Perhaps you should note that I specified SCIENTIFIC hypothesis. That is the only rational inference from your use of “working” in front of hypothesis, which makes no sense because Behe isn’t doing any scientific work, which is testing the empirical predictions of scientific hypotheses.
Indeed they are, as are hypotheses, when the context is scientific. Your distinction between theory and hypothesis is not the one used in science.
Surely you realize that dictionary definitions include all uses of a term, even imprecise ones. That dictionary definition represents lay usage of the term. Heck, it even includes the creationist misuse of the term.
Why should we care about the thoughts of someone who ignores most of the relevant evidence while making a global claim from a tiny sample–particularly when he doesn’t even get the facts about his tiny sample right?
Ahhh… a “scientific hypothesis”. How ironic! I would maintain that Behe can never provide one of those, because there is no way to test a metaphysical principle.
In contrast, I would assert that Behe is making a theological hypothesis. So, am I correct in assuming that ends your interest in discussing Behe’s scenarios?
Peaceful Science is rather focused on theological issues.
A few photos I took during the 2017 solar eclipse, demonstrating a homemade pinhole camera and a natural pinhole camera (sunlight filtered thru the leaves of a tree).
He may have meant that … but he was/is wrong. Wasn’t it you that pointed out that there is no way of knowing whether God once again acted to assist the bacteria with the installation of motorized flagella?
Then why did Behe say that the emergence of something like the bacterial flagellum in the lab would falsify intelligent design? That would fit within the “God’s Pool Ball Shot” scenario, but Behe seems to reject it.
Behe seems to reject the idea that what we consider natural processes are responsible for the adaptations he is pointing to. That looks like creationism to me.
He is leaping to the assumption that God would never frustrate the intentions of a glorious laboratory experiment like the one he describes… or even the reverse!:
that God might want to intentionally frustrate that experiment!
Yes, I understand that. But I believe you are gleaning the wrong conclusions from his position. You are trying to make his position consistent with his beliefs.
I think he is missing the implications of that particular position.
I agree. I don’t see how there is a way to rule out the role of God in such an experiment.
Of course, this defeats Behe’s goal in the original quote. Behe was trying to argue that Intelligent Design is scientifically falsifiable (and also argued that evolution was unfalsifiable). As you note, Behe appears to be wrong on this point. Just to make this clear, if a claim is incapable of being falsified it does not also mean that the claim is false. All it means is that it isn’t scientific. The fact that Behe and others want ID to be scientific seems to indicate that they have adopted a form of Scientism, where truth is determined by science. Yours and Joshua’s approach seems like a better way of melding the two together.
That only further supports my argument. It is argued that pieces of an IC system can only function in that system, but the example of the mammalian middle ear shows why this argument is wrong. Two of the bones in the mammalian middle ear served two functions in their reptilian ancestors: sound transduction and a jaw bone. Therefore, multiple functions is a valid origin for pieces of an IC systems.
Oh please. We already know that this won’t matter.
They are all real.
We have already seen that there is no evidence that you would accept for evolution.
The evidence does drive my conclusions. I will freely admit that.
If it is wrong then show me that it is wrong. Your first hurdle is understanding what the inference is and the evidence that is used to test the inference.
