><<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.
This depends on the strength of the conundrum. While I find the irreducible
complexity idea interesting and an excellent tool for challenging my
students and colleagues to think about the nature of science, I believe that
the model has a flaw. The reviewer of Behe's book (that was posted recently
by someone, I forgot who--sorry) came to a similar conclusion. I think Behe
is correct to point out that you cannot remove any component of an
irreducibly complex structure and expect it to have the same function.
Using the mouse trap example, if you remove or make non-functional any
component of the mouse trap, you do not have mouse trap, so how could such
an irreducibly complex thing such as a mouse trap arise by gradual
modifications?
My problem with the model has to do with the presupposition that evolution
only works by fine-tuning primordial structures that have a similar
function. That is, primitive mouse traps would have to be gradually
modified through selective pressure in order to arrive at the hardware store
variety we know today. Behe's model, however, does not account for the
possibility that a mousetrap could evolve from something with a different
function. In this case, adding or subtracting from the component parts of
an irreducibly complex structure would result in a complex structure with a
different function.
Why couldn't the immediate progenitor of a mouse trap be a catapult, and the
progenitor of a catapult be something that moved passively, perhaps as a
tool for balance, etc? 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. Once you remove any of the components of a cilia it ceases to
have any cilia-like function. But this assumes that cilia would have to
emerge from fine-tuning proto-structures that had cilia-type function.
Cilia are cellular appendages with molecular motors that allow them to wave
and move cells through liquid. But, rather than evolving from proto-cilia
which would be difficult to conceive given Behe's explanation of irreducible
complexity, why can't we consider that cilia evolved from a bump in cell
membranes that provided an early selective advantage because they increased
the surface area of the cell and facilitated nutrient uptake?
The point of this exercise is that the concept of irreducible complexity
has an unreasonable a priori constraint of function. If we remember that
irreducibly complex structures are FUNCTIONALLY irreducible, then one can
reasonably ask, if we ignore the functional constraint, 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.
Another problem I see in the conflict between naturalism vs supernaturalism
as it relates to the evolution/ID debate is, why do IDers seem to require
that creation and origins must not be understandable by science. Or asked
differently, why is it so important that God's intervention occur in a way
not understandable to science. Why couldn't God have intervened in ways
understandable to science?
>"Many scientists and philosophers think that a dedication to materialism is
>the defining characteristic of science.
The reality is that most scientists probably do not think about this at all.
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.
This is really a caricature of scientists, Jim. If I remember correctly,
didn't you mentioned that during your talk show stint it came up that Hugh
Ross has found significant interest in what he has to say on secular
campuses? If you advertise a seminar on the topic of God and Science on
this campus, it will be packed.
>
>"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.
This is true of science today. Today, science is advancing faster than it
ever did. Therefore, scientists must still be describing the world as it
really is.
Cheers,
Steve
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
___________________________________________________________________________