SubscribeBasically, Behe's approach was this: Complex systems in advanced organisms depend on many biochemical steps, all of which must be in place for the system to work at all.Well, that just shows how Behe has falsely limited the ways in which evolution can work.
So how, Behe asked, could such a complex system have evolved, if the only method available was random variation plus natural selection?
In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotaryBTW, you can do this with every single bullet point OSC brings up. The ruling covers them all.
motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.
Perhaps he believes that the story of Life On Earth follows the same template as Ender's Game: 300 pages of setup followed by a lame "O. Henry" ending that only a hydrocephalic box turtle wouldn't see coming from miles away.Funny that you mention O'Henry as both authors lived in Greensboro, NC at least part of their lives. Or, was that reference intentional? Anyway NC locals know that Card is a frequent contributor to the most ridiculous free newspaper in town; The Rhinoceros Times.
y6y6y6: ... As a Mormon he has a rather large theological context which compels him to be a douchebag. ...Priceless!
empath: Personally, I don't think OSC is a particularly fine science fiction writer. Ender's Game was only average at best. The only thing it had going for it was that it shamelessly exploited some of the worst impulses of bright, picked-on children.You pretty much nail how I felt about it. For me, it was a lot like watching Andromeda at 6pm on a Saturday evening: It could be amusing if I had nothing better to do while I ate dinner, but afterward I was often left with a strange sense that soemthing wasn't right.
"They instead behave like religious fanatics whose favorite dogmas are being challenged. That's why they answer their serious critics with name-calling, credentialism, expertism, sniping, politics, and misdirection, answering questions that have not been asked, using answers that have nothing to do with the real questions."His understanding of how things work is pretty good. He brings up a good criticism with the idealised Intelligent Design argument:
"Their argument is that the Darwinian model is not a sufficient explanation.Unfortunately, this would be the ideal case, yet this is clearly not the only goal of most activists who call themselves supporters of ID.
...
The Designists challenge only the sufficiency of Darwin's model. The claim only that it does not seem adequate to explain systems that were completely unknown at the time he created his theory."
"Here's the only correct answer to the Designists:And this is true, and moreover the important factor is that there is not way to test the ID hypothesis to prove it false or leave it as a possibility. Tellingly though, he lets this one sit.
Yes, there are problems with the Darwinian model. But those problems are questions. "Intelligent design" is an answer, and you have no evidence at all for that."
"But the normal answer of the Darwinists is also a leap of faith. In effect, their arguments boil down to this: We have no idea right now how these complex systems came to be, but we have fervent, absolute faith that when we do figure it out, it will be found to have a completely mechanical, natural cause that requires no "intelligent designer" at all."I think this is spot-on. Personally, the last thing I want to see is religion being introduced as real science in the classroom, yet I think most scientists would agree that there is no pausible way to take the "God hypothesis" off the board. Science works like this: we throw up a bunch of hypotheses and models that could fit our observations and engage in a round robin of shooting some down. Then we see if the remaining ones fit further observations we do, followed by more rounds of shooting down and observing.
"Physicists know this -- they don't get their dander up and demand that non-Einsteinian physics never be taught in the public schools, for instance. They recognize that at the bleeding edge of science we simply don't know stuff yet, and no past genius has authority today, if and when we come up with data that may not support his theories."And it's a bad argument for two reasons:
posted by bove at 11:12 AM on January 20, 2006