I do not rely on any just-so story in my critique of Behe. Test by
rereading my criticism while ignoring the illustrations. They are not
needed to state my point that the problem with Behe's construction of
irreducible complexity is the requirement for functional irreducibility.
See? No illustration or just-so story.
JB
>I wrote, quoting Behe:
[clip]
"As the complexity of
>an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect
>route drops precipitously. And s the number of unexplained, irreducibly
>complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion
>of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows."
>So what do evolutionists do when faced with this skyrocket? They often say,
>hopefully, "one can imagine a an early selective advantage!" Kipling had just
>such an imagination.
At one time, the Behe-like view of the complexity of nature led people to
claim that nature was so complex that it would defy any explanation other
than a supernatural one (notice that this viewpoint doesn't explain much).
For instance, in one of his Scholia, Newton claimed that the laws of nature
he had uncovered were not as impressive as those he could not explain. The
latter, he believed, were the handiwork of God and, thus, unexplainable. I,
for one, am happy that science didn't stop there. Behe's viewpoint of the
complexity of living organisms falls perilously close to Newton's. I,
again, hope we don't stop there.
So, what do evolutionists say when presented with Behe's, admittedly
thought-provoking, point? Probably just what Jim claimed above. But why
shouldn't this be an appropriate response to Behe? He says that things are
too complicated to imagine a scenario such as evolution. Some people
undoubtedly believe this, and that is fine. However, others believe that an
evolutionary scenario enables them to imagine how the origin of complex
systems could be explained in terms of science. And this is fine. If Behe
says he can't imagine it, why can't someone else say they can? My problem
with this aspect of the debate is both with the evolutionists who say that
Behe doesn't understand evolution (I recently debated a colleague in the
biochemistry dept who had this viewpoint), and with the antievolutionists
who say that Behe and Johnson have the final answer.
The real realist, Jim, would say to both, go for it, rather than say that
one side of the debate is legitimate because it claims it cannot imagine
something, while you do not allow the other side to make a counterclaim also
based on personal conviction and imagination.
By the way, imagination is a hugely important in making scientific theories.
shalom,
Steve
____________________________________________________________
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
"Now how does one alter the charge on the niobium ball? 'Well at that
stage', said my friend, 'we spray it with positrons to increase the charge
or with electrons to decrease the charge.' From that day forth I've been a
scientific realist. So far as I'm concerned, if you can spray them then
they are real. Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening, 1983
____________________________________________________________