologists cannot bring themselves
> to addressing this issue.

And of course Behe takes great pains to emphasize his acceptance of common
descent and the adequacy of evolution for explaining *most* biological
structures any time he addresses a creationist audience, just so they're
under no illusions as to what he believes.

Oh, wait...

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 9:35:48 AM1/17/02
to
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:54:21 -0600, George Acton wrote:

> I've run into the following quotes from Behe:
>

> "In reality, [common descent] draws most of its strength not from
> the spotty fossil record, but from the scientific community's
> predisposition to view nature as an uninterrupted whole. For
> intellectually honest people ... the evidence for common descent
> may be unpersuasive."

IOW, if you *assume* supernatural intervention, then supernatural
intervention is the best explanation.


> "If it was designed by an intelligent agent through natural
> selection, that's not Darwinism. Darwinism says that it was
> essentially, philosophically, random. That there was no
> purpose."

Again, *assume* a purpose, and you have assumed the existence of an
purposeful agent.


What's that saying about theft and honest toil?

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

TomS

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 12:36:19 PM1/17/02
to
"On 17 Jan 2002 09:35:48 -0500, in article <a26nfv$3j$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
"Bobby stated..."

>
>On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:54:21 -0600, George Acton wrote:
>
>> I've run into the following quotes from Behe:
>>
>> "In reality, [common descent] draws most of its strength not from
>> the spotty fossil record, but from the scientific community's
>> predisposition to view nature as an uninterrupted whole. For
>> intellectually honest people ... the evidence for common descent
>> may be unpersuasive."
>
>IOW, if you *assume* supernatural intervention, then supernatural
>intervention is the best explanation.
[...snip...]

Even if you assume supernatural intervention, how is it an
*explanation*? (Much less *a* best explanation. And far less
*the* best explanation.)

I understand that the myth of Persephone is an explanation for
the coming of spring. There is some connection made, in that myth,
between Persephone coming back to the world of the living, and
spring.

But for the evolution-denier-type of supernatural intervention,
I am not aware of any connection made between some feature of natural
world and a supernatural *explanation* for it, or some character of
one of these Intelligent Designers.

If I ask, "Why is there a smile on the Mona Lisa?", I would
think it is simply avoiding the question to give the response,
"Because the painting was done by Leonardo Da Vinci."

It seems to me the same holds true for, "Why is there an
immune system in mammals?" ... "It is simply avoiding the question
to give the response, "Because of Intelligent Designer(s)". It is a
non-explanation. Even if one assumes (or even if one can demonstrate)
the existence of Intelligent Designer(s), it certainly does not mean
that it is *the*best*explanation*.

Tom S.

Richard Alexander

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 2:00:01 PM1/17/02
to
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message news:<u4bqeff...@corp.supernews.com>...

> Richard Alexander <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > "Frank J" <FN...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:<EE418.379132$5A3.14...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>...
> > > "ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Behe does research, but not in the field of evolutionary biology. Most
> of
> > > his writings are rehashes of his IC=ID assertion; his onlione debates
> with
> > > Kenneth Miller show his skill at avoiding the main points. I had hope
> for
> > > him when I first read DBB in 1998, and finally discovered an
> > > anti-evolutionist who accepted common descent,
> >
> > Why do you call Behe an anti-evolutionist? He states right in the
> > front of "Darwin's Black Box" (among other places) that he is an
> > evolutionist; various Creationist Web sites also identify him as an
> > evolutionist. Behe's point was not that evolution or common descent
> > did not occur; his argument is that Darwinian descent with
> > modification cannot explain certain biological objects, but biology is
> > so wrapped up in Darwinianism that biologists cannot bring themselves
> > to addressing this issue.
>
> In other words, his point is that evolution did not occur,

NO! No, no, no! His point is that *Darwinian* evolution is not the
full explanation of evolution. He believes that evolution occurred,
but that Darwinian evolution cannot explain irreducibly complex
structures. You are falling into exactly the trap of which Behe warns,
that of thinking that evolution and Darwinism or iterative change are
the same thing. Behe's point is that something had to have happened
(whether divine intervention or some unknown principle, it doesn't
matter) that produced structures that conventional descent with
modification cannot produce.

> at least not when it comes to certain structures. Rather, it seems,
> evolution happened almost everywhere, but some mysterious unspecified
> intelligent agency

An intelligent agency is one possibility, but not the only option in
Behe's argument.

> intervened at some point to somehow do something that caused some
> structure to form that evolution probably could not have produced.

The correct statement would be, "that Darwinian evolution (or,
conventional descent with modification) could not have produced."

> This sounds like creationism to me.

It is not. Behe's position does not have anything to do with divine
intervention, or Creationism. His only value to the Creationist
argument (as ICR has noted on its public Web page) is that he shows
that mainstream evolutionary theory cannot explain a critical piece of
the biological world.

Alan Morgan

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 2:20:17 PM1/17/02
to
In article <d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com>,

I don't think that there is disagreement on this point. Darwinian
evolution can't explain them. Whether or not they exist is the question.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

George Acton

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 2:49:21 PM1/17/02
to

But clearly, "Darwinism" is just another way of saying naturalism.
Any "design" has to be physically realized, because the only way
Behe can infer design is through something um physical. If this
does not violate the basic physical laws of chemistry and physics,
it's naturalistic, therefore not "intelligent".
So what Behe is claiming is that supernatural events are
necessary to explain biological organisms. He explicitly says this
in the last pages of his book. He has said in interviews that of
course he has God in mind for the designer.
IOW, you are incorrect in stating that his position has nothing
to do with divine intervention.
--George Acton

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 3:55:37 PM1/17/02
to
On 17 Jan 2002 14:00:01 -0500, in talk.origins

>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message news:<u4bqeff...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Richard Alexander <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com...

...


>> > Why do you call Behe an anti-evolutionist? He states right in the
>> > front of "Darwin's Black Box" (among other places) that he is an
>> > evolutionist; various Creationist Web sites also identify him as an
>> > evolutionist. Behe's point was not that evolution or common descent
>> > did not occur; his argument is that Darwinian descent with
>> > modification cannot explain certain biological objects, but biology is
>> > so wrapped up in Darwinianism that biologists cannot bring themselves
>> > to addressing this issue.
>>
>> In other words, his point is that evolution did not occur,
>
>NO! No, no, no! His point is that *Darwinian* evolution is not the
>full explanation of evolution. He believes that evolution occurred,
>but that Darwinian evolution cannot explain irreducibly complex
>structures. You are falling into exactly the trap of which Behe warns,
>that of thinking that evolution and Darwinism or iterative change are
>the same thing. Behe's point is that something had to have happened
>(whether divine intervention or some unknown principle, it doesn't
>matter) that produced structures that conventional descent with
>modification cannot produce.

Ah, so he's challenging 140 year old science and ignoring the bits we've
learned since then, eg genetics. That doesn't strike me as a
particularly honest or scientific approach, but if you say that's what
he's doing, who am I to argue. I wonder when he will provide an example
of an irreducibly complex structure that withstands more than ten
seconds' scrutiny.


>> at least not when it comes to certain structures. Rather, it seems,
>> evolution happened almost everywhere, but some mysterious unspecified
>> intelligent agency
>
>An intelligent agency is one possibility, but not the only option in
>Behe's argument.

Unfortunately for his argument it is never required.

>> intervened at some point to somehow do something that caused some
>> structure to form that evolution probably could not have produced.
>
>The correct statement would be, "that Darwinian evolution (or,
>conventional descent with modification) could not have produced."

It would also be an erroneous statement for each of the examples he has
provided to date.

>> This sounds like creationism to me.
>
>It is not. Behe's position does not have anything to do with divine
>intervention, or Creationism. His only value to the Creationist
>argument (as ICR has noted on its public Web page) is that he shows
>that mainstream evolutionary theory cannot explain a critical piece of
>the biological world.

They might think so, but I'm not aware of any biologists who take Behe
seriously. Could you name some?

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 4:02:22 PM1/17/02
to
Alan Morgan <amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:a27856$p8t$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...

You've got it the other way around. Standard Darwinian evolution can easily
produce irreducibly complex structures, and has even been shown to do so in
the lab.

Adam Marczyk

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 4:04:17 PM1/17/02
to

Let's not be coy. Does *anyone* think Behe really isn't saying that God
miraculously produced these structures?

> > at least not when it comes to certain structures. Rather, it seems,
> > evolution happened almost everywhere, but some mysterious unspecified
> > intelligent agency
>
> An intelligent agency is one possibility, but not the only option in
> Behe's argument.

What other options are there?

> > intervened at some point to somehow do something that caused some
> > structure to form that evolution probably could not have produced.
>
> The correct statement would be, "that Darwinian evolution (or,
> conventional descent with modification) could not have produced."
>
> > This sounds like creationism to me.
>
> It is not. Behe's position does not have anything to do with divine
> intervention, or Creationism. His only value to the Creationist
> argument (as ICR has noted on its public Web page) is that he shows
> that mainstream evolutionary theory cannot explain a critical piece of
> the biological world.

Well, he happens to be wrong about that, because standard evolution can
easily produce IC structures. I think he even admitted this himself in his
book, he just thinks it's "unlikely."

Alan Morgan

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 5:20:06 PM1/17/02
to
In article <u4eeusl...@corp.supernews.com>,

You are correct. I had twisted the definition in my mind.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 5:39:37 PM1/17/02
to
On 17 Jan 2002 16:02:22 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Adam Marczyk"
<ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com>:

>Alan Morgan <amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>news:a27856$p8t$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
>> In article <d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com>,
>> Richard Alexander <po...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> >NO! No, no, no! His point is that *Darwinian* evolution is not the
>> >full explanation of evolution. He believes that evolution occurred,
>> >but that Darwinian evolution cannot explain irreducibly complex
>> >structures.
>>
>> I don't think that there is disagreement on this point. Darwinian
>> evolution can't explain them. Whether or not they exist is the question.
>
>You've got it the other way around. Standard Darwinian evolution can easily
>produce irreducibly complex structures, and has even been shown to do so in
>the lab.

I think you've missed the implied point. IIRC what has been
shown is that there is no such thing as an irreducibly
complex biological structure anywhere in nature. Behe's
definition of IC as "remove any part and it doesn't work" is
a strawman; the correct definition of IC from the standpoint
of descent with modification would be "a structure which
*could not* have been produced by descent with
modification"; such structures have never been observed. Or
am I incorrect?

IOW, Behe's definition is irrelevant to the question; what's
worse, he *knows* (IMHO) it's a strawman and doesn't really
care so long as he can attract the naive.

Robin Levett

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 6:49:22 PM1/17/02
to
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
news:u4ef2e4...@corp.supernews.com...

> Richard Alexander <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
> news:<u4bqeff...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Richard Alexander <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Frank J" <FN...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<EE418.379132$5A3.14...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>...
> > > > > "ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >

<further snip>

Well, since he says in the book that it was God - or, rather, that the
elephant that did the designing (or was it killed the scientist?) had
God written on the other side - I think the point is very clear.

>
> > > at least not when it comes to certain structures. Rather, it
seems,
> > > evolution happened almost everywhere, but some mysterious
unspecified
> > > intelligent agency
> >
> > An intelligent agency is one possibility, but not the only option
in
> > Behe's argument.
>
> What other options are there?

According to the book (DBB) - none. His whole point is that it was an
Intelligent Designer, that he explicitly identifies as God.

>
> > > intervened at some point to somehow do something that caused
some
> > > structure to form that evolution probably could not have
produced.
> >
> > The correct statement would be, "that Darwinian evolution (or,
> > conventional descent with modification) could not have produced."
> >
> > > This sounds like creationism to me.
> >
> > It is not. Behe's position does not have anything to do with
divine
> > intervention, or Creationism.

Have you actually read DBB? Or are you saying that Behe's position
has changed fundamentally since that book was published?

>> His only value to the Creationist
> > argument (as ICR has noted on its public Web page) is that he
shows
> > that mainstream evolutionary theory cannot explain a critical
piece of
> > the biological world.

.... and that therefore one must invoke an Intelligent Designer - and
the elephant that he fingers has got "God" written on the other side.

>
> Well, he happens to be wrong about that, because standard evolution
can
> easily produce IC structures. I think he even admitted this himself
in his
> book, he just thinks it's "unlikely."
>


--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)

Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________


Frank J

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 7:52:05 PM1/17/02
to

"Richard Alexander" <po...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8fbbe2d.02011...@posting.google.com...

(snip)

> NO! No, no, no! His point is that *Darwinian* evolution is not the
> full explanation of evolution. He believes that evolution occurred,
> but that Darwinian evolution cannot explain irreducibly complex
> structures. You are falling into exactly the trap of which Behe warns,
> that of thinking that evolution and Darwinism or iterative change are
> the same thing. Behe's point is that something had to have happened
> (whether divine intervention or some unknown principle, it doesn't
> matter) that produced structures that conventional descent with
> modification cannot produce.
>

If Behe only wanted to propose a non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism he
would have done what normal scientists do, i.e. do research in the field,
and not take an argument from ignorance directly to a public that largely
misunderstands the nature of science. Darwinian evolution does not claim to
explain every detail of the origins of complex biochemical systems, just the
general mechanisms. The detailed reviews of Behe (e.g. by Ussery et. al.)
show that we are learning more each day and that neither evolution nor the
Darwinian explanation are anywhere near "a theory in crisis." What sets Behe
apart from normal evolutionists is summed up by Jerry Coyne:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/coyne.html

(snip)

Frank J

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 8:58:44 PM1/17/02
to

"Derek Stevenson" <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:u4do9ph...@news.supernews.com...
Of course Behe tailors his argument to suit his purpose. In DBB he
criticizes Kauffman (I find it hard to believe that Behe actually read
"Origins of Order"). But in arguing that the PBS series failed to discuss
alternatives Behe found it convenient to defend Kauffman. Kauffman's reply:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2253_pr91_10142001__kauffman_rej_1
0_14_2001.asp

Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 9:46:27 PM1/17/02
to
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

On 17 Jan 2002 14:00:01 -0500, po...@aol.com (Richard Alexander)
wrote:

And this is controversial in what way? Genetic drift, allometry and
polypolidy are well known non-darwinian evolutionary mechanisms that
have been incorporated evolutionary theories for decades.

>He believes that evolution occurred,
>but that Darwinian evolution cannot explain irreducibly complex
>structures. You are falling into exactly the trap of which Behe warns,
>that of thinking that evolution and Darwinism or iterative change are
>the same thing. Behe's point is that something had to have happened
>(whether divine intervention or some unknown principle, it doesn't
>matter) that produced structures that conventional descent with
>modification cannot produce.

And in this case he is wrong. In _all_ his examples, descent with
modification can be shown to produce the structures he says they
can't.

See http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe1.html
and
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Clotting.html

and references and weblinks therein.

However, Behe clearly states with his "elephant" analogy he thinks the
missing factor is divine intervention.

Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 10:19:35 PM1/17/02
to
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:49:22 -0600, Robin Levett wrote:

> and
> the elephant that he fingers has got "God" written on the other side.

How embarassing!

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Richard Alexander

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 11:36:44 PM1/17/02
to
George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote in message news:<3C4620...@softdisk.com>...
> Richard Alexander wrote:
> >
> > "Frank J" <FN...@home.com> wrote in message news:<EE418.379132$5A3.14...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>...
> > > "ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20020115195744...@mb-ba.aol.com...

[snip]

> http://www.arn.org/arn/techno/techno1297.htm

My ISP must be messing up again; I cannot access the URL you provided.
However, I was able to access www.arn.org, and did a search on "Behe."
I appreciate your pointing me to this site, as it provides me with
some of Behe's rebuttals to his critics.

Incidentally, the front flap of "Darwin's Black Box" states,

"Michael Behe is not a creationist. He believes in the scientific
method, and he does not look to religious dogma for answers to these
questions. But he argues persuasively that biochemical machines must
have been *designed*--either by God, or by some otehr higher
intelligence. For decades science has been frustrated, trying to
reconcile the astonishing discoveries of modern biochemistry to a
nineteenth-century theory that cannot accommodate them. With the
publication of 'Darwin's Black Box,' it is time for scientists to
allow themselves to consider exciting new possibilities, and for the
rest of us to watch closely."

Richard Alexander

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 11:42:41 PM1/17/02
to
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message news:<u4eeusl...@corp.supernews.com>...

[snip]

> Standard Darwinian evolution can easily produce irreducibly complex
> structures, and has even been shown to do so in the lab.

What you say sounds peculiar, for several reasons, and has aroused my
curiosity. What irreducibly complex structures are supposed to have
been created by evolution in a lab? Which lab? Who did the
experiments? When were they performed? When were the results
published? Can you cite any research reports to support your
suggestion? How did you hear of them?

Thank you.

Bigdakine

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 11:49:39 PM1/17/02
to
>Subject: Re: Finally lost faith in I.D.
>From: "Frank J" FN...@home.com
>Date: 1/17/02 3:58 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <1lL18.788$Qc6.1...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
One would've hoped that a professional scientist like Behe would've actually
read Kauffman's works before blabbering about them..

Oh well, good to see that Kauffman corrected him publicly.

Stuart
>
>
>
>
>


Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"

Richard Alexander

unread,
Jan 17, 2002, 11:53:34 PM1/17/02
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<7rje4usq1o67ofc9r...@4ax.com>...

> IIRC what has been
> shown is that there is no such thing as an irreducibly
> complex biological structure anywhere in nature. Behe's
> definition of IC as "remove any part and it doesn't work" is
> a strawman; the correct definition of IC from the standpoint
> of descent with modification would be "a structure which
> *could not* have been produced by descent with
> modification"; such structures have never been observed. Or
> am I incorrect?

AFAIK, the only way to produce an irreducibly complex structure is
through the use of a scaffolding or support mechanism. The trouble the
support mechanism would have to take into account the needs of the
structure being built, in addition to its own structural needs; thus,
it would seem the scaffolding would need to be more complex than the
structure being built. Another problem is in wondering why the support
mechanism would exist, then disappear?

There have been several challenges to Behe's suggested examples of
irreducible complexity. Here is a snippet from one of his replies:

"In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I
devoted a chapter to the mechanism of blood clotting, arguing that it
is irreducibly complex and therefore a big problem for Darwinian
evolution. Since my book came out, as far as I am aware there have
been no papers published in the scientific literature giving a
detailed scenario or experiments to show how natural selection could
have built the system. However three scientists publishing outside
science journals have attempted to respond. The first is Russell
Doolittle, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California
at San Diego, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and expert
on blood clotting. Second is Kenneth Miller, a professor of cell
biology at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin's God (Miller
1999). The third scientist is Keith Robison, who at the time of his
writing was a graduate student at Harvard University.

"I will give their arguments below and my response. Here is a brief
summary.

"1) Professor Doolittle argued that new laboratory work showed two
components of the blood clotting cascade could be eliminated
("knocked-out") from mice and the mice got along fine without them.
However, Doolittle misread the laboratory work: the double knock-out
mice have severe problems and have no functioning blood clotting
system. They are not models of evolutionary intermediates.

"Although anyone can misread a paper, in my opinion the fact that an
expert cited a recent and contradictory journal article, instead of a
publication directly addressing the evolution of blood clotting, shows
that there are indeed no detailed explanations for the evolution of
blood clotting in the literature and that, despite Darwinian
protestations, the irreducible complexity of the system is a
significant problem for Darwinism.

"2) Although embedded in a lengthy description of how blood clotting
and other systems work, Professor Miller's actual explanation for how
the vertebrate clotting cascade evolved consists of one paragraph. It
is a just-so story that doesn't deal with any of the difficulties the
evolution of such an intricate system would face. Even so, in the one
paragraph Miller proposes what looks like a detrimental or fatal
situation, akin to the knock-out mice (above) that lack critical
components.

"3) Keith Robison proposed that a cascade might begin with a single
enzyme with three different properties. Upon duplication of the gene
for the enzyme, the duplicate loses several of the properties,
resulting in a two-component cascade. Repetition of the scenario
builds cascades with more components. Although intriguing, the
scenario starts with a complex, unjustified situation (the enzyme with
multiple abilities) that already has all necessary activities. What's
more, the proposed gene duplication and several steps needed to lose
function are "neutral," unselected mutations. Stringing together
several very specific neutral mutations to build a complex system is
vastly improbable and amounts to intelligent design."

"In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade:
Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison"
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm

[snip]

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 12:00:23 AM1/18/02
to
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:36:44 -0600, Richard Alexander wrote:

> Incidentally, the front flap of "Darwin's Black Box" states,
>
> "Michael Behe is not a creationist. He believes in the scientific
> method, and he does not look to religious dogma for answers to these
> questions. But he argues persuasively that biochemical machines must
> have been *designed*--either by God, or by some otehr higher

> intelligence. [...]"

"either by 'God', or by some other higher intelligence with the same
name."

AKA, crypto-creationism.


Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Wade Hines

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 12:18:55 AM1/18/02
to

Richard Alexander wrote:
>
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<7rje4usq1o67ofc9r...@4ax.com>...
>
> > IIRC what has been
> > shown is that there is no such thing as an irreducibly
> > complex biological structure anywhere in nature. Behe's
> > definition of IC as "remove any part and it doesn't work" is
> > a strawman; the correct definition of IC from the standpoint
> > of descent with modification would be "a structure which
> > *could not* have been produced by descent with
> > modification"; such structures have never been observed. Or
> > am I incorrect?
>
> AFAIK, the only way to produce an irreducibly complex structure is
> through the use of a scaffolding or support mechanism. The trouble the
> support mechanism would have to take into account the needs of the
> structure being built, in addition to its own structural needs; thus,
> it would seem the scaffolding would need to be more complex than the
> structure being built. Another problem is in wondering why the support
> mechanism would exist, then disappear?

Hemoglobin is IC. The Krebs cycle is IC. The evolution of these
systems do not require scaffolding. To the extent that blood
clotting is IC, it does not require scaffolding.

So what are you talking about?

Consider mammalian hemoglobin with alpha and beta chains. Just
mamalian beta won't make a functional hemoglobin and neither
will just mammalian alpha. It is likewise currently required
that a fetus express variant forms of hemoglobin to extract O2
from the placenta. How does the evolution of these systems
require scaffolding?


> There have been several challenges to Behe's suggested examples of
> irreducible complexity. Here is a snippet from one of his replies:
>
> "In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I
> devoted a chapter to the mechanism of blood clotting, arguing that it
> is irreducibly complex and therefore a big problem for Darwinian
> evolution. Since my book came out, as far as I am aware there have
> been no papers published in the scientific literature giving a
> detailed scenario or experiments to show how natural selection could
> have built the system. However three scientists publishing outside
> science journals have attempted to respond. The first is Russell
> Doolittle, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California
> at San Diego, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and expert
> on blood clotting. Second is Kenneth Miller, a professor of cell
> biology at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin's God (Miller
> 1999). The third scientist is Keith Robison, who at the time of his
> writing was a graduate student at Harvard University.
>
> "I will give their arguments below and my response. Here is a brief
> summary.

...

> "3) Keith Robison proposed that a cascade might begin with a single
> enzyme with three different properties. Upon duplication of the gene
> for the enzyme, the duplicate loses several of the properties,
> resulting in a two-component cascade. Repetition of the scenario
> builds cascades with more components. Although intriguing, the
> scenario starts with a complex, unjustified situation (the enzyme with
> multiple abilities) that already has all necessary activities.

That's very untrue. Keith made the situation clear enough. There isn't
a need for clotting capable of stoping high pressure blood flow at the
start. Behe's comments here are quite absurd.

His further distortions are just as bad or worse.

> What's
> more, the proposed gene duplication and several steps needed to lose
> function are "neutral," unselected mutations. Stringing together
> several very specific neutral mutations to build a complex system is
> vastly improbable and amounts to intelligent design."

I do wonder at times if Behe is that dense or that dishonest. I don't
know the answer. The mutations needed are not so specific and Behe
does know enough about proteins to know better.

Michael G.

unread,
Jan 18, 2002, 12:30:44 AM1/18/02
to
On 17 Jan 2002 04:40:49 -0500, George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com>
wrote:
>Adam Marczyk wrote:

[...]



>> If you read each of those quotes carefully