Testing Darwinism

Originally posted by Nygdan
In a sense then modern ID is pre-paleyian.

Another interesting and thoughtful post, Nygdan.

I personally wouldn't describe modern ID as Pre-Paleyan. I suppose it could be a modern extension of Paleyan philosophy. I think Behe discusses this in some detail in Darwin's Black Box; he describes the examples of Paley as ranging from remarkable to ridiculous, or something along those lines. There IS acknowledgement among the ID crowd that not all systems show evidence of and IDer. My impression is that the notion is there IS evidence of an IDer, but some difficulty exists in discerning which systems are the result of ID, and which are the result of natural selection acting on ID.

Also, with intelligent design, one sometimes hears that 'this item is too complex to have formed naturally, therefore it was designed'. But the arguement isn't really that just this bacterial flagella was created ex nihilo by some god, or just this organ, but rather that everything everwhere was, everything was designed, and yet design, which so many argue is 'obious', is only 'detectable' in a handful of items?

This is correct, but IMO, an oversimplification. For example, if one truly looks, it's not difficult to see the difficulties in the evolution of a complex system such as Photosynthesis. The spatial, hydrophobic, and steric constraints that exist within the organization of the proteins, chlorophylls and accessory pigments within the photosynthetic reaction center are truly remarkable. The same goes for a multistep pathway like glycolysis. The evolution of these components from mere chemicals is nothing short of miraculous. However, the line grays further up. For example, the diversity within the beaks of the Galapagos finches needn't have derived from ID. They could (and likely did) derive from a mechanism much like that proposed by Darwin. As I understand it, many or at least some within the ID crowd are NOT opposed to the idea of chimps and humans arising from a common ancestor. And, to my knowledge, most within the ID crowd, are not 'young-earth.' However, there is a belief in the ID crowd that a process such as mutation/natural selection is a planned aspect of ID. Thus you are correct in stating that ID believes all systems derive from ID, however, they are not necessarily the direct product product of ID, but represent some variation on an original theme. The extent to which organisms can vary is obviously hotly debated, both here and within the ID movement.

I wish I could have more faith in the abiogenesis theories, but I don't, as you are aware.

Yes, that conversation made me re-think just how much those theories support. I would say that a person need not see any of the failures as refuting the idea that life can arise 'naturalistically', but can't say from them that it had to've. To put it roughly anyway, since 'naturalism' can be taken differently.

Well certainly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, as you are aware, my difficulties with large scale evolutionary change is rooted, not only in my molecular bio background, but also in my organic chem background, especially as both of those topics pertain to 'origins of life' scenarios. But certainly, the idea of origins is very very much open to debate, discussion and experimentation. Have you read any of Kaufmann's (sp) stuff on self organization? It's pretty good.... thought it was going to save me for a while. I suggest checking it out, although I wouldn't describe his stuff as a fun read.

I think in one of your earlier posts in this thread you referred to 'proto-cells,' were you referring to the coascervate experiments of ...... can't think of his name?

I wasn't thinking of any particular experiment, I just meant 'proto-cells' as a moderately accurate hypothetical example, prot because I wouldn't expect an amoeba or the like to pop up out of chemicals.

These early proto cell theories, like the coascervate experiments, are intriguing. In fact, they do minimally relieve some of the difficulties I've historically had with origins theories. In the end though, the principles that cause these coascervates to come together are in reality equilibrium conditions. As you are probably well aware, the basis of cellular life, is a NON-equilibrium state. Cells function by being a somewhat closed system, not in equilibrium with their environment. This isn't my only difficulty with these types of experiments, but it's a biggie, IMO.