´óÏó´«Ã½

It's hard to know what Michael Behe thinks about evolution. He accepts common descent, so presumably, in his view, we share a common ancestor with, say, chimpanzees-primates-rodents-mammals-vertebrates-chordates etc. Where, in his view, does this chain of descent break down?

There would be no philosophical difference between accepting common descent in this way and accepting microbe-man evolution outright while maintaining a belief in God, so called theistic evolution. Each view is equally problematic to reconcile with scripture, each requires an allegorical reading of Genesis, and neither is a scientific theory per say, but rather an attempt to reconcile a religious view with scientific evidence, which is an important thing for Christians to do.

If Christians in general do not engage with scientific evidence they are in danger of losing their intellectual integrity and thus theism will be seen as an increasingly irrelevant world-view.

PS. I love that the volume control on iPlayer "goes to eleven" :p

The trouble with Behe is that he has this idea that he simply cannot back up with hard scientific data.

He'd be getting a lot more recognition in his field of expertise if he could only elevate his intelligent design idea to that of a proper theory. Alas the ID idea seem incapable of providing testable hypothesis and certainly hasn't given any experimental provided data. His only 'evidences' are arguments from incredulity and throwing out popular science books that do nothing but state the same mantra, over and over again. Just because he cannot explain the evolutionary development of a specific feature, doesn't mean goddit. His thinking is lazy and founded on faith, not science. I particulary dislike his explanation of flagellum, describing it as a 'rotary motor'. It's not. He's never put forwards any mechanisms as to how the supposed designer put this design in, or how it's maintained. For a 'scientific' idea, that's a fairly major flaw.

I think the whole concept of a 'controversy' is misleading. There is no controversy within bioloigical science fields. ID is not a theory, it's barely a hypothesis and to try and put across as a viable alternative is not even wrong, it's dangerous. No one takes geocentrism seriously, ID holds the same position within biology.

Will, thanks for getting him on, it was a good interview. It's telling that Behe can only seem to give his ideas through non-technical outputs. He's pushing a politically and religiously inspired message. His denial that all the papers published since his 'Black Box' book havn't disproven ID, just goes to show how committed Behe and those like him are to their dogma. The only thing going for them is that the ID movement at least has a tame scientist on their side. I bet they're gutted he accepts common descent though.

ID can't really be disproven, which ultimately is what makes it an unscientific proposal...

#3 -

"ID can't really be disproven, which ultimately is what makes it an unscientific proposal..."

The trouble is that abiogenesis is also just a hypothesis, which actually has not been proven (and could never be disproven by those who are dogmatically committed to believing it). And even if it could be proven that life could have arisen that way (despite the mind boggling and absurd improbability), the same could be said of ID (i.e. life could have arisen that way). So then abiogenesis (once 'proven' as a *possibility*) then takes on the same status as ID, and is held 'by faith' by those for whom it is philosophically convenient.

All this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with trying to fit empirical data into fondly held philosophical presuppositions - on both sides of the debate. But, as I have observed on this blog, there is considerable confusion as to the difference between 'science' and 'philosophy'.

No amount of studying living systems will tell us: "There is no way these could have arisen through the input of intelligent ordering." But the assumption that "they must have arisen by purely natural (mindless) means, because we have worked out a theory as to how they could have done" is spurious logic, based on a prior commitment to a particular philosophy. "Could have" does not imply "must have". That is a non sequitur.

So if ID is judged to be 'unscientific' then so is the alternative, unless, of course, we decide to define the word 'unscientific' as 'contrary to the dogmas of philosophical materialism' (a fallacious definition assumed by certain long-standing contributors on this blog).

LSV,

Abiogensis and evolution are completely different subjects. Stop confusing the issues. Evolution can be discussed without any mention of abiogensis, the methods and pathways of evolution are well researched, with robust theories supporting them. Out of all the theories put forwards by science, evolution is one of the strongest.

Abiogensis, as yet, has no -proven- pathway. However, the fact that life came to be is not the issue here. The fact we exist is proof that, somehow, life began. The specifics involved in that moment, whilst not known exactly, have been hypothesised and even performed experimentally. It is not a requirement of faith to agree with abiogensis (as we know life began at some point), it is a requirement of faith that a god was involved however.

Where there is a complicated process that evolutionary biologists have not yet fully explained Behe sees evidence of a designer. Some believe that this designer could be space aliens, but they are wrong: it is my pet cat!

I was a little confused by what he said: first he argued that one is no more likely to read design into ID theory if one believes in God, then he defended his claim (Kitzmiller case) that the plausibility of ID theory is related to whether or not one believes in the existence of God!

This was a very good interview that confirmed to me that ID theory should be kept out of the science classroom. It is a way of slipping God in by the back door: it merely offers a counter argument to evolution which does not hold water. For Behe, and most other proponents of ID theory, God is the designer. Schoolchildren should not be exposed to nonsense like this in the science classroom.

Behe's credibility as a scientist was greatly challenged by his claim that the human immune system is "irreducibly complex" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If scientists prove that something he claims to be irreducibly complex is not, he'll just move the goalposts.

Trying to find science in the bible is a fool's errand, Graeme. Behe's claim has always been that there are certain barriers which standard evolution (which he fully accepts is perfectly adequate for the vast majority of the "heavy lifting" required to get us from "microbes to man" (in the dopey language of the creationists) can't cross. LSV, settle down old boy - no-one is saying that in principle a meddling sky pixie *cannot* be reponsible for life, nor is anyone even saying that in principle such a funny thing would not be amenable to scientific investigation. Indeed, the arguments against intelligent design are not that life *could not* have been "intelligently designed" a priori - just that there is no evidence to suggest that it *was*.

Now Behe claims to have uncovered a realm of biology that is inaccessible to evolution because there are obstacles. The burden of proof would appear to be on him to show that these are indeed barriers; he has failed to do this. Irreducible complexity, contra Behe's blithe assertions, does NOT indicate unevolvable complexity - indeed, irreducible complexity is an expected outcome of an informationally acquisitive system such as that we see in biology.

So basically the guy just has *nothing*. Which is why the scientific community regards ID as a joke.

Ho ho, Will - a Freudian slip there? "The culture wars between religion and society"? Love it!

Natman,

"I bet they're gutted he accepts common descent though."

Yup. ID wanted to be the big tent under which YECs, old earth creationists and just about any other flavour of anti-science theist could feel happy. But YECs don't want to be under that tent. The refusal by IDiots to openly proclaim that the designer is the god of the OT, accepting common descent, billions of year old earth etc. means that the anti-evolution camp can not be fully united. The spectrum of lunacy is too wide for that.

BTW, Natman, I would take issue with the commonly held notion that "abiogenesis" (a term I dislike) and evolution are separate things. It is quite likely that "non-living" (another term I don't really like) replicatory evolutionary systems were running along prior to the evolution of what we would recognise today as "life". Life is not a "thing" - it is a word we use to describe the behaviour of a system, and in the case of "living" things, every one of them has a set of precursor systems which are a little bit closer to the original cyclic informational replicator that putatively kicked the whole thing off. So I don't think we need to be too modest here - I *do* suggest that evolution explains a great deal about the origin of "life", as well as its subsequent informational trajectory. Evolution is at its core an information processing system, as is intelligence, funny enough. Quite why Mike thinks that nature actually contains features which are beyond the capabilities of the former is a puzzling and unevidenced view.

Helio,

The trouble comes when you attempt to define the boundary between life and non-life. Abiogenesis (for want of a better term) is even fuzzier, but trying to put that and evolution together is confusing the issue. It's accepted that life started, somehow, but that the mechanisms are not fully known yet.

Evolution, however, once that initial life is formed, is well established and worked out.

logica_sine_vanitate wrote:
"The trouble is that abiogenesis is also just a hypothesis, which actually has not been proven "
This demonstrates only semantic confusion and your lack of knowledge of the nature of science.

Abiogenesis is a word which refers to the origin of life from non-living precursors. God breathing life into dust is abiogenesis.

However, if we are to investigate abiogenesis using the tools of science, we do so under the assumption of naturalism fundamental to all science. That means we assume that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent manner,that we can investigate phenomena we can observe and measure, and that we carry out that investigation by forming hypotheses from that data and testing them by acquiring more data. To have any value, an hypothesis needs to restrict possible outcomes. If it doesn't we can't test it.

God might have breathed life into dust, but there is no potential observation or measurement which could disprove this. For that matter, God might have created the universe 10 minutes ago with all the appearance of great age. We can't disprove that either.

The reason why ID fails as science is simply because it offers nothing of any scientific value. I can think of no potential observation or measurement which can't be "explained" by the intervention of a mysterious but possibly supernatural "Intelligent Designer". Perhaps you can, but if so you will be the first creationist (and I use the term advisedly) to do so. A "theory" which could explain anything is as useless as one which explains nothing.

The supposed tests of ID offered by its proponents are nothing more than tests of evolutionary theory. Even if they were able to rule out any possible scientific (and I use that term advisedly as well) explanation for the origin of certain biological systems, it would not add one iota of support for any alternative explanation. In science, if we have no theoretical explanation for a phenomenon we conclude that we don't know how it originated, and try to think of ways in which we might find out. What we don't do is to abandon science in favour of an explanation which leads nowhere.

Proponents of ID are demanding that we abandon the assumption of naturalism fundamental to science to allow supernatural explanations. That does not add anything to science, and is in fact a demand that we return to a pre-scientific paradigm. The explanation that God did it was rejected in the development of modern science not because all scientists suddenly became atheists, but because it is unfruitful. Newton viewed his role as a Natural Philosopher to uncover absolute and unchanging laws of nature set in place by God. Modern science rejects the idea of such absolutes, and treats all scientific theories as provisional, and subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands.

The irony is that by rejecting the notion of absolutes, science has developed a far better knowledge of how the universe works in the past century than all the other attempts to seek knowledge of the previous hundred millennia of humanities existence.

Natman, I get evolution happening in my PCR tubes. There is no requirement for "life" to exist prior to an informational replicator, but every indication that informational replication and, yes, evolution were going on prior to, and indeed led up to, the origin of the first systems we might describe as "alive". So evolution is hugely relevant to "abiogenesis", and they are not at all separate issues.

Helio,

I'll accept that abiogensis and evolution are linked - by subscribing to a natural methodology it's assumed that you subscribe to both as occuring naturally.

However, given the two fall under different scopes of science - abiogensis for biochemistry and evolution for biologists (mainly), and that the specific mechanisms for abiogensis are not known for certain, it's more convenient to separate the two.

It's totally possible to debate one without discussing the other.

Heliopolitan

I am interested in your use of the phrase "irreducibly complex". My understanding of the phrase is that it refers to something that could not have evolved by natural selection but you see it as "an expected outcome".

Evolutionary theorists and the ID camp it would appear can both accept the principle of irreducible complexity. Intriguing.

newlach,

IR is often defined by IDers as a system that loses all functionality if even one part is removed. Their idea is then that that shows a barrier evolution can't overcome, i.e. it becomes impossibly unlikely that e.g. 50 pieces would all come together in the right way at the same time, and if even only one is missing, the thing would be useless.

But nature is more creative than that. Through the scaffolding mechanism, evolution can produce an IR complex system, not by growing up to a system of e.g. 50 IR components, but by first overshooting the mark and them trimming down. So a system might evolve gradually to 60 components, each step slightly improving the function of the system. Then it starts to further improve its useful function not by gaining more parts, but by losing some earlier ones. That way, by the time it has gone down to the more functional 50 parts, it might be IR in the sense that removing any one further part of it might make it lose all useful function. But it still got there through gradual evolution.

So the mistake IDists make is not taking into account that an IR system of 50 parts wasn't always preceded by 47, 48, 49 parts, but it may have been preceded by 53, 52, 51 instead. And of course that removes the objection against evolution that IDists said IR systems presented.

Creationists are in the classic trap of accepting the existence of "god" as a given and taking that as their starting point. However, until such time as hard evidence for something that qualifies as a god is produced, then belief in the supernatural must remain just that. "Intelligent design" and similar fantasies can not be presented as fact when based solely on an hypothesis. Dr. Behe should address the fundamental questions before he gets immersed in the detail.

PeterKlaver

Thanks for that explanation. Hitherto my conception of "development" was limited to a process that builds up to a maximum number of parts, but with the scaffolding mechanism and trimming I can see that evolution is much "cleverer" than I thought!

Hi Natman, you can discuss evolution without discussing abiogenesis, but you can't discuss abiogenesis without discussing evolution - at least not sensibly. I also don't think it is sensible to separate disciplines when we're discussing how living systems arose in the first place; anyway, biochemistry represents an overlap of biology with chemistry, and I really don't see a wall between them - especially over this issue.

Newlach, what PK said. "Irreducible complexity" is a term that has been used by cdesign proponentsists to slip people into thinking of "unevolvable complexity". The principle may even be sound enough, but it has been shown over and over again that EVERY specific example of an irreducibly complex biological system that has been put forward by creationists is in fact perfectly evolvable.

Of course, this does not say that such-and-such a structure DEFINITELY evolved, but the point is that when people like Behe say that there is a barrier there, it can be shown that there is NO such barrier - Behe either cannot comprehend, or he is simply lying.

It also does not say that *in principle* ID is untestable informatically. However, what has to happen is for IDists to demonstrate a biological system that a/ cannot have evolved by known neodarwinian means and b/ had to have been purposefully designed by an intelligent agent.

And I'll say it again - they have not done this. With ANY biological system.

Behe can witter on all he likes about Mount Rushmore, but until he demonstrates its biological equivalent, he has not got a leg to stand on. This is not a question of metaphysical presuppositions. It is a question of evidence. There is not a shred of biological evidence for intelligent design, but rather *tons* of evidence that the diversity and intricacies of life on this planet is *all* due to the naturalistic biological processes that even Behe acknowledges for the majority of what we see.

I thought Will's interview with him was rather good, btw.

Actually Behe is partially right in one little area - mutations do very often "break" genes, but "broken" only really has meaning if we want the gene to operate maximally, which is not necessarily the same as "optimally". Genomes of all species are completely littered with the relics of broken genes, and indeed the "functional" genes of all species are largely made up of fragments of other genes that were themselves "broken". The genome is hugely dynamic and significantly redundant, and genes chop and change sequences all over the shop. Add that to the fact that genomes exist as part of a large (usually!) gene *pool*, and you start to see that the blithe assertions of the creationists that the blunt knife of "intelligence" is required to get biology over certain humps is really quite pathetic.

If the giraffe didn't have a recurrent laryngeal nerve that follows the same path as in all mammals, they might be worth listening to. However, if you want a clear example of how evolution does things, and how "intelligent design" fails as an explanation, that is it.

Behe's attempt to prove design by using Mount Rushmore was laughably simplistic. It's entirely possible for geological features to naturally be eroded into visually recogisable shapes. The on Mars anyone?

I wonder what happened to the loft goals of the . Perhaps, if you get the chance to interview him again Will, you could ask him about it and how many of those 100 articles they've managed to get published.

However the Mt Rushmore analogy is not unhelpful. Other IDists talk about "specified complexity" where the complexity of the thing being analysed corresponds to another unconnected complex entity, sort of like a template, except that the only way to get the object to resemble the template is via intelligent purposeful fashioning.

Now this is a bit of a problem for them - for example, the shape of a depression in the ground is often informationally complex, and, lordy be, if it rains, you get a puddle that *precisely* shows this specified complexity. If it freezes, you can take out the ice, and wow - you have specified complexity that has not required intelligence to arise. Even if you allow for the possibility that some kid dug the hole and filled it with water, it is the purely naturalistic behaviour of water that is responsible for the "interesting" information content, not intelligence.

And so it is with evolution. Populations of genomes respond to selective pressure by evolving a better "fit" to the selective pressures - this is not even *interesting* in itself - it is just obvious. Given what we know about genes, there is no other way they can behave. But iterate and iterate and iterate again, and interesting dynamics are observed that can and do throw up spectacular complexity. That is what evolution is, and what it does. It is endlessly fascinating. Automatic for the people.

-H

zomg, Helio - we're disagreeing on something. Evolution must be false! Creationists win!

How could we let this happen?!

I listened to the interview with Dr Behe, for the simple reason that I am an academic scientist myself, and was curious to hear a scientist defend a position he claims to be scientific. If that interview is anything to go by -- and I suspect it is -- then one thing is certain: Intelligent Design is not remotely scientific in nature, but is simply a belief, one that cannot by its very nature be proven or disproven.

I was also struck by just how feebly Dr Behe was able to deal with the
many thoughtful questions fired at him by the interviwer. One most
occasions he simply avoided the crux of the question; on others he resorted to mantra-like repitition of his beliefs. As an intellectual performance it was, frankly, risible. If this is the calibre of people who defend their belief in "intelligent" design, then little wonder that serious scientists are dismissive of it.

How do we recognise Intelligent Design?
-purposeful arrangement of parts.
How do we recognise purposefulness in the arrangement of parts?
-by analogy with things that do have purposeful arrangement of parts.

Behe really is pathetic.

I've read about the recurrent laryngeal. I think it was Richard Dawkins who wrote of attending a dissection to see it for himself. Certainly not "intelligent designed". I'm not sure if it was Dawkins or Coyne who wrote about something similar: the way a man's balls move into position and the attendant prostate problems in later life. Perhaps, the intelligent designer was feeling a bit tired working Friday's night-shift!

Well, I've only ever dissected it out in a human, but it's a lovely example of the way evolution designs things. Of course you know that giraffes are incredibly fine tuned - the length of their necks *precisely* match the distance of their heads from their bodies. Praise Jebus!

newlach,

Here is the first part of a lecture about the flaws in the human body that show that the notion of design is really flawed. Like the temperature sensitivity of the organs that make male reproductive cells, necessitating that these vulnerable parts be placed outside the main torso. A lousy decision if it had been deliberately designed that way.

If anyone who knows about such things could recommend some good introductory/intermediate books on evolution I would be much obliged.

"The Theory of Evolution" by John Maynard Smith remains one of the best - it is pretty comprehensive, although perhaps a *tad* out of date regarding a lot of the evo-devo stuff, and is a slightly less relaxed read than some alternatives.

The classic of the popular genre has to be Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" - it is an elegant exposition of how simple behaviours can give rise to astonishing complexity. A real gem. "The Selfish Gene" is also brilliant in showing how genes "for" altruistic behaviour can have a strong selective advantage in the right circumstances.

Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" is perhaps the best of the recent crop - actually, I think this would probably be my top recommendation at this stage, but Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" is great stuff also.

Coming back to Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth" is very nice, but I think some background knowledge is useful for it.

So, Andrew, you're spoiled for choice! Evolution is such a fascinating topic, and there are just so many excellent books and resources. Far from being dry and dull, the scientists mentioned above write lyrically and creatively - a joy to read.

But if you want a fantastic read, with some of the most beautiful prose and clear exposition you're likely to find, I would suggest you go back to the book that started it all - the First Edition of "On the Origin of Species". It's just gorgeous.

I only read one popular science book on evolution, The selfish gene. The rest is journal articles or stuff on the web. So my window on it is pretty narrow, others might know better choices.

But The Selfish makes for clear enough reading. Dawkins wrote that when he was still mostly into biology rather than being a mostly full time atheist. There is some anti-religious sniping in there, but it's mostly evolutionary biology. I didn't find the first few chapters the best ones. But once you get past those, it gets very interesting, especially the chapters about how genetics in insects works a bit different than in humans and most other animals.

28 peterklaver

The video is great. I suppose it is very strange that they dangle outside, unlike a frogs.

The point being that if we *were* "intelligently designed" there are several optimisations that could be classed as "low-hanging fruit"; the fact that a putative designer has not spotted these design facepalms is specific and powerful evidence against The Designer and in favour of evolution as the actual design algorithm which has generated biological complexity.

"ID theorists" understand neither design nor intelligence.

Newlach, if you're interested there is a youtube video of Ken Miller here about the scientific and legal collapse of Intelligent Design



His lecture is an hour and questions another hour, but well worth watching.

Don't forget about the !

Apparently it's the perfect example of intelligent design.

That intelligent called selective breeding no less.

Thanks for the recommendations. I've read most of 'The Greatest Show'. I have a rather nice folio edition of Origin of Species that I haven't read yet. I might try 'Your inner fish'.

@Will - You finessed this interview very well. Being persistent with this man saw him once again backed into a god-did-it corner. How tiresome Behe is and frankly, why should anyone pay attention to the gibberish the man speaks while talking in tongues?

Behe must spend time at Toys-R-Us, in Legoland, where clever little blocks can be assembled into all sorts of things.

How dare this man funded by dangerous Discovery Institute whine on about flagellum, which clearly evolved too?

Religion daily shows that is dangerous to society and the greater good.
Let it be over, no more imprinting kids with the stuff. Religion is not science.

Andrew, good call. Remember of course that most of these books will only deal with creationist pseudoscience en passant, as these wasters are not particularly relevant, and despite the fun we have with them here and elsewhere, there is no controversy about this in biology. I saw a clip of Phil Robinson from CMI on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ lately, as well as Andy McIntosh. They have lost. Science moves on.

Andrew Brown let Behe try his shtick at Cif:


It was fun-ish to play on that thread.

The Brown blog that provoked Behe:
"The futility of Intelligent Design

Michael Behe's defence of Intelligent Design theory is no more convincing when it's made in person"



I would quit being devoted to the GU if ever Behe was published under the Science tab.

Remember of course that most of these books will only deal with creationist pseudoscience en passant, as these wasters are not particularly relevant, and despite the fun we have with them here and elsewhere, there is no controversy about this in biology.

Yeah I know, I'm not that interested in the 'debate' between 'scientific creationism' and evolution; I find it more than a little tedious. Really what I want to know more about is evolution itself.

Andrew, good for you. Have fun in your reading - you are in for some real treats. I still find the last paragraph of the first edition of the Origin to be one of the most beautiful in English literature:
It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

I get a tingle up my spine when I read that. Even on a cold winter's day like today, it makes you want to rush out into the woods and find an entangled bank to contemplate! Sheer genius.

Can you imagine what Darwin could've come up with had he known about DNA and its implications?

I know a fair number of people contributed to his initial theory idea, and others at the same time came up with similar ideas, but give credit to them all for coming up with such a revolutionary concept.

John Maynard Smith remains one of the best

He couldn't convince Sylvia Baker though.

Hi peter; undoubtedly some people are unreachable. Australia seems to put out nearly as many creationist loons as NI. Ken Ham, for instance. But for scientists, arguing with creationists is something we do for entertainment and leisure. They have no presence in science.

It is too bad that this very good work by Crawley is no longer available to 'listen again'.

Would also be nice to see Will resume his perch above the Sport section on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ NI news page

Richard Forrest (@ 12) -

"...if we are to investigate abiogenesis using the tools of science, we do so under the assumption of naturalism fundamental to all science. That means we assume that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent manner,that we can investigate phenomena we can observe and measure, and that we carry out that investigation by forming hypotheses from that data and testing them by acquiring more data. To have any value, an hypothesis needs to restrict possible outcomes. If it doesn't we can't test it."

I notice that you refer to naturalism as an 'assumption', and that you are describing a methodology rather than a metaphysical position. I hope that you understand that a methodology does not lead inevitably to an overarching explanation of the whole of reality - unless, of course, you take the view that science is unlimited in its scope. You say that "we assume that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent manner." That is a good assumption to make. In fact, it is a necessary assumption. My concern is then to step back and ask how we can justify that assumption on the basis of the philosophy of naturalism. How can we assume a mindless universe that has created consistency and coherence, and also our rational ability to study it?

You make the point that "the reason ID fails as science is simply because it offers nothing of any scientific value". That may be true. The same could also be said of an atheistic view of science. It also offers nothing of scientific value. If you dispute that, then I would be interested to see your reasoning as to why, for example, an atheist engineer, chemist or biologist has an intellectual advantage over a theistic one, since the only difference relates to the rather impractical questions of origins. These questions do not change the fundamental properties of nature, do they? (Unless, of course, you're one of those people who thinks that ID is talking about "little men in the machine" - a point made in the penultimate paragraph of this post on another thread.)

ID may fail as science, in that it has no practical value. But that is not the point. The point concerns our understanding of the ultimate nature of reality. Concerning the practical: what outcomes are we looking for? In the synthesis of a drug, for example, does it matter whether a scientist is a theist or an atheist? Of course, there are ethical considerations that are informed by our worldview, but the field of ethics lies outside the purview of science (unless you can provide me with empirical evidence to the contrary, which I would be extremely interested to see).

It all comes down to our view of the purpose and limitations of science. If science is of a practical nature and also involves understanding the nature of the physical world, all well and good. Of course, that will inevitably involve speculation about origins. It may be a worthwhile exercise trying to work out how 'first life' could have emerged from non-living matter without the guidance of the ordered input of information. Extravagant and improbable theories could be concocted as an intellectual exercise. But this speculation has no practical value (unless of course you wish to attempt to recreate life in the laboratory without the input of intelligence, in this case, human intelligence - please note this italicised phrase carefully), since it does not change the fundamental nature of, say, a living cell. It may be that scientists conclude that life could not have arisen in this way, and then it has to be accepted that the origin of first life is a mystery, or the empirical evidence may lead them to infer that there must exist a source of information - an intelligence - on which the formation of life has depended. This inference may have no scientific value. It may 'do' nothing and 'achieve' nothing scientifically. But then reality cannot simply be reduced to science. This inference may have value as regards our view of reality as a whole - in other words, it informs our worldview, and thence our sense of purpose, ethics, meaning etc.

So I see ID in the same way I see the 'atheist apologetics' of someone like Richard Dawkins. Of no scientific value, but referring to science to support the truth claims of a worldview.

Now I am aware that there are some people who frequent this thread who may have read this post thus far, and are itching to 'have a go at me'. And so I look forward to the 'entertainment' that is to follow. But, allow me to calm the nerves of a live wire like Heliopolitan, and say that it might surprise him to read that I wasn't actually terribly impressed by Michael Behe's performance in this interview, particularly his little comment about "God being a likely candidate as the creator". Now I suppose it's possible that one could be a gnostic or a neo-Platonist and hold to a view of God which does not involve him being the creator. But let's be frank about this. I know, you know and we all jolly well know that he is talking about God as the creator. So when people say that ID is a form of creationism (defining 'creationism' as that system of thought which affirms God as the creator, though not necessarily according to a literal reading of Genesis), then I would have to say that that is the way I see it. Pushing the problem off to inferring that 'intelligent aliens' were 'the creator' is no answer, as we would still need to infer an intelligent and uncreated first cause for them (and an 'intelligent and uncreated first cause' cannot be anything other than what we - or, at least, I - define as 'God').

Richard Forrest,

Don't worry about LSV, he's been spouting his concept that science cannot be proven materialistically now for a while and he's yet to convince anyone.

Note that even if everything was on the level, and materialism is as much faith based as anyone else's ideas, science as we know it still provides vast amounts of evidence compared to whatever unnamed alternatives LSV postulates.

Of course, the concept of ID fails as you then have to ask 'Who designed the designer', if you take the cop-out answer of 'god didn't need to be designed' then you may as well say it was little green men, or the flying spaghetti monster. If you establish that god, as a creator, is beyond the rules, then you may as well make it up as you go along. If he's not bound by any established conditions, then anything and everything can be discounted.

We might even have been created .

Natman -

"Don't worry about LSV"

That's right, Natman. When you can't stomach someone exercising their right of freedom of speech, you engage in an ad hominem attack - something that you have criticised elsewhere.

You are also insulting the intelligence of Richard Forrest, as if he needs your little 'disclaimer', because you imagine that he can't think for himself. I think Richard is well able to stand on his own two feet, and doesn't need little Natman to hold his hand!

Pathetic, Natman. Surely even you can do better than this?!

No it was you heretic!

Richard, don't worry about LSV. He's deeply dishonest in the defence of his christian faith, but as it says in the good book (The Hitchhikers Guide to th Galaxy), he's mostly harmless.

"He's deeply dishonest in the defence of his christian faith..."

Not that you'll see any evidence to support that charge, of course.

But hey, when did PK and co. ever worry about a minor irritation called 'evidence'?

LSV,

I'm sorry, was there something within my post that was explicitly ad hominem?

I think not.

(number 9 of the 10 commandments)

#48: "Don't worry about LSV."

#51: "Richard, don't worry about LSV."

"...he's mostly harmless."

Yes, LSV is sooooo harmless that it requires two people to warn poor old Richard about him!!

And to think that atheists claim to be freethinkers! Ha!!

But Natman and PK are so patronising and condescending towards Richard, and worry about his exposure to nasty LSV, that they won't allow him to think for himself. Such paternalism is truly commendable (not!).

True colours, I say. True colours.

Hmmm. Interesting. The problem is this - "Intelligent Design" is not a science - technically it is a *conclusion*. You look at a structure, you consider the evidence for its origins, and on that evidence you work towards a conclusion as to whether it has arisen as an artefact of a human (or other) intellectual information processing system (sometimes called "intelligence") - which is a natural process, of course - or whether it has arisen as a result of some other process.

In the case of biological structures, contra the blithe assertions of the "ID" brigade, the overwhelming evidence is that they have arisen by the process of descent with modification largely as described by the modern evolutionary synthesis, and there does not appear to be any need for some additional information processing system on top of that.

So as a conclusion, ID remains unproven.

In terms of the methodologies applied by ID promoters/fans, these have been shown (and we can go into this in greater detail *again* if we have to) to be grossly flawed, and the behaviour of these people demonstrates that they are dishonest and devious; they are not engaged in a scientific pursuit of knowledge, but in pushing forward an agenda of superstition. Not religion, mark you - intelligent Christians have nothing to do with them, viz the rejection of these charlatans by people like Ken Miller, Francis Collins, George Coyne or Francisco Ayala. But I show that just as an illustration. If anyone wants us to go over the precise *arguments* again, we can of course do that.

But to reiterate; "Intelligent Design" as presently characterised, is fallacious. The metaphysics of the whole show is precisely irrelevant.

I should have mentioned, I think Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers (heroes of mine) are wrong to oppose the attempts by NCSE to reach across to Christians who accept evolution. I think there is a lot to gain by this, and do not feel it compromises a secular stance.

Helio,

The problem with that is at some point someone is going to have to compromise and there's going to be conflict between what someone believes and what science points to as being a fact.

In my opinion, and possibly Jerry Coyne's and PZ Myers' as well, you should never compromise scientific facts with religous belief.