RE: Definitions of ID

From: Nelson Alonso (nalonso@megatribe.com)
Date: Fri Sep 08 2000 - 16:14:33 EDT

  • Next message: Brian D Harper: "Re: Piecemeal genetic differences as support for macroevolution, etc."

    -----Original Message-----
    From: evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu
    [mailto:evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Susan Brassfield
    Cogan
    Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 3:22 PM
    To: evolution@calvin.edu
    Subject: RE: Definitions of ID

    >And Susan Replies:
    >
    >Behe ceases to explore possible evolutionary pathways for his IC systems
    >with the simple pronouncement "God did it."
    >
    >Nelson:
    >No he ceases to explore them because evolutionary pathways are sterile,
    and
    >it is better explained by intelligence.

    Susan:
    sterile? You (and Behe, of course) know that in advance? Without looking?
    What does it mean to find an evolutionary pathway sterile? It becomes a
    pathway with no further implications?

    Nelson:
    Are you saying the only way to falsify evolutionary theory would be to
    to know all explanations in advance? We know how natural selection works and
    it cannot select non-functional precursors to a system.

    >Susan:
    > That's one of the main
    >objections to ID: it is stultifying to scientific inquiry.
    >
    >
    >Nelson:
    >Only if you equate "I understand this" with "It arose naturally".
    >That is simply not the case. One can use ID to understand any biological
    >feature.

    Susan:
    give me an example. Can I assume you've read Gould's essay "The Panda's
    Thumb"?

    Nelson:
    I read a great example once,where one design principle was used to learn
    about a completely unrelated system.A system that is like the F-ATPase, I
    can predict that, given it is IC, that I will find all of the F-ATPase
    subunits will be found in every bacterial genome employing the same
    mechanism and that similar systems will employ the same mechanism.

    If we test this with an unrelated but similar molecular machine,
    what will we find? The cytoskeleton actually works exactly like the F-
    ATPase.Both bind ATP. And just like the parts of the F-ATPase, we
    find that the cytoskeleton needs minimal parts to function. You can
    then safely hypothesize, that if F-ATPase binds to GTP, that the
    cytoskeleton will bind to GTP. And if that was my prediction, that
    would be true.And if the F-ATPase uses only one protein to hydrolyze
    it, I would predict that the cytoskeleton only uses one protein to
    hydrolyze it. And that would be true, it only uses the beta tubulin.

    >Susan:
    > The purpose of
    >ID (and IC) is to "prove" the existence of the gods is a scientific fact.
    >
    >Nelson:
    >No it is to detect intelligent agency and distinguish it from natural
    >process.

    Susan:
    how? can you name a couple of processes that aren't natural and a couple
    that are and explain to me how they are different?

    Nelson:
    Natural selection and random mutation would be a natural process. This
    selects functional intermediates from simpler ancestors without foresight or
    planning.The "Waterfall method" and "Feedback Control" are two engineering
    principles. These have a goal in mind and purpose, with future usefulness.

    >Susan:
    >If you can do that, you can get around the major legal roadblock to having
    >Christian dogma taught in public schools--in science class, no less.
    >
    >
    >Nelson:
    >That is a clear cut unsubstantiated assertion.

    Susan:
    :-) really? There are several Supreme Court decisions over the last several
    years that substantiate my claim. There are several areas of the country
    where conservative Christian pressure is being brought to bear to teach
    "ID" in classrooms.

    Nelson:
    Please don't tell me you are talking about Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish.
    That was not about intelligent design theory.

    >Susan:
    >This
    >is one of the major objectives of the Discovery Institute which, at least
    >in part, bankrolls Behe, Dembski and Johnson.
    >
    >Nelson:
    >It seems like your only "objection" to ID is an ad hominem with no basis in
    >fact.

    Susan:
    show me a naturally evolved organism and a supernaturally designed organism
    and explain to me how they are different and I will withdraw the statement.

    Nelson:
    Well I can show you a designed system by an intelligent agent and an
    undesigned system. Pseudogenes and the bacterial flagellum. One is
    irreducible to it's parts and has function, the other has no genetic
    function whatsoever.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 08 2000 - 16:11:17 EDT