Yet another bald assertion, lacking any supporting evidence, so again not a credible claim.
Utter balderdash. Behe’s claims have been repeatedly demolished, including repeated demonstrations that they are based on misrepresentations of others work, in areas where Behe himself has no expertise. This is why Behe has zero scientific credibility, not even with his own department:
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Walter ReMine used to make the ‘you misrepresent my claims!’ argument all the time, even after citing the specific chapters of the book back at him. Even some of his ID colleagues noticed the same problem.
To be honest, given the big tent nature and the ‘do not disagree in public’ tendencies of the ID movement, it’s really hard to nail down anything. Is the universe ancient? ‘Probably, but it could be wrong’. Are humans and apes related be common descent? ‘YES!’, ‘NO!’
Yes, it may be that the reason Bill doesn’t understand ID is that there’s nothing to understand. The only thing they have in common is that God did something, and there’s no science to be found there.
It is ID that has no testable explanation for the origin of complexity. ID specifically and arbitrarily rules out discussion of the designing entity. ID cannot even distinguish between the individual creation ex nihilo of every kind on the planet, and common descent by DNA tinkering biotech angels, despite these being drastically contrasting narratives. What other science rules out discussion of mechanism of action?
ID has no mechanism to instantiate the designs of the mind. Every human artifact in history has been produced directly with hands and tools, not minds. It is unbelievable to me that such an extensive enterprise as ID, with hundreds of books and media produced, can rest on such flimsy foundations.
How does mutation do this when genes are long functional sequence?
This is false and shows you have not looked at ID seriously and objectively. The mechanism of ID is a mind. The test bed is humans. Humans have contributed to many complex solutions over history and are beginning to understand how biology works.
In the case of gravity we cannot see it but we can model that it accounts for many things we observe in nature.
There is plenty to understand if you decide to give ID a chance to be useful. It could actually make your job more interesting.
Mind is not a mechanism for human artifacts. The human mind is locked in a bony skull, or am I wrong about that? Can you demonstrate anything produced by telekinesis? Generally, we can identify the means of manufacture, for instance cast vs forged. Mind is not a mechanism for human artifacts, so it is clearly not a test bed for a mechanism of ID. So how do you distinguish Ham’s from Behe’s mechanism?
I get most of my information on ID by reading posts at the ENV site. Is that what you mean by “one sided”?
There is no clear objective meaning for “complexity”.
In mathematics, we can at least define it in terms of Kolmogorov complexity. But that isn’t much help for the question of physical complexity. When we look around, everything look fractal. The closer we look, the more complexity we see. One reason that biology looks complex, is that it has been studied intensely.
Designed things, on the other hand, tend to be far less complex. If anything, complexity should be an argument against ID.
Hi Ron
As the invisible causes for electro magnetism and gravity are clearly accepted as mechanisms there is no reason a mind which is difficult to completely conceptualize is not a potential mechanistic explanation for what we are observing.
The biggest issue is if it can account for the observation as blind and unguided processes have the problem of trying to find function in long compatible sequences which appear to require planning.
What we appear to be observing is the edge of what the science of the 4 forces can explain. If ID is accepted this can lead to lots of interesting discussions.
Not the same. Nothing is physics arbitrarily rules out discussion of more fundamental theories for any phenomena. ID does in order to preserve its big tent. That is not science, that is institutional politics.
Are you claiming telekinesis is science? An idea that cannot distinguish conflicting and contradictory explanations such as ex nihilo and common descent is worthless.
Any discussion of a mechanism which can differentiate ex nihilo from common descent, as I have stated. If there is such a mechanism, let’s hear it.
ID has no actual mechanism, and mind does not fill the role. To assert that human minds are a test bed is to assert telekinesis. Means of manufacture always involve working of hands or tools which are in principle identifiable.
The question that common descent does not answer is how many starting points there is. Without the design method as an alternative common descent has no useful alternative to test against. The Howe diagram fits Behe’s method of design detection which brings separate starting points into play.
This is your assertion which I disagree with.
What hands and tools make gravity or electro magnetism work. Your objections are not consistent with other scientific practices.
Bill, I find it hilarious, and deeply revealing of the ID mindset, that you demand “a clear objective definition of the words science and pseudoscience” (even after I’d posted Shermer’s ten questions), but seem to think mere “examples” a satisfactory way of defining complexity. The double standard is blatant.
This sort of argumentation is just one more reason why I consider ID not just pseudoscientific, but illogical to the point of incoherence.
There is in my experience some overlap between those people and ID Creationists. Golly, I wonder why. Phillip Johnson embarrassed himself on the subject of HIV/AIDS, if I recall correctly. Regrettably, I have a brother who also is ID-sympathetic and was (probably still is) an HIV/AIDS denialist. Climate change, too. It’s the sunspots, don’cha know?
There is no design method. Maybe you mean “design model”. But there is no design model either, and it’s not an alternative to common descent either, which of course you never notice. There is nothing useful there either.
It does not, and I doubt Behe would agree with this claim. Nor does he agree with you about “separate starting points”.
