Close but not quite. The scientists we (perhaps mistakenly) consider “great” are the ones that made leaps of imagination and produce new theories. Often those theories come before there is data. After all, Einstein had to data when he published Special Relativity in 1905. The data did not come until 1919 and then the data was gathered specifically to test Special Relativity. Natural selection was first proposed in 1819 in a footnote to a book about
Scandinavian trees. The author thought is was clear logic. No data. Darwin made a leap of imagination based upon Malthusian economics to natural selection. Only after did he start gathering the data.
So the great scientists are 1) imaginative and 2) lucky. They are imaginative to look at the universe a different way, and lucky that the data gathered to test the new theory supports it rather than falsifies it. Let’s face it, Lamarck made an equal leap of imagination, but the data didn’t back him. Hoyle made a leap of imagination for a static universe, but the data showed Big Bang instead.
It’s not about “seeing into the data”, but rather about making an imaginative leap (sometimes based on tangential data) to a new theory. And then being lucky that the theory is supported.
ic is actually a strong argument. take a car for example: car need at least wheels and engine for a minimal function. so its indeed a ic system. why do you think nature isnt?
“lots of complex structures which Dr. Behe thought couldn’t evolve step-by-step actually do.”
not realy. the flagellum for example is very different from the ttss system. its like to convert a gps into a cell-phone. its imposiblle in step wise. even if they shate some parts.
The first book I read that insisted irreducible complexity was scientific used a mouse trap as an example. It used the same wording, “If you remove one part, it does not work.” I laughed out loud. Mouse traps did evolve and they all “worked” just fine. I am sure there is a museum to prove that true.
ID uses complex biological examples now, but the logic is just as false. Our understanding of cellular and molecular structures is starting to explain how evolution works. Insisting scientists know everything about these subjects already is just silly. None of the discoveries point to anything but some kind of evolutionary process, not an instantaneous event. I make this assertion based on how “easy” it is to manipulate those structures once they are known. If God did not want these structures to be changeable He would not have made them changeable except by Him. I believe God wants “His image” to understand Him by understanding His creation.
Irreducible complexity is 18th century logic based on religious beliefs that God placed everything on Earth in its location for human benefit. Those ideals were banished by observations and conclusions by many people at the time of Darwin not just Darwin or his “deceived” followers. Many of those people were clergy. ID simply updated outdated ideas.
I wasn’t actually talking about Behe. My comment was on the concept of irreducible compleity itself. It requires an unprovable miracle by God for every life form in existence instead of letting God use a process. It tries to prove God exists by singling out one bit from the rest when the same hand created it all. If some things can change, then it is possible for anything to change given the right circumstances. Causality is the basis of evolution. Evolution is God’s sculpting tool. God left the evidence for us to find.
Don’t take this in the wrong way. Love to see you posting!
But your defense of Intelligent Design seems a little out of place. The BioLogos position is a FORM of “intelligent design” …
So, essentially, you have come to a BioLogos forum to argue with ATHEIST evolutionists.
While, no doubt, there are BioLogos supporters who don’t prefer your kind of Intelligent Design, if you agree that the creation of Humanity took millions of years … there’s really no important reason to argue over the fine points. It just aids the Young Earth Creationists to do so.
If Behe used a mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity to show an “engineering concept,” then that shows his lack of understanding of engineering and history. The use of the concept of irreducible complexity shows he does not realize it is a religious model based on miracles. From what I have read from Behe, he wants to retain a partial evolution, just like YEC. That associates his beliefs with them. A partial evolution requires miracles from some divine being to account for the biodiversity of earth. However, you say his beliefs have “nothing in particular to do with evolution or miracles or God.” That statement is simply false. It continues a lack of understanding of the big picture.
I will look up the book page to see if it contains a better description.
Behe basses his rejection of a complete evolutionary process on his studies of a few cellular processes that do not seem to allow for change greater than an Order. His “global” conclusions are based on a negative finding in a limited area. Such a finding does not negate the whole, it only removes one possible process.
I do distinguish evolution from Darwin. He was one man among many who discovered something amazing about life. His claim to fame is his realization of process. Since his book was published, the concept of the universe has changed dramatically. Now, evolution is not just about life. It describes everything. Evolution is simply a process within the Big Bang theory. Both describe causality, everything comes from something until something is no longer a concept.
The concept of irreducible complexity does not fit within the concept of causality without miracles. The cause of miracles can not be studied, thus a brick wall to understanding creation, thus a brick wall to science.
here is a simple way to test the ic argument. do you, as intelligent designer can make a complex system (like a car or a cell-phone)when any step is functional? if not- then its impossible also in nature, that doesnt have an intelligent.
Oh brother. Look, that is the point of the wandering hand of genetics and a fluctuating gene pool. Sometimes things change for no reason at all…
Birds develop new mating songs… and only the candidates who most like the new song mate with them…
Overtime, this totally irrelevant SONG carves a genetic divide within what was once a single population.
You fixation with the functional is understandable… but in the shifts of new populations… it’s the eye of the beholder that sometimes decide what will be and what will not be.
Very true. This is sexual selection, where eager males compete for picky females with elaborate courtship songs, colorful feathers, dances, intricate bowers, etc… Just listen to what this lyre bird can do! (watch until the end!)
I see where you’re coming from but there is a fine nuance in how ID is defined. In a strict sense, ID only claims that it is possible to detect “design” as would be input into the system by “an intelligent agent”. Of course, in practice most people equate that " intelligent agent" with God but this is not exactly what ID claims. I know it’s a nuanced distinction that not very clear in practice but it is there. That said, I do agree that even then the IC/ID hypothesis does not have formal or experimental support so it does not stand on its own regardless of the motivations of those proposing it.
If the definition of ID is such a “fine nuance” that it can’t be easily defined, then the nuance may not really be there. If God created everything, like Gen 1 says, then everything would show the same basic laws and patterns, which it does. Living within that system, it would be impossible to pick one thing from all the others to say this one proves a designer. It is the whole that indicates a designer, not the bits.
If a bunch of Christians are making statements to redefine creation then there is a high likelihood that their statements are religious in nature. For Christians to make a distinction between “intelligent agent” and God is a form of denial or deceit, thus contemptible. That is my biggest problem with ID.