Michael Behe's "Billiard Shot" model

[Faizal_Ali]

Your idea of God is a being extended in space and time?

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@John_Harshman

If so, what does “uses” mean?

Good question.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Art

What if God uses random processes to design?

@Art

I don’t think Christians need a scenario where God uses random processes to design the Universe.

It seems to me that resort to front-loading, billiard shots, etc. is pretty much this.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Eddie

To design, or to implement the design? I wouldn’t think that God, sitting in eternity thinking, would have to use any “random processes” to design the world he is going to create. He would just think the design. Getting the design to appear in matter, in the world of space and time, is another thing.

And if the design is best (perhaps only) instantiated by “random processes”, how might that affect ID theory? Can ID be a scientific enterprise if this is the case?

[John_Harshman]

You could try to claim that any event of extremely low probability would require God cooking the random process at the start. The problem with that is that extremely low probability events happen all the time. Every bridge deal has a probability of 1 in 5.4*10^28 (given a fair shuffle), which means that every bridge deal is evidence for intelligent design. I guess so. I dunno.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Art

And if the design is best (perhaps only) instantiated by “random processes”, how might that affect ID theory? Can ID be a scientific enterprise if this is the case?

@Art

ID theory requires an epistemological stance that allows for science to be able to distinguish “magic/miracles” from “amazing coincidences” (or even inevitable coincidences). Most people participating here at Peaceful Science do not believe science can make that distinction.

And yet, there are many who reject I.D. epistemology who still believe that God is willing and able to guide evolutionary processes to accomplish God’s divine and cosmic design.

In other words, believing there is “design” is not the same thing as being able to scientifically confirm there is “design”.

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

The point of Peaceful Science is to understand how we can accept fulsomely the body of science that explains how common descent works, and how speciation arises out of common descent.

In addition, the point of PS is to find common ground and allow people to express their beliefs without strident criticism.

@gbrooks9

Why would a Christian supporter of Evolutionary theory ever need to support millions of supernaturally caused mutations - - rather than millions of naturally caused mutations per the “Billiard Ball Shot” scenario?

They probably wouldn’t support millions of supernaturally caused mutations. All I am saying is that we should extend an olive branch to Christians who don’t support Evolutionary theory.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Behe also write about “Selectable Steps”, or the step-wise pathway of mutation that could lead to complexity. Setting up those unlikely steps in essentially the same as the Billiard ball shot. The trouble is that ID proponents (not sure about Behe himself) claim that to disprove Design there must be a demonstrated evolutionary pathway to complexity - which is the Billiard ball shot again. The evidence ID proponent claim would falsify Design is the same claim the are making about Design.

If a Designer can cause or pre-load each evolutionary step in the same way as evolution could occur, then there is no way to falsify Design. (I have said the same thing many times before, and have no intention of stopping. )

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_aquaticus

They probably wouldn’t support millions of supernaturally caused mutations. All I am saying is that we should extend an olive branch to Christians who don’t support Evolutionary theory.

@T_aquaticus

Describe this “olive branch” please.

I think I am being generous offering de novo Adam and Eve. What else do we need to offer?

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

Describe this “olive branch” please.

It’s right here:

“All I was saying is that there is also nothing wrong with believing in supernaturally caused mutations as opposed to the billiards analogy. People can believe as they want, and they shouldn’t feel as if they have to believe in the billiards analogy in order to be a proper Christian or believer.”

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Dan_Eastwood

The trouble is that ID proponents (not sure about Behe himself) claim that to disprove Design there must be a demonstrated evolutionary pathway to complexity…

@Dan_Eastwood

Oy vay!

We have to get our words right. We are NOT disproving design. Christians EMBRACE design.

We just don’t accept that science is capable of DETECTING design!

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_aquaticus

All I was saying is that there is also nothing wrong with believing in supernaturally caused mutations as opposed to the billiards analogy.

@T_aquaticus

If these supernaturally caused mutations are undetectably different from NATURALLY caused mutations, I will agree. In your view, are they?

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

If these supernaturally caused mutations are undetectably different from NATURALLY caused mutations, I will agree.

If someone believes the supernaturally created mutations are detectable, does that mean they are not a true Christian?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_aquaticus

… if someone believes the supernaturally created mutations are detectable, does that mean they are not a true Christian?

@T_aquaticus

No. It means they are squarely in the I.D. camp, which - - in my view - - is equivalent to being a Christian Alchemist … who were notorious for invoking angels to prove the truth of their theories.

[EDIT: I have clarified my reference to alchemists… I refer specifically to Christian Alchemists who thought Angels could help scientists prove the un-provable.]

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

No. It means they are squarely in the I.D. camp, which - - in my view - - is equivalent to being an alchemist.

Then I guess we part ways on that one. I am fine with accepting someone as a Christian if they are in the ID camp.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_aquaticus

Then I guess we part ways on that one. I am fine with accepting someone as a Christian if they are in the ID camp.

@T_aquaticus

I did not say they were not Christian. Virtually all I.D. proponents are Christian.

But I.D. exists to advance a false political agenda… and this is not tolerable.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@gbrooks9

No. It means they are squarely in the I.D. camp, which - - in my view - - is equivalent to being an alchemist.

They’re trying to make gold?

[Timothy_Horton]

Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn’t Lenski’s LTEE work provide strong ecvidence the “Billiard Shot” model is wrong? Dembski grew 12 colonies of E coli all started from cloning the same individual bacterium. That means all starting positions were identical. The 12 colonies were then all subjected to the same selection pressures yet all 12 evolved noticeably differently, including the one famous for evolving citrate usage.

If the original cloned E coli bacterium has all this information “front loaded” in its genome shouldn’t all 12 clonal copies have evolved the same?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Roy

They’re trying to make gold?

@Roy

I have made my reference to Alchemists more clear. The study of Christian Alchemists is sometimes confusing, but always rewarding: to better understand how some scientists think that anything imaginable is provable.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

[Foghorn Leghorn]
It was a joke, son.
[/Foghorn Leghorn]

It sometimes seems that the ID leadership are in it for the money.

(sigh - another 30 seconds of random typing before PS will let me post my response…)