On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:26:05 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>TG>David Haig is an evolutionary geneticist/theorist...he had done
>his biochemistry research and focused entirely on a biochemical
>response to Behe's arguments.
>SJ>...Up to date Darwinists had not bothered to supply a
>"biochemical response to Behe's arguments" because, as Johnson
>points out:
>PM>You are incorrect.
How about stating your *evidence* for declaring me "incorrect",
Pim?
>SJ>"Once you understand the dimensions of the problem, and the
>philosophical constraints within which it must be solved, Darwinism
>is practically true by definition -- regardless of the evidence"
>Johnson P.E., "Daniel Dennett's Dangerous Idea", Review of "Darwin's
>Dangerous Idea", by Daniel Dennett, "The New Criterion", October,
>1995]
>PM>Interesting assertion but of course false.
Pim, you are wasting Reflectorites' time by your repeated
unsubstantiated assertions that my arguments are "incorrect",
"false", etc. Please supply your *reasons* behind your assertions
so we can evaluate them.
>PM>That Behe's arguments have been shown less than 'convincing' by
>real scientific arguments already disproves SF's remarks.
Who is "SF"? If it's me, please advise which of "Behe's arguments"
have been "shown less than 'convincing' by real scientific
arguments".
>TG>Haig...pointed out that...genes themselves have a genetic
>(evolutionary) history.
>SJ>This is just begging the question. That "genes...have a genetic
>history" is uncontroversial. That they have an "*evolutionary*
>history" (at least a *Darwinian* `blind watchmaker' "evolutionary
>history" is the question being discussed. If Haig claims that
>"genes" *necessarily* "have" an "evolutionary history" then he
>demonstrates once again what Johnson says that evidence is
>unnecessary to Darwinists.
>PM>Care to expand this argument with some facts?
I find this a bit rich coming from you Pim! The above is a
*philosophical* "argument". It follows that if "genes themselves
have a...evolutionary...history" then it already begs the question
whether the "evolution" of "genes" ocurred. The premises already
imply the conclusion:
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-
founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created....
Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory
search for results that will be in agreement with their theories....
Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret
fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data]
should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions..." (Grasse
P.P., "The Evolution of Living Organisms", 1977, pp7-8, in Johnson
P.E., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or
Philosophy?", 1994, p7)
>SJ>This is a typical example of Darwinist thinking. If a simple
>problem can be solved, then it is taken that a hard problem does not
>need to be solved. But there are three logically possible types of
>systems:
>PM>Proof by assertion.
You should know Pim! Most of your arguments are "Proof by
". But I should be happy to be proved wrong by you starting
to provide *evidence* to back up your assertions.
>SJ>1. Those which are not "irreducibly complex".
>2. Those which may or may not be "irreducibly complex".
>3. Those which are "irreducibly complex".
>
>Intelligent Design theorists are free to consider all three
>possibilities. Darwinists *must* deny the third possibility exists.
>PM>No. Both can accept the possibility of such systems existing.
Please explain how "Darwinists...can accept the possibility
of" "irreducibly complex" "systems existing".
PM>Darwinists however point out that there can be naturalistic
>pathways to systems that appear to be irreducibly complex.
If they only "appear to be irreducibly complex", then this is either
1 or 2. I said that "3." was "Those which *are* `irreducibly
complex' ".
>TG>My personal opinion is that Haig did the trick. He may not have
>given the solution to each one of Behe's unsolved problems, but he
>showed that a plausible explanation using known mechanisms could
>produce the systems in question.
>SJ>...my guess is that you would be happy with the usual vague
>evolutionary explanation, because as a convinced evolutionist you do
>not really believe that there is any such thing as an "irreducibly
>complex" biological system.
>PM>Is this a similar assumption as stating that as a believer in
>design your only hope lies in believing that such systems exist and
>cannot be explained by naturalistic pathways.
No. I do not consider "irreducible complexity" as my "only hope". I
was inclined to be sceptical of Behe's "irreducible complexity"
argument before I read his book. An Intelligent Designer could have
`designed' without using "irreducible complexity". But the reverse
is not true: a `blind watchmaker' could not have `designed' using
"irreducible complexity".
But what Behe has shown is that there is a large number of cases
where there is no plausible explanation (indeed not even imaginary
ones), for some biomolecular systems, eg. the blood clotting cascade
and the bacteria flagellum motor. The latter is my favourite. There
is a picture of it on page 71 of Darwin's Black Box - take a look and
explain how that was built by a `blind watchmaker'! No one has even
tried:
"The general professional literature on the bacterial flagellum is
about as rich as the literature on the cilium, with thousands of
papers published on the subject over the years. That isn't
surprising; the flagellum is a fascinating biophysical system, and
flagellated bacteria are medically important. Yet here again, the
evolutionary literature is totally missing. Even though we are told
that all biology must be seen through the lens of evolution, no
scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual
evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p72)
>PM> However the explanation is hardly more or less vague than the
>assumption that the process is irreducibly complex and therefor
>evidence of design.
I am happy to accept your admission that "evolutionary explanations"
are "vague"! But "irreducibly complexity" is not vague - Behe
defines it clearly as follows:
"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several
well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic
function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the
system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex
system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously
improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same
mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system,
because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is
missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly
complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a
powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection
can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological
system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an
integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have
anything to act on." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p38)
>SJ>My objection to "evolution" (ie. Darwinist `blind watchmaker'
>evolution) is primarily evidenced based. My position is that there
>is a lack of compelling evidence for `blind watchmaker' "evolution",
>and that there is strong evidence that a supernatural Intelligent
>Designer has guided the origin and development of life over and
>above the claimed Darwinian mechanisms of mutation and natural
>selection.
>PM>That there is lack of evidence in your eyes supporting Darwinism
>need not point to a designer.
Disagree. Dawkins claims the Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker" is the
only explanation even in principle for the design of living things,
then if Neo-Darwinism fails, Paley's divine watchmaker returns by
default:
"I hope that the reader is as awestruck as I am, and as William Paley
would have been, by these bat stories. My aim has been in one respect
identical to Paley's aim....His hypothesis was that living watches were
literally designed and built by a master watchmaker. Our modern
hypothesis is that the job was done in gradual evolutionary stages by
natural selection." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p37)
>PM>Furthermore could you formulate a scientific hypothesis which
>includes such a supernatural designer which can be tested and
>disproven?
For starters I could state Paley's watch->watchmaker analogy, since
it has never really been refuted:
"But exactly where, we may ask, was Paley refuted? Who has answered
his argument? How was the watch produced without an intelligent
designer? It is surprising but true that the main argument of the
discredited Paley has actually never been refuted. Neither Darwin
nor Dawkins, neither science nor philosophy, has explained how an
irreducibly complex system such as a watch might be produced without
designer. Instead Paley's argument has been sidetracked by attacks
or its injudicious examples and off-the-point theological
discussions. Paley, of course, is to blame for not framing his
argument more tightly. But many of Paley's detractors are also to
blame for refusing to engage his main point, playing dumb in order to
reach a more palatable conclusion." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black
Box", 1996, p213).
>SJ>For example, the rapid acquisition of features that together were
>necessary for human intelligence, does exceed my "plausibility
>threshhold":
>PM>Of course that is hardly evidence.
Why not? It seemed to count for something for leading evolutionary
anthropologist, C.O. Lovejoy:
"Man is not only a unique animal, but the end product of a completely
unique evolutionary pathway...We find, then, that the evolution of
cognition is the product of a variety of influences and preadaptive
capacities, the absence of any one of which would have completely
negated the process, and most of which are unique attributes of
primates and/or hominids. Specific dietary shifts, bipedal
locomotion, manual dexterity, control of differentiated muscles of
facial expression, vocalisation, intense social and parenting
behaviour (of specific kinds), keen stereoscopic vision, and even
specialised forms of sexual behaviour, all qualify as irreplaceable
elements" (Lovejoy C.O., in Billingham J., ed, "Life in the
Universe", 1981, p326, in Wilkinson D., "Alone in the Universe?',
1997, p54)
But I suspect that no matter what "evidence" I put up for an
Intelligent Designer, you would never accept it:
"There's a hole in the case for creation so big you could drive a
truck through it. It's as simple as this: Creation can't possibly
be true...if there's no Creator. For too many people that settles
the issue right there. They know" with every fiber of their being
that there is no Creator, and they have built their whole life on
that premise. The noted British anthropologist, Sir Arthur Keith,
for example, summarized it this way, `The only alternative to some
form of evolution is special creation, which is unthinkable.' For
Keith, creation (which he acknowledged as the only alternative to
evolution) was simply `unthinkable,' so he would not even permit
himself to look at the evidence one way or the other." (Parker G.,
"Creation: the Facts of Life", 1980, p134).
If this is not so, please state up front what "evidence" you would
accept for an Intelligent Designer.
>TG>People who believe that evolution must be true because they are
>atheists ought not be trusted in their plausibility threshhold.
>Hmm... whom does that leave?]
>SJ>See above. It leaves those who believe that "evolution" (ie.
>Darwinist `blind watchmaker' "evolution"), is not "true" because it
>does not fit all the facts. What does fit all the facts better is
>Mediate Creation!
>PM>Which of course unlike science can claim away all discrepancies by
>'the creator did it' Hardly science.
No. I don't "claim away all discrepancies by 'the creator did it'. I
only claim that in a small number of strategic *origin* cases, the
best "scientific hypothesis" is that "the creator did it".
Why exactly is that "Hardly science"?
And why is it OK for "science" to "claim away all discrepancies by
"the" *blind watchmaker* "did it"?
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------