Re: [asa] Behe Responds To Ken Miller - Edge of Evolution

Wayne said: *Nevertheless, at least realize that
because of our (we scientist's) vast ignorance, there
is a lot we don't know about the mechanisms of life, and so
making strong assertions (even as scientists) is not particularly
wise. As I sometimes say, science is best done with the humility
switch set to the "on" position.
*
Thanks Wayne -- I basically agree with your entire post. I should make
clear that I'm not trying to argue that IC has been established to
defeat Darwinian evolution, nor that it represents a gap a designer must
have filled through direct intervention. I only wanted to note how the
rhetoric plays out on both sides of ID debates. ID'ers make grand claims to
have falsified Darwinism, which usually turn out to be premature in their
grandiosity. But likewise, ID opponents tend to make grand claims to have
falsified concepts like IC, which also usually turn out to be significantly
overstated. It seems to me that IC continues to be a very difficult problem
for current theories about how evolution happens. And I'm somewhat
sympathetic to the sociological claim that mainstream science has a problem
admitting this kind of difficulty because of a lurking fear that existing
evolutionary theory really doesn't explain as much as is presently claimed
for it.

On 7/14/07, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Dave O wrote:
>
> << Let's say I build an IC engine with four subsystems -- air intake,
> combustion, drive, and exhaust. Let's say further that that the air intake
> and combustion systems are duplicated apart from the engine. Standing
> alone, neither sub-system has any utility. However an additional component
> is added to each of them. This results in two new systems that each have
> utility and also are IC: say, a siren and a compressor. Could you
> reasonably claim that the siren and compressor falisfy the entire concept of
> IC? I don't think so. You still have to answer for the original IC engine
> from which those later two IC systems were derived. That's how I'm
> conceiving of your example. But maybe I'm missing what actually happened
> because I don't have the original paper on which you were commenting? >>
>
>
> Dave S tends to be rather terse.
>
> Along the same lines, responding to your previous post,
> With any of these questions on biology, a big problem is
> we are always finding new evolutionary strategies. For example,
> with bacterial genomes, they have found what seems to be clear
> signs of horizontal transfer. In essence, parts of one
> organism's genome appear to have been transferred to another
> species. Viruses also seem to be able to pick up the parts
> of other viruses and add them to their own genome. I'm not
> exactly clear how this can happen, but it does appear to have
> happened on rare occasions (with viruses: even in recent
> history).
>
> So the assertion of irreducible complexity (IC) is difficult
> to sustain for many scientist because, even if they cannot
> immediately come up with a plausible scenario of a gradual
> process, they would figure that there exists some natural
> mechanism that we have not stumbled on. In effect, they
> would prefer to "wait it out" until some reasonable mechanism
> is found. Given the difficulties of doing good biology, this
> is probably a good strategy.
>
> So IC is rather difficult to prove. Even if everyone were to
> let down their guard a little bit and admit that say X is not
> explained, it wouldn't help, because the very next day, someone
> could report that there is a simple explanation for X. With
> something so complex like biology, it is really not possible
> to have that kind of assurance that something cannot be explained.
> Further, as it appears to have turned out, some of the arguments Behe
> makes have potential explanations that work around it. Some
> assert all, but I have not read carefully enough to decide that
> personally.
>
> At any rate, the idea of irreducible complexity in of itself
> may have merit on some problems, but I do not think it will
> prove useful for biology issues: particularly when used to
> prove an anti-evolution position.
>
> Generally, you ask penetrating questions and this I want
> to encourage. Nevertheless, at least realize that
> because of our (we scientist's) vast ignorance, there
> is a lot we don't know about the mechanisms of life, and so
> making strong assertions (even as scientists) is not particularly
> wise. As I sometimes say, science is best done with the humility
> switch set to the "on" position.
>
> By Grace we proceed,
> Wayne (ASA)
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 14 12:12:06 2007