....I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)

If a scientist went into the laboratory and grew a flagellum-less bacterial species under selective pressure for many generations and nothing much happened, would Darwinists be convinced that natural selection is incapable of producing a flagellum? I doubt it. It could always be claimed that the selective pressure wasn’t the right one, or that we started with the wrong bacterial species, and so on. Even if the experiment were repeated many times under different conditions and always gave a negative result, I suspect many Darwinists would not conclude that the claim of its Darwinian evolution was falsified. Of complex biochemical systems Coyne himself writes “we may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways. It is not valid, however, to assume that, because one man cannot imagine such pathways, they could not have existed.” (Coyne 1996) If a person accepts Darwinian paths which are not only unseen, but which we may be forever unable to envisage, then it is effectively impossible to make him think he is wrong.

Actually, upon closer inspection, once one understands the predictions of intelligent design theory, it becomes clear that there is much data published in the journals already supporting intelligent design theory; researchers simply have not been inferring design because the implications of their results have not been made clear to them.
.....snip....
Essentially, this editor says that he cannot publish Behe's ideas because they are too "unorthodox" and would challenge the "current paradigm." A legitimate reason perhaps, from the vantage point of normal scientists. But in the end, this appears to be a textbook example of Kuhn's paradigm opposition at work--and is NOT a good example of rejection for lack of empirical support or data.

......snip.......
Michael Behe submitted a paper to a scientific journal sometime before August 5, 2000. The paper was titled, 'Obstacles to gene duplication as an explanation for complex biochemical systems.' In the paper, Behe makes no references to God, and there is no evidence that Behe even mentions intelligent design as an actual cause. The paper is simply a discussion of what the title says it is, "Obstacles to gene duplication as an explanation for complex biochemical systems."

The reviewer appears to give a usual Darwinian explanation for how complex structures are built: through the co-optation of parts and gene duplication. Interestingly, the reviewer provides no elaboration of evidence to back up this scenario other than the bald assertion that it happened: "nature faced these difficulties and solved them." However, the bulk of the review actually does not discuss the topic of the paper, but rather focuses on critiquing intelligent design theory. In evaluating the review, Behe notes the following:
"The manuscript did not argue for intelligent design, nor did it say that complex systems would never be explained within Darwinian theory."

Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?

Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additional peer-reviewed books about design theory are scheduled to be published in 2003 and 2004 by Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press. In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago. There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations. Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics.

Surely they should be working on such tricky problems as "When did this designer carry out the design work?" or "How did a designer who can create something as complicated as the human brain come to exist in the universe?" or "Is there more than one designer and are they still designing stuff?" etc. I'm still waiting those for those papers.....

It funny how the bacterial flagella has become the new "battleground" for the creationists. It used to be the eye, until all the intermediate stages of the eye were explained. I wonder what they will move onto next?

These site are worth a look for discussion on bacterial flagella evolution (and the fact the some bacterial flagella are more complex than others, so how come they are called irreducibly complex?)

BTW, nice post.

In the paper, Behe makes no references to God, and there is no evidence that Behe even mentions intelligent design as an actual cause.
www.ideacenter.org...

Well the same argument works here...apples and oranges. As to only dealing with "disproving evolution", it's a necessary evil i guess,

Wow "all intermediate ...explained"? Interesting what "evidence"(read: Hypothesis) your willing to accept and which you regard as unfounded. I guess it depends on what you mean by "explained". BTW the eye 'battleground' still has troops. (another good read IMHO)

I was, however, a "first-timer" to atheistalliance.org found some interesting tid-bits.

Honestly never met an actual atheist, several agnostics who called themselves atheist

Be interesting if any "science" is used to back up that belief.

"The cell has been likened to a power plant, a furnace, a chemical laboratory. In its reproductive functions it has been described as a factory complete with a manager's office, files of blueprints and plans, intercommunication system, assembly line with foremen and workers...None of these fanciful analogies does justice to the living cell." [Miller, pg. 162]
B. Who ever heard of a factory or city that did not have a designer? "For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything." {Hebrews 3:4}.
C. We study the "laws of physics," the "laws of genetics"; we're all aware of the "law of gravity" (painfully at times). Is there no Lawgiver? "This is what the LORD says: `If I have not established my covenant with day and night AND THE FIXED LAWS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH..." {Jeremiah 33:25} [emphasis added].

All they are doing is collectiving negative evidence against current mainstream theories in biology/evolution. They are not collecting any positive evidence to show that a designer created bacterial flagellum, or anything else for that matter.

This is where the logical fallacy comes in: just because you find find flaws with the current theory of how bacterial flagellum (or whatever) came to exist (Hypothesis A) how does this automatically prove that a Designer created the flagellum (Hypothesis B)? It doesn't. There could be a million other hypothesis out there. For IDT to be accepted it must collect some positive evidence, so far it hasn't.

Quote:
In the paper, Behe makes no references to God, and there is no evidence that Behe even mentions intelligent design as an actual cause.
www.ideacenter.org...

I really don't see how this is a paper supporting IDT at all. Mainstream scientists publish papers all the time attacking particular theories, even pulling them to pieces. Does this then make them IDT proponents? Of course not. Again it is just negative evidence.

The IDT movement has plenty of resources - why don't they start their own journal? The problem is that is would just be full of papers (well if they could fill it) attacking particular elements of mainstream biology and evolution. This ultimately, like IDT, would be a dead end.

Well is seems more than a "necessary evil", it is the entire basis for IDT.

If IDT won't go into finding out about the Designer or how and when life was designed where does it go? If it wants to be a science then it must start answering these questions (or any questions).

I don't want to get into an argument with you about the specifics of evolutionary theory, as we won't really get anywhere and the general debate we are having is much more interesting (IMO)

I'm guessing you live in the US? Come to the Godless UK, it's full of them (though if pushed I bet most people would say "agnostic" when asked.)

I, however, am atheist and proud!

you meant atheism? In which case it it isn't a belief, it's a lack of one. There is no science to back it up, as it is a philosophical position (much like IDT)

Another good post BTW, enjoying the debate.

Well a purely philosophical position based on absolutley no evidence, a very big difference. To give you a better idea of what i mean by existing theory fitting into IDT or Creationism take a look at this link concerning the evidence for Intelligent Design(special creation if you like).

I would be curious what an atheist has to say about such things as biological complexity, Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis, probability of naturallistic origins etc...here's a quote from that link.

I don't see how you can look at something as complex as the DNA code or simple as a flower and not see design...who wrote that code?

They are showing that you cannot get something so complex as a single human cell without forethought, intention or planning.

There is no natural mechanism that can make intelligent decisions.

This is where the logical fallacy comes in: just because you find find flaws with the current theory of how bacterial flagellum (or whatever) came to exist (Hypothesis A) how does this automatically prove that a Designer created the flagellum (Hypothesis B)? It doesn't. There could be a million other hypothesis out there. For IDT to be accepted it must collect some positive evidence, so far it hasn't.

I agree with all you said here except maybe for, " must collect some positive evidence, so far it hasn't." If you haven't already please read through the links i provided at the end of my original post.

It's not a paper in support of IDT specifically anymore than Big Bang Theory is....but i believe Behe would argue it was further proof of the need for a designer.

The title " 'Obstacles to gene duplication as an explanation for complex biochemical systems" screams intelligent design and would have, if accepted, been used by its author as such i'm sure. Given it was rejected on a purely philosopical basis shows this also IMO.

And check out this link relative to the subject of scientific integrity in Creationism. Maintaining Creationist Integrity(A response to Kent Hovind)

I don't want to get into an argument with you about the specifics of evolutionary theory, as we won't really get anywhere and the general debate we are having is much more interesting (IMO)

Ok and agreed

I, however, am atheist and proud!

So your proud of nothing, specifically speaking of course. Must say of all the beliefs and faiths it's the one i most have trouble relating to or even understanding.

If your saying that science is neutral in such things than i can understand and respect your position. Certainly something to consider and i will.

Thanks i'm enjoying this as well. Who could of thought two polar opposites(philosophically at-least) having a civil discussion on such a "wedge" issue(no pun intented) without resorting to personal insults and attacks.

I don't really want to get into cosmology, as it doesn't really have anything to do with IDT or evolution.

Well actually IDT is not exclusively related to Biology. Look at the link(s) at the end of my first post(small scale evidence of grand scale design & evidence...through anthropic principals) mostly pertaining to cosmology and some physics as well. The biological evidences garner more attention due to some contradictions with Evolution Theory, controvercy sells i guess.

As my next question would be "so what or who created the diety?"

Detecting design is science, detecting designer is philosophical. So my answer is no one/thing created GOD, he was, is, and forever will be. It's Biblically based Christian philosophy....NOT IDT. IDT is a tool for Creationists not vice-versa.

You say that IDT makes no assumptions about who the designer is, yet this site is riddled with Biblical references and is quite cleary assuming a Christian god is the designer. It also appears to be an attack on atheism as a philosophy, yet according to your own argument atheists could quite happily be believers in IDT

That site is a Christian creationist one, but they do use IDT in their own creation(ist) models. I did mention along with the link, "evidence for Intelligent Design(special creation if you like). I imagine that most Christians would "attack" Atheism as a philosophy and vice-versa i'm sure as well. And i doubt many if any atheists would agree with IDT, Certainly they could attribute the design to some superior race or some such thing, but i think the argument that it logically implies GOD or some such supernatural deity is fair. I would argue tho that it's not intentionally so and is not addressed by IDT, therefore should not be used to "debunk" it. They (opponents) would rather argue over the semantics and possible philosophical implications and not the merits of the scientific research and theories, which believe it or not are more numerous than most people think(i gave some examples in your Guardian article thread)

say that a diety sparked of life on this planet. I'm interested in what happened the the billions of years that followed.

Ok cool, i say evolution happened. But not from one(type) of cell into all plant and animal life, but from different "kinds" and there is science behind that statement and of course a 'dash' of Creationism...ok ok maybe a smidgen. And that's the Creation-Evolution debate in a nutshell.

Nobody wrote the code, it was the Blind Watchmaker (Richard Dawkins). I really can't sum up a long a subtle argument in a few paragraphs

I am familiar with the short version of the "Blind Watchmaker" argument, an old argument actually, but have not read Dawkins' book. Here's a nice rebuttal

Biochemist Michael Behe answers that the blind watchmaker thesis is a relic of a nineteenth century science which lacked the understanding of biological mechanisms that recent advances in molecular biology have provided. The biologists who established the still-dominant Darwinian orthodoxy thought of the cell as an undifferentiated blob of "protoplasm."

If you read this I promise I will read the Behe book, and we can compare notes. How's that for a deal?

Whoah up there. Where did you get "forethought, intention or planning" from? Even if there was a designer it might just have sneezed life from it's nostrils onto the planet and walked away.

Looking through all of the links you have provided I still fail to see one single piece of positive evidence for a designer. If you could lay them out for me I would be most grateful.

And why does it "scream" that at you? Have you already made an assumption that IDT is the only other theory? If it had been written by a mainstream biologist would it still have said this to you?

It's strange how you call it a belief or faith? Surely it is simply a lack of belief in god (by definition, surely) There are plenty of other things I believe in.

Cheers, as we say in the UK.

You are a very worthy adversery!

A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

Originally posted by Rren
I presented a series of specific experimental studies showing that Michael Behe is incorrect in his assertion that Darwinian evolution cannot "account for the molecular structure of life."

Hmm. Thats actually an intersting point.

usually put forth by the same people who say it's not a testable/falsifiable theory. Which is it?

I would have to say that the difference might result from saying on the one hand 'we can detect an intelligent designer', which is untestable and unscientific, and then also saying 'darwinian evolution can not account for these structures', which is testable.

I'm thinking that perhaps the second statement is really nothing more than a test of darwinian evolution though, and not Theory of intelligent design. "Evolution does not work" is perhaps not a proper forumlation to a theory, whereas 'evolution does work' is, and then the 'not work' statement can be demonstrated by falsifying evolutionary theory.

Seems a little like a 'flip side of the coin' type issue tho.

Imho IDT is not bunk simply because GOD is not scientifically testable.

The critical issue is whether intelligent design can be detected. Ultimately this must come from a supernatural source, since something un-intelligently designed would've had to design the 'first' intelligent designer. By this I mean, we can say that the intelligent designer doesn't have to be god, it could be aliens, but eventually you have to ask, who designed the aliens.

Is it possible to test? Is it falsifiable?

Evolutionists would theorize that the structure can be produced via evolution, and would test this by trying to show that simpler probable sub-components/stages are evolutionarily beneficial. They'd also test by examining the distribution of the structure in many organisms, and applying a phylogenetic analysis to it and testing to see if the results conform to the expectations of evolutionary theory.

It could always be claimed that the selective pressure wasn’t the right one, or that we started with the wrong bacterial species, and so

And these claims are rather reasonable.

If a person accepts Darwinian paths which are not only unseen, but which we may be forever unable to envisage, then it is effectively impossible to make him think he is wrong.

All this means is that we have problems with specific organelles, in terms of demonstrating that they can't happen via natural selection. Behe's arguement is that because we often don't know, that it may as well be god doing it. Thats simply an unacceptable answer for a scientific investigation. If the structures are infact designed by god and immpossible for something like nature and natural selection to create, there is simply no scientific way to determine this, we can only ever say 'we don't know', we can't go from 'we don't know' to 'godidit'.

i would like to know why some are science(Macro-Evolution) and others(IDT) are not

Macroevolution is testable tho. Macroevolution concerns the evolution of species, and this is testable. As far as the evolution of specific organs and structures, we have to take them case by case I'd say.

...IOW i'm not trying to pick a fight here

Thats just not fair.

zipdot
These potential falsifications are primarily examples of observations that are NOT expected to be seen if the theory is correct. How does this differ from IDT "falsification"? Well, put simply, to name an example of an observation that would be unexpected had God actually designed whatever is being observed is ludicrous because the defense to such an observation is invariably unrevealing in nature.

The problem is, however, what would falsify in a similar manner the statement 'this particular structure arose via natural selection'.

Consider giraffes with their long necks. The prevailing theory was that the evolved long necks as a result of selection pressure put upon their populations as a result of the loss of low lying browsing vegetation. So long necked individuals were supposed to have a selective advantage over others, by virtue of beign able to browse higher vegetation. How is this testable? Its certainly sensible, but how testable is it? Interestingly, in this case, the hypothesis was testable, and it was found to be wrong, rather giraffes developed longer necks as a result of selection pressure for them because of male-male competition; they fight with other males by smashing their necks and horned heads at one another. The expectation of the orignal hypothesis was that giraffes feed on the higher branches at critical times, however it was found that they don't, so the expectations didn't occur. This doesn't precisely mean that the hypothesis is rejected of course, but rather that that other hypothesis (male-male competition) is gaining support, and apparently it also stands unfalsified, so for those reasons it tends to be favoured.
The male-male competition theory itself made predictions, such as

cite
males should use only their necks and heads for intrasexual combat, male giraffes should exhibit more distinct morphological adaptations than females, males with larger necks and heads should dominate over others, and fossil records should point to disproportionate lengthening of the neck .

However, the twenty planetary characteristics listed above would be fulfilled in much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars. Considering that the universe only has about a trillion galaxies each of which averages one hundred billion stars, statistics argue that not even one planet would be expected by natural processes alone to harbor life. Many astronomers such as Robert Rood and James Trefil, among others, are now deciding that given the above statistical probability, it is unlikely that life, especially intelligent life, exists anywhere else in the universe.

Conclussion

An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.

First of all, what has come to be called 'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whether it will be found.

...snip...

Beyond this, adjudicating among these various metaphysical interpretations is a task that falls to philosophers and theologians and forms no part of any contribution to science that design theory might make.

A very simple test of the IC nature of this motor protein assemblage is to knock out one or two of these proteins from the ICore and see if the bacteria can ‘re-evolve’ just these one or two components of the ICore

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

That’s suggestive of a process besides random mutation occurring.

In the case of nylB, an insertion of a T at position 99 in the repetitive sequence resulted in a start codon and a stop codon some 392 amino acids away.