Topic: Irreducible Complexity: Behe's Argument (Read 8559 times)

matt · « **on:** December 02, 2005, 06:32:57 AM »

Let's begin by talking about Darwin's work, On the Origin of Species. Darwin was hoping to explain what no one had been able to explain before, which was how the variety and complexity of the living world might have been produced by simple natural laws. This idea is called the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Darwins 5 observations:

1) All species of organisms show variation among individuals
2) Atleast some of that variation is heritable
3) Natural Resources are limited for any given specise, and there will be more offspring in every generation than can make it to the reporductive age
4) There must be some competition for resources within the population; some individuals will outcompete others
5) Some individuals must have a competitive advantage over others in the conditions that prevail at any given time

Conclusion: Those individuals with a competitive advantage will leave more offspring than those without the advantage. The variation that gave them that advantage will be passed on to their offspring and will therefore become more common in the population.

Even though this was an elegant idea, the basis of life was as yet unknown to scientists.

Many of those scientists at that time (Darwin's era) viewed the cell as a simple glob of protoplasm.

Now, we have seen that the cell is run by machines- literally machines made of molecules. There are molecular machines that enable the cell to move, machines that empower it to transport nutrients, and machines that allow it to defend itself.

The main difficulty for Darwinian mechanisms is that many systems in the cell are "irreducibly complex".

Irreducibly complex system : a single system that is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning (Behe 2001).

An example of this would be a mechanical mousetrap like the one you would find in a hardware store.

Typically, such traps have a number of parts: a spring, a wooden platform, a hammer, and other pieces. If one removes a piece from the trap, it can't catch mice. Also, without the spring, or hammer, or any of the pieces, one doesn't have a trap that works half as well as it used to, or a quarter as well; one has a broken mousetrap, which doesn't work at all (Behe 2001)

Irreducible complex systems are very difficult to fit into a Darwinian framework, for a reason insisted by Darwin himself.

Darwin said in the Origin, "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case" (Darwin 1859, 158)

Darwin was emphasizing that his was a gradual theory. Natural selection had to improve systems by tiny steps, over a long period of time, because if things improved too rapidly, or in large steps, then it would begin to look as if something other than natural selection were driving the process.

It is hard to see how something like a mousetrap could arise gradually by something akin to a Darwinian process.

A spring by itself, or a platform by itself, would not catch mice, and adding a piece to the first nonfunctioning piece wouldn't make a trap either.

There are many biochemical systems that are examples of irreducible complexity: the eukaryotic cilium, the intracellular transport system, and more.

However, let's discuss the bacterial flagellum.

The flagellum can be thought of as an outboard motor that bacteria use to swim. It was the first truly rotary structure discovered in nature. It consists of a long filamentous tail that acts as a propeller; when it is spun, it pushes against the liquid medium and can propel the bacterium forward. The propeller is attached to the drive shaft indirectly through something called the hook region, which acts as a universal joint. The drive shaft is attached to the motor, which uses a flow of acid or sodium ions from the outside to the inside of the cell to power rotation.

Just as an ouboard motor has to be kept stationary on a motorboat while the propellor turns, there are proteins that act as a stator structure to keep the flagellum in place. Other proteins act as bushings to permit the drive shaft to pass through the bacterial membrane.

Studies have shown that thirty or forty proteins are required to produce a functioning flagellum in the cell. About half of the proteins are components of the finished structure, whil the others are necessary for the construction of the parts that act as the propeller, drive shaft, hook, and so forth- no functioning flagellum is built (Derosier 1998; Shapiro 1995).

A hook by itself, or a driveshaft by itself, will not act as a propulsive device.

Also, there is associated with the functioning of the flagellum an intricate control system, which tells the flagellum when to rotate, when to stop, and sometimes when to reverse itself and rotate in the opposite direction. This allows the bacterium to swim forward or away from an appropriate signal, rather than in a random direction that could much more easily take it the wrong way.

Thus the problem of accounting for the origin of the flagellum is not limited to the flagellum itself but extends to associated control systems as well.

Second of all, a more subtle problem is how the parts assemble themselves into a whole.

The information for assembling a bacterial flagellum resides in the component proteins of the structure itself.

Recent work shows that the assembly process for a flagellum is exceedingly elegant and intricate (Yonekura et al. 2000).

If that assembly information is absent from the proteins, then no flagellum is produced. Thus, even if we had a hypothetical cell in which proteins homologous to all of the parts of the flagellum were present (perhaps performing jobs other than propulsion) but were missing the information on how to assemble themselves into a flagellum, we could still not get the structure (Dembski and Ruse 2004).

The problem of irreducibility would remain.

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2005, 07:53:56 PM »

Matt, you are not stranger to these discussions, so I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish here, other than an ad nauseam repetition of a discredited argument.

Let me point out just one flaw in the irreducible complexity argument. Mousetraps can have other uses than to capture mice. Depending on their configuration, weight, and other characteristics, they can be used as paperweights, doorstops, objets d'art, muscial instruments, and so on.

Organs, like mousetraps, are not required to have just a single function. So, while a given mousetrap or organ my be irreducibly complex in one of its functions, it may not be in all of its functions. Irreducible complexity fails on the grounds that it takes all organs as having evolved only to fulfill the function for which it is called "irreducibly complex".

Do you understand the nature of my objection to the "irreducible complexity" argument? There are plenty of other problems with Behe's attacks on Darwinism, but this is one of the clearest ways in which misrepresents the way in which biological complexity develops--the assumption that complexity cannot serve overlapping and alternative needs of the host organism. (Consider, for example, that the tongue is used both to taste substances before ingesting them--a "bad food" alarm system--and speech communication.)

matt · « **Reply #2 on:** December 04, 2005, 03:24:05 PM »

Quote

I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish here, other than an ad nauseam repetition of a discredited argument.

I expect now to explain the so called "flaws" in what you call a discredited argument. However, let me first try to understand your first assumption of "irreducible complexity" in a more descriptive manner concerning mousetraps.

Quote

Mousetraps can have other uses than to capture mice. Depending on their configuration, weight, and other characteristics, they can be used as paperweights, doorstops, objets d'art, muscial instruments, and so on.

Let's take for example an irreducible complex structure, the cilium.

If a cell with a cilium is free to move about in a liquid, the cilium moves the cell much as an oar moves a boat. If the cell is stuck in the middle of a sheet of other cells, the beating cilium moves liquid over the surface of the stationary cell. Nature uses cilia for both jobs. For example, sperm use cilia to swim. In contrast, the stationary cells that line the respiratory tract each have several hundred cilia (Behe 59).

Ciliary motion certainly requires microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally it requires a motor, or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, it requires linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these parts are required to perform one function: ciliary motion (Behe 65).

Basically, what I am trying to say is that even though the cilium may have more than one function that does not mean it is not irreducibly complex. I have displayed in this post what is required for ciliary motion, and even though the cilia may be used in different ways, that still does not explain how a complex structure such as the cilium could have evolved through slight, numerous, succesive mutations to perform its basic function.

If it cannot perform it's basic function than what classifies it as a cilium?

Were mousetraps made for doorstops? No. They were made to perform its basic function and that is to catch mice.

Also, why don't we talk about the other attacks on irreducible complexity since you mentioned them if you don't mind.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2005, 11:19:51 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus

.

Organs, like mousetraps, are not required to have just a single function. So, while a given mousetrap or organ my be irreducibly complex in one of its functions, it may not be in all of its functions. Irreducible complexity fails on the grounds that it takes all organs as having evolved only to fulfill the function for which it is called "irreducibly complex".

Do you understand the nature of my objection to the "irreducible complexity" argument? There are plenty of other problems with Behe's attacks on Darwinism, but this is one of the clearest ways in which misrepresents the way in which biological complexity develops--the assumption that complexity cannot serve overlapping and alternative needs of the host organism. (Consider, for example, that the tongue is used both to taste substances before ingesting them--a "bad food" alarm system--and speech communication.)

Just another example of how evolutionists will grab on to any flawed logic they can find, Matt. They try to discredit Irreducible Complexity and ID on the basis that it doesn't fit into their narrow definition of science (that is, it can't be studied) and then turn around and use explanations that have never been observed (ie. a cilium forming by itself out of the individual components) to refute irreducible complexity.( In fact, it was actually attempted and it didn't happen.) It only further demonstrates how they attempt to get their faulty logic to work, putting the cart before the horse, or assuming that evolutionary theory is true, and then assembling the 'evidence' to fit the theory.
Cop, I noticed that you claim that Behe has been discredited, yet I havent heard your attempts to explain away how the blood-clotting cascade could have evolved from simple organisms to the one that mammals have now; Care to take a shot? How about the origin of genetic information? Are you going to cut and run from that one too?

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2005, 04:08:06 PM »

I see matts back, long time no see.

matt · « **Reply #5 on:** December 10, 2005, 10:06:14 PM »

I would like to further answer Copernicus's reply which is a counterexplanation that was constructed by Kenneth Miller, a prominent Darwinest.

Quote

Let me point out just one flaw in the irreducible complexity argument. Mousetraps can have other uses than to capture mice. Depending on their configuration, weight, and other characteristics, they can be used as paperweights, doorstops, objets d'art, muscial instruments, and so on.

Kenneth Miller proposed that the holding bar of a mousetrap could be used a toothpick, so it still has a "function" outside the mousetrap. He says that any of the parts could be used as a paperweight, so they all have "functions". And further he states that since any object that has mass can be a paperweight, then any part of anything has a function of its own. So there is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

However, this facile explanation rests on a transparent fallacy, a brazen equivocation.

Miller uses the word "function" in two different senses. The definition of irreducible complexity notes that removal of a part "causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Miller shifts the focus from the separate function of the intact system itself to the question of whether we can find a different use (or "function") for some of the parts. However, if one removes a part from the mousetrap, it can no longer catch mice. The system has indeed effectively ceased functioning, so the system is irreducibly complex.

Also, the functions that Miller assigns to the parts- paperweight, toothpick, key chain, and so forth have little or nothing to do with the function of the system, which is catching mice. So they give us no clue as to how the system's function could arise gradually.

Basically, Miller has explained nothing at all.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #6 on:** December 12, 2005, 03:56:01 PM »

matt · « **Reply #7 on:** December 12, 2005, 10:04:23 PM »

Michael Behe's response directly to Kenneth Miller's idea that a mousetrap can be used as a paperweight, and anything that has mass can be used as a paperweight:

Quote

For example, Kenneth Miller has seriously argued that a part of a mousetrap could be used as a paperweight, so not even a mousetrap is IC. Now, anything that has mass could be used as a paperweight. Thus by Miller

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2005, 03:05:28 AM »

Matt, Behe's sarcasm doesn't get him off the hook, and he probably realizes that. Miller isn't the only one to point out this flaw in his thinking. Organs that fulfill one function can take on others, and some functions can be fulfilled redundantly in the system. I am still quite able to function without a gall bladder, even though it performed a function before its removal. It's just that the body can compensate for the loss of that organ. When you have two mousetraps, you can still catch mice when one is removed. In any case, Behe's opponents have shown his examples of irreducible complexity not to be irreducibly complex and to have perfectly plausible paths to development under standard evolutionary theory. By way of contrast, he offers no method, plausible or otherwise, by which biological complexity can arise. He doesn't have to, since everybody knows that he is talking about miracles. He can't actually come out and say that without admitting that his "theory" is just a religious opinion.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2005, 09:49:05 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus

Matt, Behe's sarcasm doesn't get him off the hook, and he probably realizes that. Miller isn't the only one to point out this flaw in his thinking. Organs that fulfill one function can take on others, and some functions can be fulfilled redundantly in the system. I am still quite able to function without a gall bladder, even though it performed a function before its removal. It's just that the body can compensate for the loss of that organ. When you have two mousetraps, you can still catch mice when one is removed. In any case, Behe's opponents have shown his examples of irreducible complexity not to be irreducibly complex and to have perfectly plausible paths to development under standard evolutionary theory. By way of contrast, he offers no method, plausible or otherwise, by which biological complexity can arise. He doesn't have to, since everybody knows that he is talking about miracles. He can't actually come out and say that without admitting that his "theory" is just a religious opinion.

Cop, I think what Matt, and Behe, are both saying is that this logic misses the point entirely; everyone knows that you can survive without a gall bladder; although you're not quite right about the body being able to compensate all by itself. My wife had hers removed 4 yrs ago and she will have to take a dietary prescription for the rest of her life now. In any case ,the question of irreducible complexity is not 'can the body survive without a nonessential organ(such as the gall bladder or appendix) but can it survive without an essential organ such as the heart, brain, or lungs? Of course, it couldn't. But this still doesnt make the human body irreducilbly complex. The problem with your argument is; Behe never argued that it was.
What Behe wrote is that the bacterial flagellum would be nonfunctional if all the parts except say, the motor, were present. The fact that a motor could be used in another application is beside the point. The cilium would be nonfuncional, or incapbable or reciprocating motion, if the nexin linkers or the dynein were missing. This does not imply that there would be no other use for these proteins in another system, it means that they are specifically required for the cilium to function.
Similarly, without antihemophilic factor, Christmas factor, Stuart factor, or several other proteins, the blood-clotting cascade would not be possible. Either mammals would bleed to death when injured, or their blood could instantly harden in the veins. It is a dizzyingly complex process, one which requires each component to properly function.
I agree with Matt. Miller's very general argument that a mousetrap's components could have other uses is overly simplistic and falls far short of expaining IC.

matt · « **Reply #10 on:** December 13, 2005, 03:13:34 PM »

Behe's article in response to Kenneth Miller's idea's of how a mousetrap or complex structure can be used as another function, which concludes that not even a mousetrap or complex structure is irreducible complex:

Kenneth Miller has seriously argued that a part of a mousetrap could be used as a paperweight, so not even a mousetrap is IC. Now, anything that has mass could be used as a paperweight. Thus by Miller

matt · « **Reply #11 on:** December 13, 2005, 03:36:16 PM »

In my opinion, I think we should discuss the criticisms of irreducible complexity in this topic.

For example, I would like to debate that the bacterial flagellum is in fact a irreducible complex structure, and that because it is identified as an IC structure that it could not have evolved through successive, slight modifications or by undirected natural causes.

Copernicus, would you be up for a discussion/debate concerning the irreducible complexity of the structure most commonly known as the bacterial flagellum?

matt · « **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2005, 05:29:50 PM »

Also, let me note that the problem you are having, Copernicus, understanding irreducible complexity is the result of your loosely term for the actual definition of irreducible complexity.

The problem is, if you quickly dissect lungs from an animal, many parts of it will continue to work. The liver will work for a while, muscles will twitch, and cells will metabolize until they run out of oxygen. Thus lungs are not absolutely required for the function of those other parts, not in the way that a spring is absolutely required for a standard mousetrap or nexin linkers are required for ciliary function. That's the problem with using poorly chosen examples, especially at the whole-organ level. Behe is careful in his book (pp. 46-47) to say that you must look at molecular systems to see if Darwinism can explain their development. When you look at irreducible complex molecular examples, it is clear that Darwinism has not and cannot explain them (Behe).

matt · « **Reply #13 on:** December 19, 2005, 09:07:02 PM »

The problem with trying to explain an irreducibly complex system like the bacterial flagellum as a patchwork is that it requires multiple coordinated co-options. It is not just that one thing evolves for one function, and then, perhaps without any modification at all, gets used for some completely different function (imagine a rock first being used as a paperweight and then being co-opted for use as a doorstop). The problem is that multiple protein parts from different functional systems all have to break free and then all have to coalesce to form a newly integrated system (as with the airplane formed by taking parts from a car, bicycle, motorboat, and train). Even if all the parts (i.e., proteins) for a bacterial flagellum are in ace within a cell but serving other functions, there is no reason to think that those parts can come together spontaneously to form a tightly integrated system like the flagellum. The problem here is that parts performing functions in separate systems are unlikely to be adapted to each other so that they can work together coherently within a single system. Imagine a screw that

Copernicus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2005, 12:34:09 PM »

Matt, Behe completely fails to address the point of the criticism. Systems do not evolve in isolation from other biological functionality. If we discover that our doorstop occasionally kills a mouse or two because it has sharp edges and sticky surfaces, then we might evolve the design to optimize that secondary function. At some point, the chain of doorstop/mousetraps might lose their doorstop functionality and just be used as mousetraps.

Evolutionists, in fact, have shown exactly how an evolutionary chain can give rise to his examples of irreducible complexity. See, for example, talk.origin's response to the bacterial flagella argument. Since Behe's entire argument rests on the claim that the evolution of such complexity is implausible in a Darwinian paradigm, all evolutionists need to do to counter his argument is show its plausibility. It is not necessary to prove their case experimentally, since no alternative testable theory exists to provide a better explanation.

Quote

Miller

matt · « **Reply #15 on:** December 25, 2005, 07:41:22 PM »

Quote

Evolutionists, in fact, have shown exactly how an evolutionary chain can give rise to his examples of irreducible complexity. See, for example, talk.origin's response to the bacterial flagella argument. Since Behe's entire argument rests on the claim that the evolution of such complexity is implausible in a Darwinian paradigm, all evolutionists need to do to counter his argument is show its plausibility. It is not necessary to prove their case experimentally, since no alternative testable theory exists to provide a better explanation.

I am going to wait until I get home to provide you with a counter reply to talk origins response to Behe's claim of irreducible complexity. Also, if it is Kenneth Miller's response to the collapse of irreducible complexity then you will need to search again for another way the bacteriul flagellum could have evolved.

The bacterial flagellum is a bidirectional motor-driven propeller that sits on the backs of certain bacteria to propel them through their watery environments. It turns out that ten or so genes from the flagellum are homologous to the genes that code for a certain type of pump (known as as type III secretory system). Was this pump before therefore an evolutionary precursor to the flagellum? Perhaps, though Milton Saier at the University of California at San Diego argues on the basis of phylogenetic sequence comparisons that the type III secretory system evolved from the flagellum and not vice versa. (And since the flagellum has considerably more complexity than the type III secretory system, explaining the latter in terms of the former is no help in explaining the emergence of biological complexity.) My point here is that just one can find functional subsystems within some bigger system doesn't mean that the system evolved from these subsystems by Darwinian or other naturalistic means. Similiary, one can't argue that a motorycle evolved by Darwinian means simply by pointing to a motor and a bicycle. In either case one would need a detailed, testable Darwinian pathway before a Darwinian account of their emergence could be justified.

However, for now, I would like to address the bottom two paragraphs.

Quote

What nonsense. Behe's position is that we cannot imagine how flagella could evolve--an argument from ignorance/incredulity. He offers no experimental evidence of his own to shore up his case, because his position is that God (the intelligent designer) did it by miraculous means. Nobody expects experimental proof of miracles, so he gets a free pass on that silliness. When evolutionists come up with a plausible scenario, he demands experiments to prove their claim beyond all doubt, even though he is happy to rest his own claim on the existence of miracles. This argument is not about the ability of evolutionists to remove all uncertainty. Nor is it about their ability to establish a plausible scenario, although they have met that demand. It is about Behe's inability to present a plausible alternative argument that has even a hope of being evidentially verified.

In arguments from ignorance, the lack of evidence against a proposition is used to argue for its truth. Australian philosopher Alan Olding, in commenting on the persistent use of the argument-from-ignorance or god-of-the-gaps objection against the work of Michael Denton and Michael Behe, writes, "The phrase 'god of the gaps' is nothing more than a question-begging insult meant to stop the flow of argument before it has barely started." ("Maker of Heaven and Microbiology", Quadrant, January-February 2001) When the argument from ignorance objection is raised against intelligent design, who exactly is accused of being ignorant? It's natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. Who is ignorant here? Not just the design theorists, but the scientific community as a whole. In fact, it's safe to say that the biological complexity is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so? The material mechanisms to which biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about. The problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity but global disciplinary failure (the discipline here being biology) and gross theoretical inadequacy (the theory here being Darwin's).

James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, concede that, " there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject- evolution- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

Larry Moran, a molecular biologist at the University of Toronto, is as disingenuous as Miller in claiming that evolutionary biology has resolved the problem of biological complexity. For instance, he asserts that there are "lots and lots of ideas about how irreducible complex systems arose by evolution" (talk. origins newsgroup, May 2002). However, whenever Dembski challenged him to list them, he refused to elaborate. Moran is probably right that there are "lots and lots of ideas" about how evolution might produce biological complexity. The problem is that invariably these ideas are wishful speculations and not detailed proposals that can be tested.

Darwinists not only deny that there is any problem with their theory, but they turn the tables on anyone who disagrees, attributing fault to Darwin's critics rather than to Darwin's theory. Darwinists who accuse intelligent design of arguing from ignorance are guilty of projection as well as denial. Darwinists haven't a clue how systems like the bacterial flagellum might have evolved. On the other hand, we know that intelligence is capable of designing high-tech systems like this. Yet it is the design theorists who are guilty of arguing from ignorance and the Darwinists who know what really happened. The irony here is delicious.

The fact remains that there are no detailed, testable models for how known material mechanisms can generate biological complexity- only a variety of wishful speculations.

Also, later on, I would like to hit on a few concepts concerning the testability of Intelligent Design and Darwinism.

Copernicus · « **Reply #16 on:** January 27, 2006, 04:56:39 PM »

Quote from: matt

...When the argument from ignorance objection is raised against intelligent design, who exactly is accused of being ignorant? It's natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. Who is ignorant here? Not just the design theorists, but the scientific community as a whole...

Nobody is being "accused" of being ignorant. The ID argument is that ID must be correct because a given evolutionary change has not been proven to have arisen from natural selection. That is an argument from ignorance.

Quote

...In fact, it's safe to say that the biological complexity is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so? The material mechanisms to which biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about. The problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity but global disciplinary failure (the discipline here being biology) and gross theoretical inadequacy (the theory here being Darwin's).

The claim that natural evolution "provides no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about" is just false. Biologists have given very credible explanations of structures such as flagella and human eyes within the evolutionary framework. The proposed alternative--that such structures were created by an unevidenced supernatural designer--explains nothing at all. It is not really different from attributing the phenomena to magic.

Quote

James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, concede that, " there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject- evolution- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

Does Dr. Shapiro think that biochemical or cellular evolution is better explained as arising by miraculous means? Again, such an argument is pure argument form ignorance.

Quote

Larry Moran, a molecular biologist at the University of Toronto, is as disingenuous as Miller in claiming that evolutionary biology has resolved the problem of biological complexity. For instance, he asserts that there are "lots and lots of ideas about how irreducible complex systems arose by evolution" (talk. origins newsgroup, May 2002). However, whenever Dembski challenged him to list them, he refused to elaborate. Moran is probably right that there are "lots and lots of ideas" about how evolution might produce biological complexity. The problem is that invariably these ideas are wishful speculations and not detailed proposals that can be tested.

No scientific theory is based on comprehensive proofs of all known phenomena, so your requirement is unreasonable and absurd. What is the testable alternative proposal? ID does not provide one.

Quote

...Darwinists haven't a clue how systems like the bacterial flagellum might have evolved...

You seem to live in an imaginary alternative reality. There are plenty of Darwinian explanations for the evolution of flagella, as you well know. You just quibble and cavil over them, pretending that your complaints make them go away. Indeed, you started your post by saying that you were going to refute the talk.origins pages on this subject.

Quote

The fact remains that there are no detailed, testable models for how known material mechanisms can generate biological complexity- only a variety of wishful speculations.

Speaking as someone who proposes that an unseen spirit generated the complexity, you have some chutspah.

The form of your argument is clear:

1) We are ignorant of how the design of X came about.
2) An intelligent being could have designed X.
3) Therefore, intelligent design explains X.

You leave out the step that "The design of X could have arisen by natural selection", because you feel that scientific proposals must be experimentally verified before they can be considered plausible. Supernatural explanations do not need to pass the same rigorous requirement. They get a free pass.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #17 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:13:38 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus

1) We are ignorant of how the design of X came about.
2) An intelligent being could have designed X.
3) Therefore, intelligent design explains X.

You leave out the step that "The design of X could have arisen by natural selection", because you feel that scientific proposals must be experimentally verified before they can be considered plausible. Supernatural explanations do not need to pass the same rigorous requirement. They get a free pass.

Ok Cop, for this post, X= The Blood Clotting Cascade
'Scientifically' (read 'by Natural Selection') explain how this process could have evolved if it wasn't the work of a creator/designer?
Note- Explanations laced with the words "might", "could have", "perhaps" are not scientific,(usually defined by evolutionists as "observable, testable, or falsifiable) and therefore do not recieve a 'free pass' either.

Copernicus · « **Reply #18 on:** February 01, 2006, 09:58:51 PM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone

Ok Cop, for this post, X= The Blood Clotting Cascade 'Scientifically' (read 'by Natural Selection') explain how this process could have evolved if it wasn't the work of a creator/designer?

Explain how a creator/designer could have produced such a thing. Oh, wait. You don't know, and you don't have to. That's the beauty of the ID "explanation". Nobody expects miracles to require an explanation. They just work as we imagine them to work.

Gods, demons, and spirits used to be considered adequate explanations for a whole range of phenomena--lightning, thunder, earthquakes, volcanos, floods, eclipses, etc. Why should blood clotting be any different?

If you are so interested in how scientists explain blood clotting in non-supernatural terms, then go read the papers of biologists who have studied the phenomenon. I have already given a link to talkorigins.org, which is a good place to start. They make a point of trying to answer such questions. I am but a humble linguist, so my opinions of how language evolved might be more interesting.

Quote

Note- Explanations laced with the words "might", "could have", "perhaps" are not scientific,(usually defined by evolutionists as "observable, testable, or falsifiable) and therefore do not recieve a 'free pass' either.

Don't be silly. Science is all about "might", "could have", and "perhaps". The difference between science and religion is that those words refer to physical causes and physical events. The idea is to come up with testable hypotheses. Religion is not interested in such mundane observations.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #19 on:** February 02, 2006, 10:00:19 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus

Quote from: 8d82thebone
Ok Cop, for this post, X= The Blood Clotting Cascade 'Scientifically' (read 'by Natural Selection') explain how this process could have evolved if it wasn't the work of a creator/designer?

Quote

Explain how a creator/designer could have produced such a thing. Oh, wait. You don't know, and you don't have to. That's the beauty of the ID "explanation". Nobody expects miracles to require an explanation. They just work as we imagine them to work.

Explaining how the creator produced something and knowing how it works are two different things.
Evolutionists show the weakness of their argument exactly the way you did above. Just because creationists accept that the universe was designed and created doesn't mean we stop there.
God created the universe to be studied and explored, and that is why the planet we live on is placed in such a way that we can study it.
The argument that we simply accept "God did it" and leave it at that is nonsense, but then nonsense makes perfect sense to some...
By the way, we don't have to imagine how the blood - clotting process works, because it has been studied and explored.
If it arose all by itself , then evolutionists are the ones who have to imagine how...

Author Topic: Irreducible Complexity: Behe's Argument (Read 8559 times)