1.Pascal’s wager is a logical fallacy.

2.Evolution does not imply “betterment”, but only a (potential) adaptation to prevailing conditions. It is a tinkerer, not an “improver”, and its target is moving all the time. There is no teleonomic quality to it: it does not look ahead or plan, which is why so many adaptations that were useful at some point cease to be eventually, and, given enough time, atrophy unless they incur no fitness cost on the individual bearing them.

3.Not all creatures have reason for the same reason not all creatures have wings: the power of abstract symbolic thought and self-representation is an expensive trait. Our brains consume a large percentage of our body’s energy just to function sluggishly (if the thought processes of many people on the interwebz are any indication). As a matter of fact, it is better explained as a side-effect of evolution: perhaps an emergent property of the complexity of our brain. I’d say it is not necessary to survival (and, again, using humans as an exmaple, perhaps detrimental to it!)

Anyway, your objections are easy to deal with since they are strawmen: I recommend picking up an introductory textbook on evolutionary theory and making your way through it. YOu don’t have to agree with it, but it will prevent you from making incorrect statements and arguing against non-existent positions.

Ravilyn said: “And fittingly we too would mix up belief in Jesus with belief in 6000 year old universe and all other myths you guys believe in.”

It has been my experience (i am in no way saying that this is normative) in such debates about evolution, creation, ID, God, no God, etc. that those who believe in God are looked down upon because they believe in silly stories laid out in the Bible, that their faith is unfounded and just a “fairy tale.” Yet, it sounds like an INCREDIBLE leap of faith is required in order to believe in evolution. To believe that there is nothing, and then all of the sudden by no outside force, there is a single-celled organism just sounds…well, anything but logical. So you say that there is a perfectly logical and scientific reason as to how that first organism came into being without help, but you just haven’t found that out yet. Well, it takes a lot more faith to believe that that thing just popped out of nowhere than to believe that it was made by an intelligent being. wouldn’t you say so? why do people who believe in the Bible have to be ridiculed as believing in myths, when it is far more ridiculous to believe in something coming from nothing?

p.s. ravilyn, you shouldn’t have to mix up the belief in the resurrection of Jesus with a 6,000 yr. old universe with the story of Noah. If a Christian is going to take any part of the Bible as true, they should take the whole text as true.

P.S.
To Neil Johnson
Your words are one of the most sane here, and your self-restrain and decency are pretty good. I second your and Dr. Behe’s vision of the problem.
Thank all of you, gentlemen.

In other words, all the above arguments could be reduced to the simple fact that the powers of darkness are terrified beyond comprehension because they know that their time is short. In a last-ditch and desperate effort to undo all the good that God has done, they stir up the masses to protest anything worthy.

The gays protest the Prop 8 ban on gay marriage in California. The feminists protest all things male in general. The atheists protest Christianity and all forms of it. The macro-evolutionists protest the intelligent design proponents.

The shrill voices of hate and fear protest everything that even slightly suggests a coming end of the age, a return of Christ in power and glory, a final judgment of all the living and the dead. For the believer no fear is present in any of these events. For the one shackled to unbelief, all these events stir up terror and rage and hatred beyond control. This anger goes much further than the insanity of political correctness. These violent reactions are truly a spiritual battle between invisible forces: the powers of light against the powers of darkness.

In that sense, Bob is correct: no point exists in saying or responding to anything further. It’s a done deal, “over and out.”

I refuse to respond or comment further–it’s a waste of time and energy to dialogue with deliberate dishonesty. Over and out . . .

“Would anyone like to question this positive empirical evidence for the positively proveable ability of intelligence to create complex interactive mechanical systems.”

Would anyone like to explain the validity of employing an analogy as evidence and why creationists use analogies so often instead of real data?

By “these arguments” I mean closely parsing sentences like
a defense lawyer and coming up “gotchas” and some kind of contrived and convoluted arguments to claim the there are
still unexplained things.

Most of the die hard theists will accept these gotchas and
arguments however contrived and convoluted they are. But there
is this vast majority of people who are told “there is a
controversy, there are unexplained questions, there is some
doubt” and they take you at face value. These are not the
die-hard theists. Some of them will eventually dig in and
start examining the arguments. When they see how easily
ID falls apart and how vacuous it is, they will turn against
you. IDists are ceding and giving up on a vast majority of nominally committed Christians. The ID movement will turn
out to be a great detriment to Churches in general. See
what happened in Florida science standards public
comments. 80% of the respondents are supporting evolution.
If you are a theist and if you believe Church is needed
to provide a moral compass to the society, you must see how
damaging Behe will turn out to be for it in the long run.

Another ring species of some song birds.
Just abstracts are available on line.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6818/full/409333a0.html

So what do you think?
Does ID do any research like these evo-bio guys do?

Look at what the Discovery Institute wants YOU to believe.
There is this ruling orthodoxy of Darwinists. They
are ruthless. They brook no dissent. There is this large
group of people who believe evolution is all bunkum but
are forced to be silent by this evil overlords. That is what
they want you to believe. And these guys who spend their
lifetime studying salamanders or warblers or gulls are
so easily silenced? They work for a pittance. The salary
for these academics are a joke compared to what they can
make in the private sector. And they play along be silent?
Even at the height of persecution during the inquisition
in the middle ages, ordinary folk stood up, and expressed
their dissent and died for their beliefs. You think these
professors and grad students keep quiet? With tenured jobs?
After seeing that Behe was not fired by Lehigh? After seeing how much money Behe is raking in by pandering to the
gallery? Come on Neil, this conspiracy theory
is a bigger joke than the Wide Right Wing Conspiracy
Hilary Clinton talked about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Shows how every intermediary could be a biotic reality.
Of course all these show how the eye COULD evolve now how it DID. And that might satisfy a few die-hard theists.
But these arguments stretch the credibility of ALL
theists and you will be abandoning not-so-die-hard
believers who would have liked a non-confrontational spiritual religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Let me see if I can find the frogs quickly.

1. You are changing the goal posts. The fundamental argument of IDist like Behe was, “how COULD such a complex organ evolve?
I can’t IMAGINE how!”. Then Dawkins comes along and show how it COULD evolve. How one could IMAGINE such a evolution. Now suddenly, you don’t want how it COULD, but how it DID. You parse the sentences like a lawyer trying to somehow find a justification of “reasonable doubt”. I repeat again, even if you PROVE evolution is all hocus pocus, it still does not prove ID. There is nothing in ID. No religion, No science, No predictions.

2. I have not come across the term “biotic reality” in evo-bio books. Googled for it and found numerous hits on anti-evolution websites. This term appears to be nothing more than viability dressed up to sound more imposing for the benefit of ignorant laymen. It is not a huge hole found in Dawkins’ books. In fact, Dawkins talks about it extensively. He says that every intermediary must be a viable life form. It should be able to fight and survive and reproduce. Also the lack of foresight of Natural Selection is also extensively mentioned in all evo-bio books, including The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins has more conditions for the gentle slope on the “other side” of the cliff. The surface must be monotonic, always rising, never falling or dipping.

3. Some sections of Dawkins’ books are very difficult read for non science students/people. He talks about “spaces”, an abstract mathematical term, to discuss all possible sea shell shapes, all possible musical tunes etc. Dennett talks about the Library of Mendel and a library of ALL possible books. I am not saying you are dumb. But you need to put serious effort to understand these concepts. At a minimum you should have done and remember two college level calculus
courses and a statistics and probability course. I don’t mean to brag, I scored in the top 1% in every competitive examn I took. And even I find Dawkins a tough and demanding read.

4. Coming back to the concept of “biotic reality”: There are extant species living right now that show the gradual change from one species to another, with every intermediate stage viable and reproducing. 1. Two gull species in England form a chain of gradual changes and intermediaries. 2. Two species of frogs in a lake shore in California show this gradual changes with every intermediary being a “biotic reality”. Need to hunt to find the references. If I have the patience and time to do it, I will come back and post it. You can google for them and find it yourself too if you are inclined.

5. It appears to me, you just read creationist websites debunking evolution, instead of the original authors. In all your trawling through them, why have you not yet come across any credible reason why, under ID, humans could not synthesize Vitamin C?

I’m glad to be of service.

Frankly, if I was going to recommend reading for the layperson, I’d recommend Sean Carroll over Dawkins. He is much more literate in the field that is giving the most exciting data right now, that being evo-devo. But I think I already did recommend him to you here…

As for relying on Dembski (or Dawkins, or Wells, or Carroll, or anybody), I can only repeat what I said before. Evidence, not quotes. In all cases. But that’s just me; I understand that most folks involved in this discussion are more prone to philosophizing and less prone to considering new evidence. I wish that was not the case, but I recognize that it really is.

It’s a culture war, not a discussion over the science. If we concerned ourselves only with the science, it would not be a discussion at all… So we both have to talk both languages.

“You seem to be taking Dawkins to task for an overactive imagination about ALL of the biological world, and I can see that point.”

and

“You hopefully can understand that Dawkins’ overstatements about all things cannot be applied to this particular thing.”

and

“Ok, how about this? I have no bloody idea what he is talking about in that section. But even though that seems critical to you, it is completely irrelevant to me.”

It was important to me as a laymen who gets his information from books like “The Blind Watchmaker” to get a sense of whether or not a working scientist (which I assume you are) agrees with how Dawkins approached the topic of evolution in this particular instance.

I thought his arguments, or rather speculations, were way over the top. You seem to agree with that. And that’s all I wanted someone to say in this thread. I have already been admonished not to rely too much on Dembski. It seems I should heed the same advice regarding Dawkins.

I know that intelligent design is not a mechanism. I am guilty of using a quick phrase as a convenience, much like we personify natural selection when we say natural selection “chooses”.

I have gone back to re-read your previous posts and have discovered, much to my embarrassment, I have misread or completely missed some things. For example, I missed the link to the bacterial flagellum, because I didn’t recognize it as a link. For that I apologize. That means it’s time for me to take a time out. I thank you for the time you have taken to respond. These discussions are always interesting, if not always fruitful.

I think that this other statement also needs to be addressed.

You wrote: “One definition of conceive is “imagine”. So the above phrase is true at it stands, but it makes for a vacuous argument. What will an imagined evolutionary sequence tell us about a real evolutionary sequence? It might be a good first step, but eventually we ought to be interested in a real evolutionary sequence.”

Science works in this instance by hypothesizing (aka “imagining”) a possible sequence. On the basis of that hypothesis, and using known mechanisms (mutation, common descent, gene transfer) we can then proceed to test that hypothesis with actual experiments, the outcomes of which have been predicted based on those mechanisms. If the outcomes are as predicted, support is generated for the hypothetical sequence of events. If not, the results usually suggest another hypothesis, which can be similarly tested. So the “imagining” is a valid first step, AND it is not just an excuse for ignoring a “real evolutionary sequence”, as you imply. It is a pathway toward an understanding of that real evolutionary sequence.

More critically, this only works if you have mechanisms to use for the predictive stage. We know many of the mechanisms of genetics. We know how descent works. We know how lateral gene transfer works. We can use that knowledge of the mechanisms to make predictions, e.g. IF this gene mutated in organism X at time Y, the results should be visible here as gene product Z. Absent mechanism, no predictions are possible. So if, as you claimed before, “the mechanism is intelligent design” (which is, by the way, not a mechanism), how do you proceed? Any sequence is possible. None can be predicted.

So when you say “eventually we ought to be interested in a real evolutionary sequence”, I would agree, but I admit that I also wonder if you really are interested in that sequence, or just in debunking the current best way to get there. Because if the latter is true, it will be incumbent upon you to give us a better method for gaining that understanding, and it is quite clear that ID is not that method.

You wrote: “For some reason you refuse to criticize Dawkins directly.”

Ok, how about this? I have no bloody idea what he is talking about in that section. But even though that seems critical to you, it is completely irrelevant to me.

Quotes, no matter how eminent the quotee, are not gospel truth, nor are they data. I honestly don’t care about quotes; I care about evidence.

And then there is this goal-post switch. You seem to be taking Dawkins to task for an overactive imagination about ALL of the biological world, and I can see that point. But then, even though you write “The subject is not the bacterial flagellum”, you return to the bacterial flagellum, about which we know a lot and don’t have to imagine much, to say “I absolutely agree with you that there is simply not enough information to give an hypothetical pathway of the detail we have for the bacterial flagellum.” That is simply wrong; I didn’t say that AFAIK, and I don’t believe it. Did you read that article on the bacterial flagellum that I linked to in a previous post? If you did, and if you paid attention to the EVIDENCE there, you hopefully can understand that Dawkins’ overstatements about all things cannot be applied to this particular thing.

Let me know when you have digested that article, and see if there are still concerns. If it still bothers you that we don’t KNOW every step in the sequence, I can’t help you, and you will never be satisfied.

But if that is the case, please apply that standard to your own explanation, whatever it is. What was the exact sequence by which the designer made the bacterial flagellum?????

It’s becoming apparent that we are beginning to talk past each other. I’ll try to explain where I am coming from one more time.

I have always considered Dawkins to be the premiere expositor of the theory of evolution of our time. If he can’t explain it so the layman can understand it, no one can, or so I thought.

So when I came upon those paragraphs where he summarized the theory, I was frankly suprised at the specultive nature of his arguments to the extent that I wanted to discuss my critique here. To put it another way, if you were an editor reviewing that particular text, what suggestions would make to change it or improve it or would you accept it as it is?

The subject is not the bacterial flagellum; the subject is Dawkins’s claim that prompted me to use that as an example.

Once more I consider the phrase “it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between [a beginning and an end point in an evolutionary sequence]“.

“[I]t is always possible to conceive…”

One definition of conceive is “imagine”. So the above phrase is true at it stands, but it makes for a vacuous argument. What will an imagined evolutionary sequence tell us about a real evolutionary sequence? It might be a good first step, but eventually we ought to be interested in a real evolutionary sequence. And can we really divide any evolutionary sequence into infinitesimally graded intermediates?

According to you, I am asking the impossible. “For many many many things in the natural world, there is simply not enough information to give an a hypothetical pathway of the detail that we have for the bacterial flagellum.”

I absolutely agree with you that there is simply not enough information to give an hypothetical pathway of the detail we have for the bacterial flagellum. That is why I criticized Dawkins’s statement.

For some reason you refuse to criticize Dawkins directly. I seem to have become your proxy for Dawkins and you redirect your criticism to me instead. This may not be your intent but this is how it appears to me.

The comment on “oracular” pertains to the realities of discussions with creationists, their fixation on quotes instead of data, and the fact that quotes, no matter how prestigious the person being quoted might be, are not data. I was trying to focus (again) on the data re the bacterial flagellum, which was, I think, mentioned in your comment. Sorry if that seemed as if i was trying to change the subject; as far as I understood it, the bacterial flagellum WAS the subject.

Furthermore, I did comment on the specifics of your critique of Dawkins. I pointed out that in the specifc case of the bacterial flagellum (about which we know quite a bit), your invocation of non-biological reality is inaccurate. We know what the intermediates probably looked like, because such organisms still exist. They have secretory systems but not flagella (a conclusion derived from actual data); the proteins are homologous (a conclusion derived from actual data), and indeed it is “possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between them” (a hypothesis which can lead to predictions, experiments, and more actual data).

If you are talking about all biological structures that seem designed when you say “If it is always possible, then show me!”, I submit that you are asking the impossible. for many many many things in the natural world, there is simply not enough information to give an a hypothetical pathway of the detail that we have for the bacterial flagellum. And even in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there are PLENTY of unanswered questions. So I would interpret Dawkins as saying that as science continues to progress, it should be possible to explain many more things than we can currently explain.

Hope this helps.. Now please give me some details about the mechanisms, apparently not involving finely graded intermediates, that you invoke with this quote – “The mechanism is called intelligent design”. Per usual, I would appreciate explication of testable hypotheses based on this “mechanism”, with the predicted results being different than those of evolutionary theory.

thanks in advance.

So when you say that I cannot consider Dawkins’s quotes oracular, are you referring only to the video interview, or do you include his summary in “The Blind Watchmaker” as well?

You change the subject and start talking about quotes and demanding detailed evidence and predictions from ID proponents.

I have yet to get your take on the substance of Dawkins’s summary, which is the subject of my recent posts. Obviously, I found his summary lacking. What can I infer from the fact that you have not commented specifically on the problems that I saw in the summary?

Without specific comments I will go away asuming that my critique of the summary is essentially correct.

Dawkins’ quotes, especially those gleaned from a source like arn.org, cannot be considered to be oracular. Ditto for Behe quotes, or Dembski quotes, or anybody’s quotes. It is a curious habit of creationists to treat quotes as if they were the only item on the menu; this must come from apologetics, where quotes ARE the only item on the menu. Reacting to quotes, from either side, is almost inevitably unsatisfying.

The relevant item on the menu is the evidence. There is good evidence that the bacterial flagella arose from a secretory system. This evidence leads to testable hypotheses, which can lead to more evidence. On the ID side there is no evidence, there are just god-of-the-gaps arguments. So quotes are supreme.

I’ll stick with the evidence, and with testable predictions. I don’t think it is unreasonable for me to demand evidence and testable predictions from the other side. This is particularly true if I see a double standard on that side, where minutely detailed evidence is demanded for one explanation, and no evidence at all is demanded for the other.

What testable hypotheses derived from ID theory, leading to predictions of results which would be different than those predicted by evolutionary theory, have been proposed? I am aware of none.

But I am aware of a lot of quotes…

My post was a critique of Dawkins’s statements. It is he who is claiming that “it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates.”

(And it is he who got me to revisit natural selection when he said, “…only if there is a mechanism for guiding each step in a some particular direction…”)

First of all I reacted to the word “conceive”. In our imaginations we can conceive of lots of things, but sooner or later if these imaginings don’t represent biotic reality, they are scientifically meaningless. I have no problem with how scientific analyses begin. “Wild thoughts” can sometimes beget fruitful ideas. I do have a problem with where they end up.

Second, I had a problem with “infinitesmally graded intermediates”. This suggests that evolutionary steps can be divided into smaller and smaller parts without limit. I chose the easy example of the bacterial flagellum to ask “Well, if that is your claim, what about this?”

Dawkins did not use any qualifying words that would suggest any reservations on his part. He flat out said, “It is always possible…” If it is always possible, then show me!

Bottom line:

I was not demanding a level of detail from evolutionary biology that I do not demand from ID. I was challenging Dawkins to live up to the claim he made.

And you implicitly agreed with the point I was trying to make when you said, “Obviously it will never be possible to explicitly describe every step of this evolutionary pathway in the detail that you seem to be demanding”.

Bottom line #2:

I realize I am forming an opinion from an extremely small sample of Dawkins’s writing, but if the above is typical of his arguments then his arguments do little to change my mind. In fact just the opposite effect is acheived. His arguments are really just superficial speculations with no concrete numbers to back them up such that they tend to confirm my skepticism of the theory of evolution.

Then there is the 2 minute interview on arn.org where Dawkins says “Natural selection… well I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful.” Faith, indeed.

Two quick comments.

1) You write “Only if the intermediates aren’t constrained to represent biotic reality. What is the series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between a bacterium without a flagellum and a bacterium with a flagellum?” Those intermediates are known, and some are still extant. The proteins of the flagellum are derived from proteins used in other situations, and in particular from proteins used for a bacterial secretory system. Such systems are used by bacteria to secrete toxins; many of the components of such systems are homologous to flagellar proteins. So, to answer your rhetorical question, a bacterium without a flagellum would look like a bacterium with only a secretory system. Obviously it will never be possible to explicitly describe every step of this evolutionary pathway in the detail that you seem to be demanding, but a plausible pathway has been proposed, and people are testing its predictions. Which brings me to the second point…

2) Isn’t just a tad hypocritical to demand such a level of detail from evolutionary biology while at the same time demanding no detail and no predictive hypotheses from your chosen notion, intelligent design? Scientists are hard at work testing their predictions about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, in part to satisfy the likes of you, but mostly because it is a useful intellectual endeavor. IDists like Behe are doing nothing at all, and yet you accept their untestable “explanations” uncritically.