Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Dr. Behe's definition of irreducible complexity:
As an example, Dr. Behe uses the blood-clotting cascade. However, whales and dolphins are missing a part of the cascade but their blood clots anyway. More recently it has been shown that puffer fish are missing three parts of the cascade but their blood-clotting still functions. Therefore, under Dr. Behe's own definition, the blood-clotting cascade is not irreducible.

They don't need to. It's not science.

One can almost hear the banging of the nails into the coffin...

Is that your opinion as an expert in the biological sciences ? Or perhaps you have some insight you haven't shared with us.

How would you feel if there was a finite probability that irreducible complexity could be and was in the process of being disproved ?

rosborne,
I am still waiting to hear what Dr. Behe told farmerman when they went out drinking together.

Me too. Apparently Dr. Behe is a decent guy on a personal level. But I just can't reconcile his IR theory with anyone who wants to support science. I'm not sure what his motivations are in this, and I sometimes wonder if they lean toward the "make money selling a book" side of things.

CL wrote-



I'm no expert in any subject but I do know that nobody will ever understand everything about life and the gap is where the IDers ground their case.
The serious IDers I mean.Even a "finite probabilty",aside from its meaninglessness in this context,allows that space to exist.And nature fills vacuums.

There's no insight.It's obvious.We have a cultural setting to deal with here not a test tube.SDers taking the test tube to provide the ultimate proof are not serious SDers either.

A serious person knows he doesn't know,knows nobody else does either,nor ever will,and gets down to the meaningful stuff relating to social function in different traditional,economic and geographical settings rather than wasting time arguing about something there is no answer to.It is almost as if you are trying to distract yourself from being serious.

You have evidently not read all my posts on this thread CL and I think you ought to catch up with that before interjecting regarding myself.

Behe Refutes Himself - in a court of law, no less.

Thanks, timber. The cross-examination of Dr. Behe was well-done, although much more esoteric than the cross-examination of William Jennings Bryan.

I submit quite the contrary is the case; no evidence for "irreducible complexity" can be produced, while the proposition fails any number of tests and validations - never has it proved out. The concept has currency only among the Creationist/ID-iot community; scientifically, it is a joke.

timber-

Of course it is.Man City fans are a joke to United fans.

I know no evidence can be found to prove IC.It is a poetic feeling that tells me that there is IC.The battle is not there.It is the Constitution.

What seems to be happening here is that SDers are using the Constitution with a scientific argument when the Constitution was written when science was in its infancy and they are denying the ID side the use of today's science.

As I understand it the Constitution was written to provide a unity between disparate units which had grown up in different ways.We are attempting it in Europe now and they are a long time over it and still miles away.Now the unity was the purpose.Not the itsy-bitsy articles.So the Constitution takes precedence in its first meaning.Would that be right?
Hence the pork barrel.

Now what happens if a state,or a group of states,refuse to have SD foisted on them by Washington or some Dover court and go to threatening a declaration of independence on the matter.We've seen that sort of thing before.

And please refrain from declaring that to be impossible because science says if it can happen it likely will somewhere.

So why waste all this effort when we know there will be a compromise to prevent a risk to the Union.

But I don't know how strong ID is in some areas.It is a religious matter after all.

I wrote-



And I can answer that as well.

spendi, if there were a smidgeon of science behind the Creationist/ID proposition, all would be well. Look for no compromise; it just ain't gonna happen. No forensically valid, scientifically sound, evidence-based argument may be made for the Creationist/ID proposition - a legal hole from which the absurd notion simply cannot escape.

Timber, it does seem that the fundamentalists want us to be "reasonable." To look at both sides of "the question" (consider Bush's position). In so doing they would elevate the status of their "theory" and render the scientific perspective no better than a speculation. The latter is, of course, much more than that. I agree: there should be no compromise. Time is on the side of open scientific inquiry, not that of rigid unchanging fantastical dogma.

The suggestion that this issue would ever pose "a threat to the Union" is ludicrous, and born of profound ignorance of the structure of the Union, and of the relative political importance of the alleged controversy. It is a skin rash, not a cancer.

timber wrote-



I'm fully aware of that timber.It is impossible to imagine there would ever be any evidence.

We might be slowly homing in on the central issue.
The precedence of disciplines in the scientific world.
Who is top dog.Biology,for example,has overtaken physics and chemistry in recent years.But what of sociology and psychology particularly mass psychology.I don't know any figures but I do get an impression in relation to funding and activity in these fields.

I think that the use of emotive language by SDers such as "ludicrous","profound ignorance","silly","loony" and "****" and such like is damaging to their own cause.It polarises the argument when defusing it is called for.It bespeaks an individual crusade and one in which courtesy and a proper feel for debate is absent and which is likely to drive waverers into the ID camp if only because they seem nicer and more civilised people.
Wouldn't it be better to explain why someone is profoundly ignorant and guide them into better ways than simply blurting out an assertion which,like ID itself,can't be challenged.

My points on this thread are never answered in any other way.Simply to say that I am profoundly ignorant and that the issue is just a skin rash just won't do I'm afraid.Skin rashes can be no small matter anyway.There's a complacency there of the "I am right- you are talking rubbish" type and it is in direct opposition to the "God bless America" sign off which I have heard Mr Bush use on many occasions and to a majority of American opinion.It may well be justified pedantically but that isn't the point as I am forced to continually stress.Political,social,economic,emotional,cultural and traditional issues are much more important and to swing those into the SD camp is going to require something a little bit more persuasive than heckling.

It seems to me that there exists a fear of putting flesh on the bones of SD in terms of social structures.If an opiate of long standing use and habit is withdrawn what happens then.

I cannot see the case being made on this thread by SDers.If there is no God what difference does it make whether we pretend there is a God in order to achieve certain social functions or whether we pretend there is no God to achieve others.Shouldn't we be focussed on those social functions?

Why does Bob Dylan choose to make a movie like Masked And Anonymous?Is he just "ludicrous"?

good observation JL. Im a colleague of Behe and have always been quite specific about that very point when he was proposing "facts" about the incompatibility of homologous structures with Darwinian common ancestry.
Behe was an early convert to phil Johnson's Intelligent Design school and was elevated to faculty status at the Discovery Institute when it was originally spun off. I , personally, think that Behe has had many second thoughts about this entirely new direction that his career has taken.

PS-wande. Ive never been "alone" with Behe, it has always been in groups like at the Pa hearings and i "Pittsburgh conferences" as well as other meetings. The smallest grou Ive ever been in where he was there was four or five. So there was never an "audience" atmosphere.

You guys are unforgiving. Remember, even Einstein was wrong about quantum theory.

With all due respect Set, I'm not convinced of that. Can you flesh out your arguments for that sentiment a little more? I would like to agree with you on that stance. Thanks.

I am sorry about my strange sense of humor, farmerman. You became very "mellow" after you talked to Dr. Behe. I assumed that the two of you became drinking buddies. I was not implying that the two of you were planning to get married.