><<I have asked before, with no answer, when should science stop looking for
>naturalistic explanations for a given phenomenon?>>
JB
>It shouldn't, for to find one would falsify a competing hypothesis. But when
>the search has continued in the face of a recognized design conundrum (e.g.,
>Darwin's black box), science SHOULD NOT rule out the hypothesis of intelligent
>design.
Frankly, I do not understand the expectation that scientists who are
atheists, should entertain a design hypothesis. It seems to me that on one
hand, we (Christians) reasonably ask science to acknowledge the contribution
of worldviews to scientific hypotheses, then unreasonably expect atheists to
embrace design models. It seems that this is putting the cart before the horse.
This depends on the strength of the conundrum. While I find the irreducible
complexity idea interesting and an excellent tool for challenging my
studentsand colleagues to think about the nature of science, I believe that
the model has a flaw. I was intrigued to see the reviewer of Behe's book
(that was posted here recently by someone, I forgot who--sorry) came to a
similar conclusion. Briefly, my problem with the model has to do with the
presupposition that to get to an irreducibly complex structure, evolution
would have to work by fine-tuning primordial structures that have a similar
function. To use the mouse trap example, primitive mouse traps would have
to be gradually modified through selective pressure to form the hardware
store variety we know today. But, Behe is correct, if you remove or make
non-functional any component of the mouse trap, you do not have mouse trap,
so how could such a structure arise by gradual modifications?
The problem I have is the assumption that the mouse trap evolved from a
primordial mouse trap. There is no reason to assume that complex structures
only arise from primitive structures that had a similar function. In other
words, why couldn't the immediate progenitor of a mouse trap be a catapult?
Or let's go to a biological example. I agree with Behe that it is hard to
imagine cilia evolving by fine-tuning of proto-cilia. But this assumes that
the proto structures had to have cilia-type function that was fine tuned.
Cilia are appendages with molecular motors that allow them to wave and move
cells through liquid. But, rather than evolving from proto-cilia, why can't
we entertain the notion that they evolved from a bump in cell membranes that
evolved because they increased the surface area of the cell and facilitated
nutrient uptake?
The point of this exercise is to point out that the concept of irreducible
complexity is constrained by function. If we remember that such structures
are FUNCTIONALLY irreducible, then one can reasonably ask, if the functional
constraint isignored, is the current view of evolution still reasonable.
Since I see no reason to think that evolution only involves fine-tuning of
functions, my answer to this question is yes.
>"Many scientists and philosophers think that a dedication to materialism is
>the defining characteristic of science. Their argument is that an a priori
>adherence to materialism is necessary to protect the very existence of
>science. If design in biology is real, then the Designer might also be real,
>and scientific materialists contemplate this possibility (if at all) with
>outright panic. Science will come to a screeching halt, they insist, because
>everybody will stop doing experiments and just attribute all phenomena to the
>inscrutable will of God.
>
>"Nonsense. On the contrary, the concept that the universe is the product of a
>rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific
>rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe
>(including our minds) is ultimately based in the mindless movements of matter.
Finally, we agree on something.
>"Science has come as far as it has because scientists of the past were willing
>to describe the universe as it really is, rather than as the prejudices
>current in their times would have preferred it to be.
I don't think that this is true. The examples I gave in my earlier post of
Howard Temin and Barbara McLintock are examples of scientists not
The question is whether
>today's scientists have lost their nerve."
I caution you to not underestimate your adversary. Scientists today are
more specialized than in the past. This means that most scientists have not
spent much time considering the worldview implications of what they do.
they are largely poorly equipped to even describe what science is.
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter." Proverbs
___________________________________________________________________________