Creation Myths with Dr. Michael Behe on "The Edge of Evolution"

[Faizal_Ali]

@CrisprCAS9

@colewd

I don’t know what the expectations of the experiment was from a de novo gene/protein stand point.

means you shouldn’t have said this:

@colewd

The Lenski experiment is an example of an unanswered phone

He’s just following his hero, Michael Behe. He clearly had never heard of the lizards with placentas before. But, no matter, he is certain that it does not involve any new protein interactions beyond what would fit with his claims How does he know that? Don’t ask silly questions!

[Faizal_Ali]

@CrisprCAS9

@colewd

I don’t know what the expectations of the experiment was from a de novo gene/protein stand point.

means you shouldn’t have said this:

@colewd

The Lenski experiment is an example of an unanswered phone

He’s just following his hero, Michael Behe. He clearly had never heard of the lizards with placentas before. But, no matter, he is certain that it does not involve any new protein interactions beyond what would fit with his claims How does he know that? Don’t ask silly questions!

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

It is deconnected from reality because Behe repeatedly said that if an IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.
The logic of ID is as follow:

• first premise: unguided, blind natural processes cannot explain certain biological features such as IC or high FI.
• second premise: intelligent agents have the ability to produce such features
• conclusion: ID best explains these features than unguided, blind natural processes

So any observation falsifying premise 1 would falsify ID.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

So any observation falsifying premise 1 would falsify ID.

But how can you know that anything you see results from unguided, blind natural processes? How do you know that God didn’t mandate some particular mutations? After all, that supposedly happened many times in the past.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

It is deconnected from reality because Behe repeatedly said that if an IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

But, as is evident from his interview with Dan, there is no observation that will falsify Behe’s beliefs. He just makes up some new rule out of thin air that accommodates the observation. When Dan provides an example from HIV, Behe says this doesn’t count because HIV is a virus and - New Rule! - IC functions arising in viruses thru “Darwinian processses” do not falsify ID. So when it becomes apparent that IC functions have arisen in the LTEE, then that would be Behe’s cue to suddenly make up a New Rule saying that bacteria don’t count, either.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Giltil

The logic of ID is as follow:

• first premise: unguided, blind natural processes cannot explain certain biological features such as IC or high FI.
• second premise: intelligent agents have the ability to produce such features
• conclusion: ID best explains these features than unguided, blind natural processes

So any observation falsifying premise 1 would falsify ID.

Consider ID falsified.

[CrisprCAS9]

Remember a few days ago when I said:

@CrisprCAS9

IC is either defined to the exclusion of evolution, in which case no viable examples have ever been presented, or defined such that it doesn’t exclude evolution, in which case it is irrelevant.

Well, this:

@Giltil

The logic of ID is as follow:

Is an example of the first option. ID provides no demonstration that naturalistic processes can’t explain the features, so the first premise is empty. And I’ll remind you that since it is the ID proponents that claim naturalistic process can’t explain these things, it is their burden to demonstrate the impossibility (not mere improbability) of a naturalistic explanation existing, not the burden of others to demonstrate such a process does in fact exist.

So until you can support your first premise, the argument fails.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@dsterncardinale

And per your latest comment, based on the conversations we just had, wherein I specifically asked him if an ongoing event could be characterized as the result of design, I am emphatically not strawmanning him.

Let’s see. Here is what you said:
I think the problem is Behe can say ‘yup, that’s happening, and it’s most reasonable to attribute it to design’. So actually observing something directly is no barrier to inferring design in the absence of a literal step-by-step account of the evolutionary pathway of whatever event. And that’s bananas. Nobody should take that seriously.

Let’s take the following three claims:

1. observing something directly is no barrier to inferring design in the absence of a literal step-by-step account of the evolutionary pathway of whatever event.
2. observing something directly doesn’t mean that this thing was necessarily caused by an unguided, blind evolutionary process
3. observing something directly doesn’t in itself exclude design as an explanation for this thing.

Your error here is to wrongly interpret what Behe said as endorsing claim 1 when in fact he endorses claim 2 and 3.

Bottom line: the sole fact of observing something directly doesn’t tell you anything about how the thing came to be. Behe said nothing else.

[dsterncardinale]

@Giltil

if an IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

Then pack it up. The Cit+ trait is irreducible.

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

observing something directly doesn’t mean that this thing was necessarily caused by an unguided, blind evolutionary process

Then what observations would falsify design?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Giltil

The logic of ID is as follow:

• first premise: unguided, blind natural processes cannot explain certain biological features such as IC or high FI.

Anyone who thinks like a scientist would react to this with:

“So maybe evolution isn’t as unguided as I have been assuming. Perhaps I should study evolution, and find out how it really works.”

And this is what the biologists at PS have been telling you, if only you would pay attention.

[Faizal_Ali]

I’ll just add that, in terms of demonstrating ID to be true, @Giltil’s argument is logically invalid.

[dsterncardinale]

@Giltil

Your error here is to wrongly interpret what Behe said as endorsing claim 1 when in fact he endorses claim 2 and 3.

No I very much have him down for 2 and 3, in that formulation.

Edit: To clarify, I have him down for all three, which is to say 2 and 3 in addition to 1. And if you think that’s unfair, go back to our conversation and rewatch that part.

[dsterncardinale]

@Faizal_Ali

So when it becomes apparent that IC functions have arisen in the LTEE, then that would be Behe’s cue to suddenly make up a New Rule saying that bacteria don’t count, either.

The new rule there, from our first conversation, is that the various mutations required for the Cit+ trait were not part of the same “system”, which, after drilling down, meant “genetic system”, like within the same gene or operon, and that example doesn’t falsify the hypothesis that IC systems can’t evolve. And that’s laughably arbitrary. Again showing how this is not a serious idea.

If anyone thinks I’m being uncharitable, go back and watch our chat from March.

[Michael_Okoko]

@dsterncardinale

Then pack it up. The Cit+ trait is irreducible.

Pack it up? We wish. ID is not science, but an ideology. Its not going anywhere. Like its brethren, homeopathy, acupuncture, etcetera, it is resistant to evidence and will continue to persist.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

Let’s take the following three claims:

1. observing something directly is no barrier to inferring design in the absence of a literal step-by-step account of the evolutionary pathway of whatever event.
2. observing something directly doesn’t mean that this thing was necessarily caused by an unguided, blind evolutionary process
3. observing something directly doesn’t in itself exclude design as an explanation for this thing.

Your error here is to wrongly interpret what Behe said as endorsing claim 1 when in fact he endorses claim 2 and 3.

Bottom line: the sole fact of observing something directly doesn’t tell you anything about how the thing came to be. Behe said nothing else.

I wonder why we couldn’t just take the opposite tact:

All designed objects in our experience were produced by humans.

We only have examples of human-designed objects going back a few thousand years.

Therefore, anything that has the appearance of “design” from before then, or for which we have no evidence that they were designed by humans, could only have arisen thru unguided natural processes unless we can provide a literal step-by-step account of how it was produced by a non-human designer.

Further: The only unguided natural process that has been conceived of that is capable of producing complex objects with the appearance of design is evolution.

Therefore, absent a literal step-by-step account of how something with the appearance of “design” was produced by a non-human designer or some other process, the conclusion should be that it evolved. There is no reason to actually provide any empirical evidence to support the belief that any such thing evolved.

Does that work for you? If no, please explain why it is any less acceptable than the rubric you propose.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@T_aquaticus

@Giltil

observing something directly doesn’t mean that this thing was necessarily caused by an unguided, blind evolutionary process

Then what observations would falsify design?

For example, the emergence of a complex IC system in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE.

Now, your turn. What observations would falsify naturalism?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@dsterncardinale

@Giltil

if an IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

Then pack it up. The Cit+ trait is irreducible.

Okay. Let’s me reformulate more precisely:
if a complex IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Giltil

Okay. Let’s me reformulate more precisely:
if a complex IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

In my mind a single event cannot falsify either ID, common descent or Darwinian/non Darwinian processes generically. Each can be the appropriate conclusion depending on how the data analysis turns out. Do you disagree?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@dsterncardinale

@Giltil

if an IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

Then pack it up. The Cit+ trait is irreducible.

Okay. Let’s me reformulate more precisely:
if a complex IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

That’s not reformulating it more precisely, it’s reformulating it less precisely, since you haven’t (and won’t) provide any measurable criterion for the threshold of complexity.

It’s also not a reformulation, but a goalpost move. Your first falsification challenge was met, so you retreat to a different one.

It’s also redundant. You’re asking for a complex irreducibly complex system.

Pack it in. The Cit+ trait is irreducibly complex. If that’s not your falsification test - and it isn’t, since nothig could falsify ID for you - you shouldn’t have mentioned it.