Re: [asa] Why I believe ID is theologically dangerous

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 08:51:22 EDT

On May 4, 2007, at 4:52 AM, PvM wrote:

>
> By pretending that ID proposes methodologies allowing one to
> scientifically detect 'design' and thus a 'designer', ID has opened
> up the concept of 'design' and worse, 'designer' to scientific
> inquiry, and thus to falsification.

If all ID did was open us to falsification I would say it's a good
thing. If we believe that we have the truth then we should be willing
to, as Glenn Morton put it, put our beliefs "at risk". But that's not
what ID does, unfortunately. One thing I want to note inter alia is
that Judge Jones would make a great scientist. His thinking is lucid
and clear and his ability to absorb and analyze the expert testimony
in this case is nothing short of phenomenal. Again from the
Kitzmiller decision:

> We initially note that irreducible complexity as defined by
> Professor Behe in
> his book Darwin’s Black Box and subsequently modified in his 2001
> article
> entitled “Reply to My Critics,” appears as follows:
> By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is
> composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that
> contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of
> any one of the parts causes the system to effectively
> cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system
> cannot be produced directly by slight, successive
> modifications of a precursor system, because any
> precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is
> missing a part is by definition nonfunctional . . . Since
> natural selection can only choose systems that are already
> working, then if a biological system cannot be produced
> gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in
> one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to
> act on.
> P-647 at 39; P-718 at 694. Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My
> Critics” that
> there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because,
> while it purports
> to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually
> address “the task facing
> natural selection.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically
> explained that
> “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an
> already functioning
> system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution,
> however,
> would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing
> systems; it would be
> to bring together components to make a new system in the first
> place.” Id. In that
> article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect
> in future work;”
> however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating
> his defect. Id.;
> 22:61-65 (Behe).

...

> Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller
> demonstrated
> that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting
> cascade has been
> disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show
> that
> dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the
> cascade, a study
> that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. (1:122-29
> (Miller); P-854.17-
> 854.22). Additionally and more recently, scientists published
> studies showing that
> in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only
> one, but three parts.
> (1:128-29 (Miller)). Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed
> publications have
> refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible
> complexity of
> the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed
> that Professor
> Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely
> designed to avoid peer-reviewed
> scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a
> scientifically warranted redefinition. (20:26-28, 22:112-25
> (Behe)). [emphasis mine]

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 4 08:51:46 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 08:51:46 EDT