This is logically incoherent. Evolution as a theory works well to explain the evidence we have at hand and it predicts future events. In other words, it's been tested against evidence and upheld by the results of those tests. Probability, as it's used by ID proponents, is neither here nor there with respect to the facts evolution explains. While it is certainly the case that outcomes explained by evolution are extremely improbable, that in and of itself is not a basis for claiming that design is more likely to have been responsible for those outcomes. ID cannot be taught as a science because it does not go about asking questions in a scientific way. Canard Alert: When scientists refuse to teach Intelligent Design in their classes they are not stifling students' intellectual curiosity, they are fighting the unjustifiable, politically motivated injection of a non-science in their classes and they are right to do so. Students are perfectly free to find other places follow ID mythology. There's nothing wrong with this. There is, however, something very wrong with students being fed lies, such as "ID is a suitable alternative explanation to evolution" by science teachers forced to do so through the machinations of a pack of organized religious zealots.
--- totally contradict? as in: present facts that are mutually exclusive? or is it remotely possible that what you are reading are two slightly different presentations of the same story, with the purpose of emphasizing different aspects?
--- what would your position be regarding presenting Michael Behe's evaluation of certain "evolutionary processes" in a science class?
My understanding is that Behe's arguments about "irreducible complexity" are more philosophical than scientific: they don't generate testable hypotheses. Rather they are aimed at undercutting evolutionary arguments by claiming that preexisting biological systems logically could not have occurred via the processes described by evolutionary models. (I've also read some arguments that I think do a very good job of debunking his core "irreducible complexity" claims.) As such, it might be better suited to a philosophy of science class than biology, but only if the teacher feels Behe's work was a useful tool for teaching students one aspect or another (and I'm afraid I'm thinking of it as a negative example) of scientific explanation. I'd object to Behe's work being in a science class, proper, until it had established a credible track record vis-a-vis the evidence to the extent that it had become a viable--rather than hopeful--alternative explanatory model. Of course I'd think it would be completely inappropriate for some non-scientific political body, such as a school board, to require that his arguments be taught alongside evolutionary arguments because there is as yet no such track record.
--- Behe is a scientist. His work attacks the suppositions that science makes about certain phenomena, events that cannot be reproduced, tested, evaluated in any purely scientific manner. I, personally, find it absurd to believe that RNA and DNA evolved separate from one another. The one is irrelevant without the other, like the contents of the egg shell and the shell itself. But this isn't something that can be tested, proved, subjected to anything but some sort of reasoned scrutiny. And reason would demand that phenomena have causes, and currently, science can properly say that the cause of X is unknown, but it probably was Y because science knows that Z is true. But Z does not prove Y. Y is taken to be true because it cannot be disproved. Science cannot demonstrate that the blood-clotting cascade developed thru an evolutionary process, but neither can I disprove that it did. But why would one believe that blood-clotting evolved? If blood does not clot, everything that bleeds would bleed to death, or if not death, to debilitation that would render the lifeform easy prey. I know of no reasonable explanation for the phenomenon -- and please don't say that millions of years of evolution account for it. You don't have any idea whether that's true in this particular case or not. See link for Behe's blood-clotting ideas http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm
try this one on for size: is it possible to be a believer and realize that your holy book is man-made for the purpose of worship? if so, then you are allowed you to combine your intellect with your faith to take "cleaner" messages and themes from the story again, this is bizarre logic for someone who accepts the bible as a man-made work - why on earth should people so delusional to take the bible 100% literally get respect? no offense, but everybody out there has a God-given (if you will) sense of logic and reason - i refuse to go around respecting or emulating those who refuse to utilize these gifts frankly... people masqerading their personal issues and opinions in a religious cloak to win sway should offend you much more than it does me considering these are usually the same people that think they are better no matter how ridiculous they act simply because of their (often loose) religious affiliation, i can assure i am not going to waste time feeling guilty over any of my smug jokes on the topic
He may very well be a scientist (a biochemist, IIRC) but his irreducible complexity argument is in and of itself not scientific. From what I see Behe's claims are merely the basic claim of ID in miniature: that it's impossible for this to have happened in the way predicted by the evolutionary model. That's not a hypothesis. Nor has his argument generated any secondary hypotheses that have in turn been tested against evidence. Unless and until it does so, Behe's argument is not a viable challenger to the evolution. There also are a slew of refutations, general and specific, of Behe's interpretations of the evidence out there that I find pretty convincing. However, as I said, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Behe's arguments being taught in philosophy of science class.
--- first of all, if such persons are delusional, you would expect to see the delusion seep under the door of the rest of their lives. since you don't see that, typically -- i'm not talking about people who think they are Napoleon -- it's completely disingenuous to say that they are delusional. they may be mistaken, but delusional is not an apt description. second, you may have issue with certain things that the Bible purports to be true, but it seems to me that these must be dealt with on a case by case basis, not all painted with the same broad brush. for example, it has been said that Genesis Ch 1 and Ch 2 contradict one another. but perhaps they don't. it all depends on whether you believe that there is seamless continuity of time within each specified day. if you believe that certain statements are parenthetical, that is they do not fit into a seamless time continuum, then there is no contradiction. Genesis was not written as a science text. it cannot be subjected to the kind of rigorous scrutiny that you would expect such a text to stand up to. you must deal with seeming contradictions from the perspective that there may (or may not) be a reasonable explanation for what seems to be contradictory, expecially when you cannot ask the writer what he intended. you also cannot be sure that any individual interpretation of scripture is accurate. because some man says that Exodus 8:2 means such and such is not definitive. the only way to understand Biblical texts is to allow the Bible to provide commentary upon itself. we do this all the time with written material; we refer to other parts of a document to amplify or explain a specific point or issue. the Bible must be given the same advantage.
--- from the standpoint that he is challenging the validity of the "science" that supports the evolutionary argument, it is in the room where science is the topic of discussion. in the link i supplied, Behe is mostly asking questions -- did you read it? -- and it appears that, at least within the document he has written, the scientists are ignoring his questions. are there better explanations of his questions about protein targeting? can you provide a link to information that would respond to this set of objections to an evolutionary model?
1-you really believe that, huh? hmmm, well looking back through history, i'm gonna have to say i see an endless supply of religious people who did awful things thinking they were doing right by God 2-ummm that's kinda what i'm saying, dude... the people saying "the bible is 100% true" are holding that broad brush you speak of
--- endless supply? funny. when you read something, you react to it from reason. you say: "is this true?" you do not start with the assumtion that it is not true and ask it to prove its truth. if you begin with the belief ( not the established fact ) that supernatural phenomena are not possible, then there are lots of occurences in the Bible that are not believable. but if you allow for the possibility that "miracles" occur, then the Bible is believable on that score. give me one example of something where the Bible cannot be taken literally, where it clearly is supposed to be taken literally. when Jesus says, for example, that something is like something else, that isn't to be taken literally because, obviously, it's a comparison, and comparisons are by their nature inexact, for the most part. but i digress. one example. please.
first of all, i don't recall that i've ever said or implied that i was incapable of believing in the supernatural secondly, i do not wish to debate you point-for-point on the bible - i will gladly conceed you know it better than me, and i will only say something to offend you (and/or others) without meaning to however you want to take you religion, it will never change the FACT that ID is a manufactured theory - teaching it would be promoting intentional ignorance
Care to point out exactly what you feel is "totally contradictory"? Which religion? All ID says is that some level of intelligent "something" was responsible for the origin of life. Some religions do go on to state specifically how the various species started but that is not integral to ID though some folks on both sides claim that it is.
Here's one that responds directly to the blood clotting cascade argument. It's pretty thick. Pun intended. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
--- everything was fine until Miller made these statements: he goes on to say that one would have to find a particular kind of substance in a non-vertebrate that would be the precursor to the analogous form in vertebrate hematology. since there is one, that establishes the rule. the problem is that it does if and only if the theory of evolution is correct. i cannot believe that you don't see that these arguments are circular.
In this particular instance, Miller's task is not (directly) to support evolution. It's to rebut Behe's claim that the blood clotting cascade (bcc) is an instance of irreducible complexity. If I understand his argument correctly, Behe claims that, given the precepts of evolution, irreducible complexities as he identifies them could not have occurred. Thus all Miller has to do is come up with a plausible explanation of how the bcc might have evolved. He does not have to do so absent any reference to evolution. In fact, based on Behe's own argument, Miller must do so within the precepts of evolution. Thus Miller's argument is not circular inasmuch as it operates within the terms prescribed by Behe's own argument about irreducible complexities.
It's argument is not based on probabilities as much as it is based on a lack of understanding of probability. To say "event y is so improbable that there must be a supernatural force at work here" is not a mathematical argument. Both assumptions are, to put it politely, without empirical evidence. This is just a stupid comment. Students can engage in anything they want. Do not make the foolish mistake of equating what is taught in school with encouraging or discouraging intellectual curiosity.
Yes, and that is what is so convenient about ID. They propose a religious idea without any specific religion stated. Would it surprise you that the super-majority of ID proponents come from a judeo-christo background? I wonder which "intelligent" being this majority is refering to? I don't deny the possibility that a higher being could have created us (although I don't find it likely). But on the other hand, I don't want something that is unprovable being passed as science in our schools. Maybe I am too American to not want anything remotely religious in our schools. Moving on. Are there problems in evolutionary theory? Yes, like there are holes and\or problems in all(?) fields. Hell, if all the holes were patched, what would be the point of studying evolution? ps. I suggest ID proponents stop worrying about getting their ideas in schools until their theories have had time to mature (which they most certainly will), because at this point ID theory is immature at best and it is laughable to call it a science.
--- i think the key word is plausible... Miller's own statement demonstrates that he cannot say to a certitude that the bcc developed in a specific fashion. he concludes from what he believes is reasonable from what he considers valid evolutionary processes that the bcc evolved so and so. but, as i stated, he doesn't really know that any other evolutionary process that he is pointing to as evidence actually occurred as he purports. everyone is making educated guesses. i will quickly acknowledge that they are educated guesses, but guesses, nonetheless. if i'm not mistaken, no one has observed in a controlled experiment the actually mutation of a gene that produced an evolutionary step. we are not seeing evolution take place. we are not seeing new species crop up before our very eves. we are not seeing good mutations occur. what we do see is hideous mutations. but we are to believe that there were scads of good mutations and gene duplications and all kinds of other cool phenomena that support an evolutionary model. ain't it great to be able to guess about scientific stuff and have a whole coterie of smart folks fawn and maunder about how really smart you are?
No, the key word is "possible." Behe claims that it's impossible, given evolutionary processes as described, for the bcc to have evolved: that instead some other, guided process must have instantiated the necessary events. A successful refutation of Behe's claim therefore needs merely to describe how it is possible for the bcc to have evolved, given evolutionary processes as described. Miller does that. To turn around and then say "but that's implausible" merely reconstitutes the basic ID position, which is a completely ineffectual one within the realm of scientific arguments. For that matter, evolutionists have always recognized that the outcome of any particular evolutionary outcome is extraordinarily unlikely, compared to all other possible outcomes. It's the supporters of ID, with their assumption that the "natural order" must have been the deliberate end in sight from the beginning, that have the insistence on anthrocentric probability. There is nothing in the scientific method or the facts we have before us that requires evolution to accord itself to that insistence in the way ID supporters demand. And we do see speciation occurring all the time, at the microbial level for example, because thoes systems are simple enough and the generations are short enough for us to observe those changes. The fact that it takes much longer for speciation to occur among more complex organisms is not a problem for evolution as a working theory. Nor has anyone successfully (as opposed to desperately) argued that the processes we observe directly cannot be driving evolution. Behe's argument is just one of a number of failures in that regard.
And the ID theory is? Gene mutation does not equal evolution. Natural selection much more a central tenent to the theory and it has been observed in nature and in labratories. That's because we can't, at least not with complex organisms. You can't see evolution because of the time span in which it takes place. Now, in theory, we are seeing evolution take place, but we just don't know it. It's reasonable to conclude that changes are taking place not just in humans, but other animals that are making them more adaptable to their environment, but it takes thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years for these changes to become evident. Again, mutations are not as big as you're making them out to be. And again, you won't see them till after they happen, and that then assumes that when they're passed on through the genetic code of their offspring that they're actually beneficial, and guess what, you'll be long dead when people realize a mutation may have happened. Such as? Sure, over billions of years. Not last week. As opposed to just making up a theory out of thin air? Bingo. Well said. I'd like to point out that one of the biggest stories at the end of last year and continuing into this year is avian flu. The idea that it could infect humans on a pandemic scale requires that it mutates/evolves into a bug that is transferable from human to human. All that takes is the avian flu being in the system of a human who has another strain of influenza and the two combining to form a new virus. For the virus this is natural selection as a more contaigeous bug lets it thrive the way any other adaptation allows a more complex organism to.
i think the crux of evolution is not speciation but the creation of new genera, otherwise all you have is very complicated algae, at best. so it's a bit difficult of dimwits like all of us Christians to see how Man evolved from any kind of one celled life, let alone a lemur. tell me, if you would, how we got from tadpoles to wombats. that seems like a little more than adaptation, or am i missing something? am i supposed to believe that the development of lungs was an adaptation?