I Agree With Behe

First cite the article what Science mean by saying «Postive evidence», then I will cite the part of the peer-reviewed article that fits the definition that you provided from the peer-reviewed article

There is no evidence for ID in that paper by Stephen Meyer. Read it and find the positive evidence for ID. When you think that you have such evidence, do a search for the latest findings from science on that evidence and I am sure that you will realize that this is NO evidence for ID anywhere.

That was alleged negative evidence against evolution, not positive evidence for design.

The burden is on you to prove your claims. Most of us here are scientists who have looked at the propaganda coming from DI and have fully discredited the entire DI institution. Do the work, find the evidence and see if it stands up to scrutiny.

OK, you don’t understand what positive evidence is. Positive evidence is physical evidence that directly points to the cause of a phenomenon. For ID that would be something like identifying the physical mechanism used to manufacture DNA sequences, or the location of the manufacture, or of course physical evidence of the Designer. All ID offers in the negative “science can’t explain this, therfore DESIGN!”. That’s called the God-Of-The-Gaps argument and was rejected by science as invalid over 300 years ago.


Here is the precisely what you are saying about «physical evidence that directly points to the cause of a phenomenon» is provided in Meyer’s article a direct qute from him. «Contemporary studies on the method of “inference to the best explanation” have shown that determining which among a set of competing possible explanations constitutes the best depends upon judgments about the causal adequacy, or “causal powers,” of competing explanatory entities (Lipton 1991:32-88). In the historical sciences, uniformitarian and/or actualistic (Gould 1965, Simpson 1970, Rutten 1971, Hooykaas 1975) canons of method suggest that judgments about causal adequacy should derive from our present knowledge of cause and effect relationships. For historical scientists, “the present is the key to the past” means that present experience-based knowledge of cause and effect relationships typically guides the assessment of the plausibility of proposed causes of past events. This review, and much of the literature it has surveyed, suggests that four of the most prominent models for explaining the origin of biological form fail to provide adequate causal explanations for the discontinuous increases of CSI that are required to produce novel morphologies. Yet, we have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents–in particular ourselves–generating or causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts. In the first place, intelligent human agents–in virtue of their rationality and consciousness–have demonstrated the power to produce information in the form of linear sequence-specific arrangements of characters. Indeed, experience affirms that information of this type routinely arises from the activity of intelligent agents. A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind –that of a software engineer or programmer. The information in a book or inscriptions ultimately derives from a writer or scribe–from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent. Organisms not only contain information-rich components (such as proteins and genes), but they comprise information-rich arrangements of those components and the systems that comprise them. Yet we know, based on our present experience of cause and effect relationships, that design engineers–possessing purposive intelligence and rationality–have the ability to produce information-rich hierarchies in which both individual modules and the arrangements of those modules exhibit complexity and specificity–information so defined. Individual transistors, resistors, and capacitors exhibit considerable complexity and specificity of design; at a higher level of organization, their specific arrangement within an integrated circuit represents additional information and reflects further design. Conscious and rational agents have, as part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich systems and hierarchies. Further, we know of no other causal entity or process that has this capacity. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks–almost by definition–are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality–with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation»-Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239

No, that’s not physical evidence of “Design”. It’s an inference of “Design” based on Meyer’s ignorance of the physical evidence. Lots of people pointed out the fatal flaw in Meyer’s reasoning which is why no one in the scientific community gives his nonsense any credence.

I do believe in Big bang theory, from what you are saying Big bang theory is just inference of «Bang» since there is no mechanism- physical evidence how, why, and what caused the bang [for case of origin of biological information ID provides «What caused»] that is why Big bang theory is not scientific, that is what you are saying, the situation is the same

No, they’re not anywhere close. That the Big Bang expansion happened is supported by a huge amount of physical evidence. No one in science says they definitively know what caused the BB or what came before it. That’s very different from Meyer claiming his “Design” based on what science doesn’t yet know.

Youre conflating the Big Bang theory with the Big Bang event itself. Two different things

So, Behe said he’d respond to the Darwin Day, Science-published book review (Swamidass, Lents, and Lenski) with a detailed rebuttal in a few days nine days back.
Guess we’re still waiting?

No. He responded, and so did we. See the main post to find the link.

See here @Guy_Coe: Behe's Trainwreck Response to Science.

We decided not to respond more because he had already been rebutted here, though you can see my comments there.

There are still several article coming out over the coming weeks. Lenksi just started a 3 part series, and @nlents is collaborating with different scientists on several other follow ups. The two of us might do another one together, and I’m planning one or two more too. So the story is not even halfway over. This will be a fun and informative ride!

1 Like

Thanks; will do. Trying to keep up! Kudos on the incisive, good, patient, direct, and gracious work. : )