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.
SJ: How about stating your *evidence* for declaring me "incorrect",
Pim?
What ? Is my remark not equivalent to your reliance on Johnson's comment ?
>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.
SJ: 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.
For instance, Darwinism is falsifiable. Perhaps that is why Dennett added
'practically true' allowing for the possibility that his statement was
incorrect, which of course it would be without the addition of this word.
>PM>That Behe's arguments have been shown less than 'convincing' by
>real scientific arguments already disproves SF's remarks.
SJ: Who is "SF"? If it's me, please advise which of "Behe's arguments"
have been "shown less than 'convincing' by real scientific
arguments".
That irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved stepwise for
instance.
>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.
SJ: 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.
Avoidance of the issue by accusing the opposite side is not leading to a
viable discussion.
>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.
SJ: Please explain how "Darwinists...can accept the possibility
of" "irreducibly complex" "systems existing".
Because irreducibly complex systems can be shown to happen through small
stepwise changes. Perhaps this means that irreducibly complex systems as
such do not exist or that if they exist that Behe was wrong to conclude
that they could not have gotten there through small stepwise changes.
PM>Darwinists however point out that there can be naturalistic
>pathways to systems that appear to be irreducibly complex.
SJ: 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' ".
Perhaps the assumption that there are irreducibly complex systems is
fallacious ? After all it was shown hypothetically how such an apparant
irreducibly complex systems could have evolved stepwise.
>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.
SJ: No. I do not consider "irreducible complexity" as my "only hope". I
That is a smart position to take given the weakness of the irreducibly
complex argument.
SJ: 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".
Of course this apparant 'irreducibly complexity' might not be such. So it
all depends on the definition and evidence. What are irredicibly complex
systems ? Systems which could not have evolved ? Then IC is merely a
tautology. But if irreducibly complex means that if one component of the
system is removed that the system fails to perform then it can be shown
that such systems can arise stepwise.
SJ: 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
You are assuming that Behe has indeed managed to show that there is no
plausible explanation. That by itself assumes quite a lot.
>PM> However the explanation is hardly more or less vague than the
>assumption that the process is irreducibly complex and therefor
>evidence of design.
SJ: I am happy to accept your admission that "evolutionary explanations"
are "vague"! But "irreducibly complexity" is not vague - Behe
defines it clearly as follows:
SJ: "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
I appreciate you providing the defintion when it has been shown that such
a system could have evolved stepwise after all. So all you have as an
argument is that not all the relevant steps have been identified.
>PM>That there is lack of evidence in your eyes supporting Darwinism
>need not point to a designer.
SJ: 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:
Incorrect there is no reason to believe in a duality here. YOu are
assuming that there are only two theories when in fact there is only one
scientific theory and one theological belief.
>PM>Furthermore could you formulate a scientific hypothesis which
>includes such a supernatural designer which can be tested and
>disproven?
SJ: For starters I could state Paley's watch->watchmaker analogy, since
it has never really been refuted:
Occam's razor in action.
>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.
SJ: Why not? It seemed to count for something for leading evolutionary
anthropologist, C.O. Lovejoy:
Argument from authority. Disbelief does not provide evidence though.
"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)
Where did lovejoy state that this exceeded a plausibility threshold ? It
merely exceeded yours.
SJ: But I suspect that no matter what "evidence" I put up for an
Intelligent Designer, you would never accept it:
I'd suggest that you make an effort to provide for a scientifically sound
theory of ID and show how it performs better than the present theory with
similar or fewer assumptions.
SJ: If this is not so, please state up front what "evidence" you would
accept for an Intelligent Designer.
A personal introduction to the ID perhaps ? Observability of the designer
? But in a scientific environment there is no place for the supernatural.
In theology or philosophy such ideas can keep people (pre)occupied but
within the realm of science there is to my knowledge no valid scientific
theory of ID. Perhaps I am wrong ?
>PM>Which of course unlike science can claim away all discrepancies by
>'the creator did it' Hardly science.
SJ: 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".
Is it ? It merely moves the problem one level. Who created the creator ?
And how can one show that invoking a creator is the best hypothesis ? It
merely might be presently the best hypothesis, absent evidence that allows
for a scientific analysis. In the middle ages this 'deus ex machina' was a
popular explanation for the at that time inexplicable but now we know
better.
SJ: And why is it OK for "science" to "claim away all discrepancies by
"the" *blind watchmaker* "did it"?
Is it ok to use strawman arguments in a scientific debate ?