(no subject)

[herveus]

The appearance of design is aspects of biology is overwhelming. Intelligent design is based on observed, empirical, physical evidence from nature." - Michael J. Behe, professor of biochemistry, Lehigh University, testifying in support of the Dover, Pa. school board.

Right.

That still doesn't make it science. From scientific perspective, "intelligent design" is just a handwave to gloss over things that can't yet be explained. It's a way to avoid the hard/critical thinking. Where are the testable and falsifiable predictions?

Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum is "irreducably complex" -- that it could not have evolved because it needed all of its parts to work. OK. If that's true, then how did this "intelligent designer" come up with the idea? Where did that designer come from?

It's turtles all the way down, folks.

I guess Behe is too lazy to contemplate various evolutionary false starts and dead ends that don't exist anymore.

He also says "If Darwinian theory is so fruitless at explaining the very foundation of life...one can reasonably wonder if there is some other explanation." Maybe. On the other hand, one can at least as reasonably wonder at the marvel of it, thank <fitd(s)> for the inspiration, and continue to ponder and hypothesize and test instead of throwing up one's hands and giving up.

"God is who. Evolution is how." I don't see why this has to be a disjunctive OR, nor why faith must be taught in the science classroom. Don't play stupid word games with "theory" when you know damn well that the term as applied in science does not mean that there is particular doubt, but rather that the question has survived attempts to disprove it.

Yes, Toto, I'm afraid of Kansas.

Comments

[blackpaladin.livejournal.com]

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Article on Behe (http://www.post-gazette.com//pg/05291/590339.stm)

My favorite quote from this guy: ""The conclusion that something is designed does not require knowledge of a designer." Excuse me?! "It was designed, but we're not willing to admit that it was designed by someone"?! Hello, folks, that's an active verb you got there. This is no longer a religious issue, this is no longer a scientific issue: what we got here is a grammar problem. :-)

The problem with the idea that "God is the be-all and end-all of religion" (well, OK, one of the problems) is that the next 'logical' conclusion is "If we don't say the word 'God,' it ain't religion." Sigh.

[herveus.livejournal.com]

...interesting article that shines more light on his life in a high bogon flux zone...

Dr. Behe says evolution is testable, but its proponents have not attempted to prove or disprove the theory.

That's bullshit on its face. His follow-on proposal for a test is laughable, and may even be a cleverly clothed straw man. Testable hypotheses have been put forth and not been found false, lending further support to the validity of evolution.

Intelligent design has, to my knowledge, not been subjected to that kind of stress and scrutiny.

[bunnyjadwiga.livejournal.com]

I think you are overgeneralizing...
"The conclusion that something is designed does not require knowledge of a designer..." I think means that the idea that something is designed doesn't require us to draw any conclusions about the designer. In fact, we regularly identify items in our vicinity that were quite clearly designed by one or more entities and may or may not draw conclusions about those designers.

Saying there was a designer doesn't make the designer fit the definition of God as we know it. Consider the idea of the Blind Watchmaker; Creator, but not God as we know it.

[mrw372435.livejournal.com]

The discussion of ID vs Evolution is not one of Science, nor is it one of Faith. Rather, it is one of Ego. I am personally of the opinion that modern science cannot explain certain things because it has advanced too far. ID is the ego of people who cannot exist without external guidlines - to deny the Judeo/Christian concept of Creationism is to call into question the rest of their scripture (in their mind) and without that scripture they have no roadmap for their lives. It is entirely possible to believe in Evolution and Creationism, but the most adamant supporters of ID lack the flexibility of mind to accomodate both ideas.

[weatherman2111.livejournal.com]

This from a biologist. All this guy has to do is look at a few bacterium plates under a microscope and he'll see evolution in action. *shakes head*

While there may be places that Inteligent Design is an apropriate idea for discussion, I can't see hoe a biology classroom is one of them. establish a class on "Differences in Life-Origin Theories" or something like that. Bio's confusing enough has is with casting the entire bedrock of it into doubt without much of a reason to do so.

[bunnyjadwiga.livejournal.com]

I'm so confused.
I realize that 'Kansas' is afraid of the 'cultured' states (Go read Sinclair Lewis for why...) So there's no question in my mind why anyone would want to put a disclaimer in the coverage of Evolution. They did that in my biology class: "Some people think life is too complex to have developed purely randomly. Some people disagree. The theory doesn't say either way."

If that was all they meant by intelligent design, why would anyone have a problem with it? The theory of Evolution doesn't require purely random mutation, does it?

[herveus.livejournal.com]

Evolution does not require an external agent. It can bootstrap, and chemical behavior has been demonstrated in the lab that could have led to the spontaneous evolution of simple life forms, etc.

Intelligent design requires an external agent to cause or steer at least some of the development process. The nature of that agent is carefully left unspecified (at least overtly). However, it follows directly that said agent is not part of the biosystem. That then leads logically to the question of the origin of that agent, hence "It's turtles all the way down." Proponents do not proffer any meaningful explanation for how this hypothetical agent functions. They simply assert that there must be one.

If people wish to deal with the difficulty in understanding *how* evolution works/ed by invoking a supernatural explanation, that is their business. I don't suggest that they are somehow deficient for doing so. I simply maintain that such a belief is a matter of faith and not science, and they don't get to insist in inserting it into the science curriculum.

Having life arise without reliance on an external agent means you don't have to explain the origin and mechanisms of that external agent.

Getting out my cane...

[amykb.livejournal.com]

Back when I was in high school, creationism was still taught in my school. (I took basic Bio 74-75 school year) I like the way my biology teachers handled it though. All Bio students were excused from classes for one afternoon, and an assembly was held in the auditorium. A formal debate was held, followed by questions from the assembly. Mr. Kightlinger, a member of Calvary Baptist Church, argued for Creationism. Mr. Clark, a hard-core science type guy, argued for Evolution. Students were encouraged to question and make up their own minds. Most of us, when presented with the evidence in that manner, decided that evolution was a much more viable theory.

Also, no questions arising from that debate were on anyone's test, as they agreed that although the other person's opinion was wrong, it was also wrong to test people on their opinions.