Prayer in schools?

[kimmy]

My understanding is that while Evolution is great at explaining small changes, it is not very good at explaining big changes, and that over the course of evolving from sponges to primates, there are a number of quantum leaps in complexity that are difficult to explain. I started off as an atheist but I have become an agnostic, because to me the explanations being offered aren't wholly convincing.

it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Benefits of conversion

Henderson initially gave the following reasons for converting to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism:

    * Like the noodles they worship, Flying Spaghetti Monsterists have flimsy moral standards.

    * Every Friday is a religious holiday.

    * Promise of a stripper factory and a beer volcano in Heaven.

Sounds like a blast! A stripper factory and beer volcano? I wonder if Judy Sgro's campaign office is run by Pastafarians?

-k

[newbie]

Ultimately, science should be left to the five senses. Evolution is not proven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think there are those of us who believe the two concepts (science and religion) can live together. I am a skeptic when it comes to the bible as archeology just doesn't back up most of the claims or the history of the old testament. As far as Jesus goes, there isn't any secular evidence he even existed. But having said that, I still believe a higher power got things started, but not 10,000 years ago, more like a few billion.

[Melanie_]

Someone help me here, I'm sure I'm doing this wrong but I'm not as computer literate as the rest of you. If I am infringing on copyright, can someone fix this for me?

Anyway, this article discusses intelligent design as being not that intelligent at all. Worthy of a read!

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscribe...p-3464620c.html

Penguin trek defies 'intelligent design'

Tue Aug 23 2005

By Tom Blackburn

The big summer movie for the grandparent demographic is March of the Penguins. All of its actors are emperor penguins, with voice-over by Morgan Freeman, but in this day and age, even cute swimming birds can't avoid the culture wars.

Down in Antarctica each year, penguins walk and belly-slide 120 kilometres to a breeding ground, pair off and mate as the southern winter is about to begin. When mama penguin delivers her egg, she transfers it to papa, who holds it on the top of his feet to keep it warm. He holds it there for four months while mama walks and slides back 120 kilometres to the edge of the ice cap to hunt, rebuild her strength and save food for the chick.

Meanwhile, papa huddles with the other males in minus-80 degree weather to keep the egg warm. The chick hatches on his feet just before mama returns from her 240-kilometre round trip with food for it, if she makes it. Then papa, who by now has lost half his body weight, starts the long trek for food.

This condensed telling doesn't really do justice to a film that (honest!) has romance, adventure, beauty, humor, terror and a G rating. But you can see the problem.

The problem is that evolutionary theory can provide satisfactory biological explanations for all of the penguins' weird child-birthing and rearing behavior. And intelligent design can't.

Why would a designer that created a tiny molecule so complex that it could come only from intelligence put the penguins' food a frigid 120-kilometre walk away from their maternity ward? It's as if the clockmaker of metaphor put the minute hand in one country but the hour hand in another so it would take two people and a long-distance call to find out the time. That's not bright.

Mr. Freeman points out that penguins, mostly aged and weak, die from the rigors of the mating trek, and many eggs don't survive the transfer from mama to papa. Charles Darwin had a phrase for it, which he borrowed from Herbert Spencer: survival of the fittest. Intelligent design needs a way to explain it. It might not be pretty.

Here's what intelligent design is up against. It "knows" there must be a designer because we see things in nature that can only be the product of intelligence. That's intelligence, as we define intelligence. But if a human put the penguins through what happens when they try to propagate, the human would face charges of animal cruelty. If we use human standards of intelligence to judge the designer to be intelligent, don't we have to apply human standards of cruelty and judge the designer to be cruel?

Evolutionary biologists following Darwin have had more than a century to study and explain things like the emperor penguins. The intelligent designers are fairly fresh upon the field. Maybe in 100 years they will be able to explain the march of the penguins through intelligent design. Maybe misery is good for penguins' moral fiber. Or something.

But to do that, the intelligent design theorists have to get going on the research. At present, they are wasting research time to lobby school boards to get their theory equality with Charles Darwin's, even though theirs is still practically in the egg.

Intelligent design is more political science than biological science. Its exponents have a few examples and repeat them over and over. But they have to account for such inelegant phenomena as extinctions, vestigial organs and emperor penguins before they will have any claim on a reasonable person's attention, much less provide useful science.

It's strange that, in the culture wars, those of us who reject the idea of holding a creator to human standards -- and don't think it helps anything to try, are counted among the atheist liberals, while those who make their god live up to their puny standards pass for family-values conservatives.

Look, in 600 years, people will chuckle over both evolution and intelligent design, as we chuckle over science from the 14th century, when the space taken up by incorporeal angels could have scientific implications. In the long term, assuming scientific progress, evolutionary biology probably will join other theories that have been transcended.

But that assumes scientific progress. We won't get there if we stand still, gazing in awe at what the untrained mind imagines to be an inevitable product of, and sure proof for, an intelligence out there, or up there.

-- New York Times News Service

[Black Dog]

That's the thing: ID advocates or unscientific creationists like to point out things like the eye or other complex mechanisms as evidence of design, yet ignore the baffling and often pointless features that no designer with a modicum of intelligence (let alone divine, infinite wisdom) would craft.

[kimmy]

I will start with the disclaimer that I think billing Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is completely retarded.

It's like proposing that since we don't yet know the exact mechanism by which gravity attracts objects together, there might be invisible gnomes who guide objects together. Well, there might, but there's nothing to support the idea over thousands of other equally improbable notions (like, say, magic pixies, or The Tao. Maybe the Tao inherent in all objects just naturally wants them to not be lonely...)

With that said...

That's the thing: ID advocates or unscientific creationists like to point out things like the eye or other complex mechanisms as evidence of design, yet ignore the baffling and often pointless features that no designer with a modicum of intelligence (let alone divine, infinite wisdom) would craft.

This kind of argument is not going to end any debates, because quite clearly, any evolutionary advantage (in this case, weeding out the weak and aged and sickly for the benefit of the greater good) could equally be declared to be a goal of the Intelligent Designer.

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

This kind of argument is not going to end any debates, because quite clearly, any evolutionary advantage (in this case, weeding out the weak and aged and sickly for the benefit of the greater good) could equally be declared to be a goal of the Intelligent Designer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At which point the "Intelligent designer" no longer serves any explanatory purpose and can be dispensed with.

[kimmy]

At which point the "Intelligent designer" no longer serves any explanatory purpose and can be dispensed with.

No, because we're still left wondering by what possible means random mutation and evolutionary pressure could have created some of the astoundingly complex biology we observe.

(and again, I add that I do not buy into "Intelligent Design" as a satisfactory explanation... I simply feel that evolution provides a less than compelling explanation for some of the quantum leaps in complexity that we find along the proposed evolutionary path.)

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

No, because we're still left wondering by what possible means random mutation and evolutionary pressure could have created some of the astoundingly complex biology we observe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who is left wondering? The people that cover their eyes when faced with the evidence and scream "No, you can't make me look!"

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

The Hebrews have a saying, "A Watchmaker implies a watch" (no sh&t!) but the vast eons that are required for evolutionary change are simply incomprehensible to most. I had a 'sometime drinkin' buddy' who would mock me for believing in evolution, saying "Flea's grandfather was an amoeba! Ha ha ha ha ha" (complete with a hearty slapping of the knee, that drunken laugh was both convincing of his argument against and endearing).

However, one point that is often overlooked is that evolution does not, nor cannot, disprove the existence of God. An agnostic myself, (I shun atheism as merely another form of self-grandiose 'deism', where someone claims to definitively know the 'answer') I believe that there is plenty of evidence of evolution, and only one case for the existence of 'god', that being existence itself.

No, because we're still left wondering by what possible means random mutation and evolutionary pressure could have created some of the astoundingly complex biology we observe.

I am not wondering. As I have claimed before, "The Meaning of Life is: to be. Evolution, is 'to be, more efficiently'. Mutation is perhaps too strong a word, because you humans think in the immediate, and can barely comprehend beyond one's own lifespan.

A human life is less than the blink of an eye in an epoch. Humans themselves have only stood upright for a miniscule fraction of the life of the earth. Evolving to fill a niche means a billion organisms tried a billion variations to solve a problem, and it is more a case of adaptation than mutation that wins the right to reproduce (for the one in a billion) over the billions of 'events' that all things face.

[kimmy]

No, because we're still left wondering by what possible means random mutation and evolutionary pressure could have created some of the astoundingly complex biology we observe.

Who is left wondering? The people that cover their eyes when faced with the evidence and scream "No, you can't make me look!"

If you truly believe that, then you are the one who has blind faith in an ideology.

There *are* questions that remain, and have not been satisfactorily answered to this point. Research and debate continues into how or if the basic building blocks of life could really have arisen by chance in the proverbial primordial ooze. The mechanisms by which change occurs are also a subject of ongoing debate. I don't believe that any scientists in the field are prepared to say "yep, we're done. That's a wrap."

Perhaps science will some day fill in all of these details (and I myself believe that day will probably come) but until then, characterizing people (including the evolution scientists who are still trying to answer these questions!) who feel there are unanswered questions in evolution as people covering their eyes and crying "you can't make me look!" is utterly mistaken.

I am not wondering. As I have claimed before, "The Meaning of Life is: to be. Evolution, is 'to be, more efficiently'. Mutation is perhaps too strong a word, because you humans think in the immediate, and can barely comprehend beyond one's own lifespan.

I have no problem with the basics of natural selection and so-on. My concern was based on something that I've had a difficult time expressing, but stumbled across this morning while doing some reading on other points related to this topic. The theme is called "irreduceable complexity," and was put forward by Michael Behe in 1996 in a book called "DARWIN'S BLACK BOX : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

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. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

Behe is a biochemist, and I gather that his book concentrates on biochemical notions of what might or might not be irreducibly complex system. However, his book provides a simplified analogy for us knuckleheads, which is debated on the "TalkOrigins" website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Take a moustrap...

(1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base

(2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse

(3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged

(4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied

(5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged (there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)

Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it...

The idea is that an animal packing around any 4 of those 5 components didn't have a functioning mousetrap, and therefore didn't have a survival advantage. So, either all 5 components evolved simultaneously (a miraculous coincidence...) or else they were obtained by some mechanism other than evolution.

Criticism of this argument seems to center on the issue of whether there are actually any irreduceably complex systems in nature.

Behe apparently concentrates on biochemistry, not on mousetraps. My concerns were neither biochemistry nor mousetraps, but on complex anatomy. Could sexual reproduction have just spontaneously appeared? A partially functional reproductive system isn't a survival advantage (it either works, or it doesn't), so it's not something that natural selection could have favored over a course of dozens of generation... it had to either happen or not happen, right? Well, maybe not right... maybe somebody with a thorough knowledge of the subject can explain that sexual reproduction is not irreduceably complex.

-k

[Black Dog]

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. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

The problem with irreducable complexity is that different components can evolve and become interdependant. As H. Allen Orr wrote:

"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become—because of later changes—essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part ( later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

Behe's theory appears to be nothing more than a "God in the gaps" hypothesis (notably, one that has not been put to peer review).

[kimmy]

The problem with irreducable complexity is that different components can evolve and become interdependant. As H. Allen Orr wrote:

"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become—because of later changes—essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part ( later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

That might make some amount of sense if applied to mousetraps, or even various components that went together into the making of the eye or the ear (for instance) but becomes much harder for me to conceptualize if applied to something like the reproductive system.

Behe's theory appears to be nothing more than a "God in the gaps" hypothesis (notably, one that has not been put to peer review).

I quoted Behe here not because I think he's awesome or because I think the theory is invincible... only because it articulates something that has troubled me for a long time.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

to conceptualize if applied to something like the reproductive system.

Genetics and heredity was the one part of Archaeology and Anthropology that I hated. However, the purpose of reproduction is to pass on genes. There are many types of reproduction, including asexual. The problem with asexual reproduction is that it does not spread out the gene pool all that much, so while single-celled organisms can reproduce, they don't much affect the other 'single-cellers'. Sexual reproduction offers a much greater variety of genes to be passed on, vastly greater combinations, and the chance for evolution (when different combinations get to take a whack at 'success') increaces astronomically.

A scientist once created an amino acid in a controlled environment, I believe it was with a 'primordial soup' of kerosene, etc, and the application of electricity (meant to represent lightning).

How did single-celled organisms go from single to multiple cells? or from asexual to sexual reproduction? Got me, my guess would be absorption, and genetic code mixing within the cell. The ones with the 'right combo' got to go on to 'round #2', and so on.

Evidently, some scientist taught a mealworm or some such creature to go through a maze. Then they ground up said mealworm, and fed it to another, who then 'remembered' how to navigate the maze on the first try. Again, it is all about passing on genetic code.

[Riverwind]

Perhaps science will some day fill in all of these details (and I myself believe that day will probably come)  but until then, characterizing people (including the evolution scientists who are still trying to answer these questions!) who feel there are unanswered questions in evolution as people covering their eyes and crying "you can't make me look!" is utterly mistaken.

People seem to forget that the purpose of scientific enquiry it to find _useful_ explanations for natural phenomena. A _useful_ explanation that allows us to predict what the likely outcome of events in the future based on theories about why things happened in the past. In that respect, evolution is a useful theory because it does allow us to make predictions: for example, the theory behind anti-biotic resistant drugs is entirely based on evolution.

Creationism, on the other hand, is a completely _useless_ explanation because it does not allow us to predict anything. Furthermore, accepting that creator must be responsible for doing all the things that we don't understand encourages people to stop looking for answers that do not involve a divine creator - a kind of fatalism that undermines all scientific enquiry.

[kimmy]

Dear kimmy,

to conceptualize if applied to something like the reproductive system.

Genetics and heredity was the one part of Archaeology and Anthropology that I hated. However, the purpose of reproduction is to pass on genes. There are many types of reproduction, including asexual. The problem with asexual reproduction is that it does not spread out the gene pool all that much, so while single-celled organisms can reproduce, they don't much affect the other 'single-cellers'. Sexual reproduction offers a much greater variety of genes to be passed on, vastly greater combinations, and the chance for evolution (when different combinations get to take a whack at 'success') increaces astronomically.

Yes, yes. I'm good with all of that, honestly. I understand *why* sexual reproduction is a survival advantage. My concern with the issue is *how* it came into being.

The DNA did not sit down and think to itself "you know, it would be a great survival advantage for this species if we could reproduce sexually, rather than assexually. I will plan out some means by which this could be accomplished, and incorporate that into the next generation." (if it did happen that way, that would be intelligent design, after all.)

How did the first organism to reproduce by sperm and egg actually obtain sperm and egg to reproduce with? It seems nonsensical to suggest that something so complicated appeared spontaneously... and yet, if it didn't, where did this first creature get gametes from? The ability to generate gametes wouldn't be a survival advantage until such point as you have a functional reproductive system to use these gametes in. So it seems like all of this has to come together at the same time, or else it would be like (in Behe's example) the mousetrap without a spring-- useless, and not a survival advantage at all.

Black Dog refers to Mr Orr who could perhaps explain how and why gamete generation could actually be a trait that could be passed along without a reproductive system in which to operate. I don't discount that it's possible... I just find it extremely difficult to conceptualize at this point.

A scientist once created an amino acid in a controlled environment, I believe it was with a 'primordial soup' of kerosene, etc, and the application of electricity (meant to represent lightning).

How did single-celled organisms go from single to multiple cells? or from asexual to sexual reproduction? Got me, my guess would be absorption, and genetic code mixing within the cell. The ones with the 'right combo' got to go on to 'round #2', and so on.

Well, getting "the right combo" is a bit of a euphemism. It makes it sound as if perhaps there are clever little DNA molecules actively planning ways to enhance their odds of survival. But that's not what evolution says; that's what Intelligent Design says. Evolution says that stuff happens. Stuff just happens. And trial and error determines which stuff is good and gets passed along, and which stuff is junk and gets snuffed out very quickly. Good stuff has a statistically better chance of surviving to the next generation, and eventually the good stuff becomes predominant. But the mechanism by which stuff happens is not well understood. And for stuff (like reproductive systems) which would seem to require a number of steps before it would yield a survival advantage, natural selection would not seem to explain things satisfactorily.

Evidently, some scientist taught a mealworm or some such creature to go through a maze. Then they ground up said mealworm, and fed it to another, who then 'remembered' how to navigate the maze on the first try. Again, it is all about passing on genetic code.

Memories can be eaten?

-k

[kimmy]

Perhaps science will some day fill in all of these details (and I myself believe that day will probably come)  but until then, characterizing people (including the evolution scientists who are still trying to answer these questions!) who feel there are unanswered questions in evolution as people covering their eyes and crying "you can't make me look!" is utterly mistaken.

People seem to forget that the purpose of scientific enquiry it to find _useful_ explanations for natural phenomena. A _useful_ explanation that allows us to predict what the likely outcome of events in the future based on theories about why things happened in the past. In that respect, evolution is a useful theory because it does allow us to make predictions: for example, the theory behind anti-biotic resistant drugs is entirely based on evolution.

Creationism, on the other hand, is a completely _useless_ explanation because it does not allow us to predict anything. Furthermore, accepting that creator must be responsible for doing all the things that we don't understand encourages people to stop looking for answers that do not involve a divine creator - a kind of fatalism that undermines all scientific enquiry.

I agree with all of this. As I've said a number of times in this thread, I think "Intelligent Design" is nonsensical; I simply reject the notion that evolution has already answered all of the questions we have about the origins of life. Clearly that's not the case.

-k

[Black Dog]

I simply reject the notion that evolution has already answered all of the questions we have about the origins of life. Clearly that's not the case.

I don't think anyone's saying it has. But evolutionary theory is, so far, the best explanation we have.

[Guest eureka]

An instructive case in this debate is that of Antony Flew who, for much of the second half of the twentieth century was an eminent philosopher and atheist write.

Flew is a recent convert to Intelligent Design and now a professed Deist. He is worth taking a look at in a search because most of the arguments can be found in the commentaries and interviews about and with him.

I read about his conversion a year or so when it became public. I have always sat firmly on the fence on the issue convinced by neither side, but have more and more become inclined to the Deism of such as Flew and Einstein.

If we look at Intelligent Design through the same lens, we might shed the notion that we are somehow of importance in life. Without that baggage, it is possible to think of Intelligent Design without evidence and that there is no contradiction with Evolutionism.

Melanie's example of the Penguins is not si difficult when considered in the light of an impersonal creator who does not regard humanity as something special. Ice conditions change with the changing of the earth's cycles. Perhaps the Penguins will survive and perhaps they won't. Those particular Penguins are going to have a much harder job with the changing Antartic climate.

Does it matter is another question. They are just one life form in earth's evolution that may pass along with thousands of others. They matter to us only because we know them and consider anything that is in our lives to be of consequence.

The mousetrap is another example of belaboured thinking. Simply put a little poison on the bait and parts are rendered irrelevant: the mpusetrap itself other than the pin, is only a convenient stage for keeping the poison and the dead mouse in an easy to find place. Irreducible Complexity is a myth that has been negated in many instances by technological advances and sometimes by Common Sense -The Gordian Knot!

I see no way that Intelligent Design could be taught as there is little to teach. It will always be a faith based idea. However, I also see no reason that the idea cannot be incorporated into evolutionary theory which it does not have to contradict> The Designer designed spmething and left it to develop itself. That Designer may also have placed limits on the changes that may occur to conform with its wishes for whatever universe/s there are. We know that there will be an end to Earth and we think that the universe is not infinite. We do not know what limits there are and where a Designer may call a halt to us or to everything else.

I suspect it is only our conceit and self-importance that makes us ridicule the idea of anything but an accidental creation.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The ability to generate gametes wouldn't be a survival advantage until such point as you have a functional reproductive system to use these gametes in. So it seems like all of this has to come together at the same time, or else it would be like (in Behe's example) the mousetrap without a spring-- useless, and not a survival advantage at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep in mind that one gene often effects many seemingly unrelated aspects of an organism. The production of gametes may well have been a useless trait "piggy backed" on a gene that did confer some survival and reproductive advantage via other traits. Over time, and countless other mutations, the production of gametes became indespinsible, and the trait that previously conferred the survival advantage may well have become useless itself.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

I suspect it is only our conceit and self-importance that makes us ridicule the idea of anything but an accidental creation.

I must concur, it is almost as though people believe that 'god' only existed to create man...

If we look at Intelligent Design through the same lens, we might shed the notion that we are somehow of importance in life. Without that baggage, it is possible to think of Intelligent Design without evidence and that there is no contradiction with Evolutionism.

Again, I agree. Evolution does not discount the notion of 'god' creating life. It only counters the 'biblical account' of existence, and not even fully, as the 'six days' are subject wholly to mankind's interpretation.

[kimmy]

The mousetrap is another example of belaboured thinking. Simply put a little poison on the bait and parts are rendered irrelevant: the mpusetrap itself other than the pin, is only a convenient stage for keeping the poison and the dead mouse in an easy to find place.

The question is not how best to deal with mice, the question is of explaining things that are observed in nature. If we observed a mousetrap in nature, then to be viable, any theory on the formation of life would have to offer a plausible explanation for how that mousetrap came to be. If we observe an eye, or a muscle fibre, or a nervous system, or an ovary, then any viable theory of life's origins has to be able to explain how those things came to be.

Irreducible Complexity is a myth that has been negated in many instances by technological advances and sometimes by Common Sense -The Gordian Knot!

Irreduceable complexity can't be categorized as a myth. It is only a concept. If it can be shown that any system in nature really is "irreduceably complex", then irreduceable complexity is a *relevant* concept that must be addressed. Until or unless an example of an irreduceably complex system can be found, it is not something that must be addressed. However, the fundamental idea is simply common sense: anything we observe in nature must be able to be traced back to the most basic roots. If the theory of evolution is correct, then anything we observe in nature must be able to be traced back to a strand of DNA. If there's some step along that path that can't be explained, then that's a problem that the theory must address.

-k

[Black Dog]

If it can be shown that any system in nature really is "irreduceably complex", then irreduceable complexity is a *relevant* concept that must be addressed. Until or unless an example of an irreduceably complex system can be found, it is not something that must be addressed.

Well, given most of Behe's examples have been shown to be not irreducably complex it's safe to say that dog don't hunt.

A reducibly complex mousetrap

[kimmy]

Well, given most of Behe's examples have been shown to be not irreducably complex it's safe to say that dog don't hunt.

That's like arguing that since transitional fossils have yet to be found, we can dismiss evolution.

The dog hunts. The logic is sound. The question is whether it's actually applicable to anything in nature. If not, then it is a hypothetical issue that is of only theoretical interest.

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

That's certainly a splendid treatment of the mouse-trap. Whether the same can be shown for biochemistry or other complex systems we find in nature is, of course, far beyond me. I assume that Dr Behe and his supporters will continue to be hard at work to find what they think is an example, and Dr Miller and others will of course do their best to refute their examples. I don't think we can say conclusively that evolution can explain everything until everything has been explained.

...but he seems to be saying that showing how something would work after removing some parts is not enough to reject irreducible complexity; it is necessary to show how something could be built up, step by step, with each addition or modification of a part improving the function. This seems to go beyond the original definition ("necessarily composed of several parts"), ...

This reminds me a bit of the creationists' complaint about evolution ("how can we disprove it if they can keep updating it???") but it's actually just a corollary of evolution: yes, it is necessary to show how something could be built up step by step. That's the definition of evolution, is it not?

The mousetrap illustrates one of the fundamental flaws in the intelligent design argument: the fact that one person can't imagine something doesn't mean it is impossible, it may just mean that the person has a limited imagination.

Very true, but demonstrating a viable means of evolution for anything we observe in nature is not merely a nuisance or a means of shutting Dr. Behe up. It's a consequence of the theory of evolution that if we observe something then there most be an explanation of how it came to be. Demonstrating the evolution of complex mechanisms and processes in nature will, aside from refuting Dr Behe, also have the beneficial side effect of, you-know, filling in important gaps in the theory of evolution and advancing the frontiers of human knowledge.

-k

[Black Dog]

That's like arguing that since transitional fossils have yet to be found, we can dismiss evolution.

Noooooooo. Transitional fossils have been found.

The dog hunts. The logic is sound. The question is whether it's actually applicable to anything in nature. If not, then it is a hypothetical issue that is of only theoretical interest

Okay, we need to find some examples of IC systems.

...

....

.....

I don't think we can say conclusively that evolution can explain everything until everything has been explained.

I hate repeating myself, but:

don't think anyone's saying it has. But evolutionary theory is, so far, the best explanation we have.

This reminds me a bit of the creationists' complaint about evolution ("how can we disprove it if they can keep updating it???") but it's actually just a corollary of evolution: yes, it is necessary to show how something could be built up step by step. That's the definition of evolution, is it not?

Nope. It's not a step by step process of addition or subraction or parts. Existing parts get modified. Old, obsolete parts are retained. Usage changes over time and according to teh advantages confered. It's not a sequence.

[August1991]

No, because we're still left wondering by what possible means random mutation and evolutionary pressure could have created some of the astoundingly complex biology we observe.

I have skipped through this thread so I may have missed some points.

I have found that most discussions of these issues ignore two basic concepts that truly said are impossible to comprehend.

First, the universe is now estimated to be about 15 billion years old, or so. (Our own earth is about 5 billion years old.)

Second, there are about 125 billion galaxies in the universe and each galaxy has about 100 billion stars. (On a very clear night, far from a city, you can see about 8000 stars.)

These numbers defy any possible attempt at comprehension. We are in a universe of utter probability - almost anything is possible.

Now then, this does not explain the origin of the universe but it helps in understanding life on this planet.

Unless of course the Pastafarians are behind it all.

Edited August 31, 2005 by August1991