blog.bioethics.net

"Thanks to a recent court decision..."
Which court decision?
"...the fossil record of our planet holds evidence of "irreducibly complex" traits..."
Which ID advocates argue that?
"...she is working so hard on building and animating an artificial bacterium primarily so that she can prove to advocates of intelligent design that it doesn't take a God to create life."
So basically she wants to design an artificial bacterium to show that bacterium don't need to be ... designed. Wait, what is she trying to show?

- by Macht on Jan 3, 2006 at 10:41 PM | link

That's what I was thinking too. If she is successful in making the artificial bacterium, then she will be the intelligent designer.
It's the same with whoever made the argument about goldfish thinking their water is changed by God. If by "God" the goldfish mean a being that exist on a plane that so transcends their little world that they could never comprehend it, the goldfish would be right.
And finally, as was pointed out before, ID does not preclude natural selection. You need not fret that you will find yourself being treated by a doctor who tells you that your infection is the result of sin in your life, or that it can't be resistant to antibiotics because antibiotic resistance isn't found in the book of Genesis. I promise. Won't happen.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jan 3, 2006 at 11:42 PM | link

Dear Macht. The lower-level Kansas analog of the Dover decision. Behe argues that. The point is that she is dependent on tools of evolution to build the artificial bacterium, including precisely those tools that intelligent design denies such as what amounts to speciation. She doesn't preside over that phenomenon, she depends on and learns from it.
Dear Laura. No. That is a silly example of infinite regress, to begin with, and more important, to repeat what I said to Macht, she is not "making" the bacterium in the sense of designing from scratch. A key ingredient is something she cannot control namely evolution at what ID people have taken (cleverly) to calling the "macro" level. And if evolution is a "given" then ID is false. The end.

- by Glenn on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:20 AM | link

Take a look at
"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10644538"
republishing a Wash. Post article where the title and lead paragraphs are misleading on "bacteria mutating into killer bug due to antibiotics". Of course the variation in the bacteria is already present in the population. It is "un-natural selection" by man's intervention that causes the survival of the fittest to be a variant not destroyed by antibiotics. At the end of the article this is finally explained though "ends of article" are not often read and are often cutoff in republishing.
My point - it doesn't seem to matter that the article misleads what the cause is. It's intent is to create concern over a new disease and discourage you from overuse of antibiotics.
So, one COULD even substitute in Christianity Today or End Times Pentecostal with a title "God has created a new Killer Bug due to the sin of antibiotics gluttony" and still have the same salutary effect.

- by Robert B on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:37 AM | link

So she's taking apart the watch and putting back together again and if it works she says we don't need a watchmaker.
When she publishes that the artificial bacterium has arrived, please check the photos!!!
How's she doing on Behe's outboard motor - the flagellum (http://people.ku.edu/~jbrown/flagel.html)

- by Robert B on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:57 AM | link

I don't know why you would think that Behe thinks that the fossil record says anything about irreducible complexity. His argument concerns microbiology, not palentology. In fact, he clearly says on p. 22 of his book, "Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record."
It is also, of course, not true that "if evolution is a "given" then ID is false." There are plenty of ID evolutionists who don't have a problem with common descent.

- by Macht on Jan 4, 2006 at 2:08 AM | link

Robert B the analogy with her taking apart the watch is false.
The quote from Behe is not operative, it is a reply to an argument nobody is making in this column. And Behe claims quite plainly in his book that irreducible complexity can be seen in the fossil record!

- by Glenn on Jan 4, 2006 at 2:52 AM | link

It isn't obvious to me why a case against the teaching of intelligent design in Pennsylvania is relevant to the teaching of irreducible complexity in Kansas.
Behe doesn't state at all that IC can be seen in the fossil record. The quote I just gave clearly shows that Behe thinks the fossil record is irrelevant to the question of evolution on the molecular level. Furthermore, the index of the book shows "fossil record" only showing up on two pages in the book - p. 22, which I quoted above and p. 27, where he doesn't mention irreducible complexity at all. And now I guess I'll just be blunt - I'm not sure how anybody who is even the least bit familiar with Behe's argument could be making the claim you are making. You are, quite simply, wrong. It is possible, I guess, that I've missed part of Behe's argument, in which case I would appreciate if you could point me to the part of his book where he talks about how IC can be seen in the fossil record.

- by Macht on Jan 4, 2006 at 3:06 AM | link

Actually Macht, one of the main ID proponents Steven Meyer claims that the cambrion 'explosion' is evidence for ID. He often claims (rather incorrectly) that the 'sudden' arisal of most basic animal phyla (and some that don't exist today of course, that he doesn't decide to mention) is 'evidence' against evolution and for ID. I think Glenn may be mistaking the general fallacious arguments of Behe (slaughtered at the recent Dover trial) for the equally fallacious arguments of Meyer (and some other ID advocates).
How's she doing on Behe's outboard motor - the flagellum
Considering Robert, that a flagellum is not an outboard motor to begin with, that wouldn't be overly difficult. Of course, you could ask "where has Behe performed experiments published in actual peer reviewed journals to prove the flagellum is IC". The answer to that is simple: He hasn't.

- by Joseph O'Donnell on Jan 4, 2006 at 3:47 AM | link

Glenn, rest assured that those of us who believe in the Creator are quite capable of studying and applying science and medicine. Most of applied science was discovered and first applied by theists. Some of us even see science and medicine as the opposite of "a punishment from G_d."
Do you suppose that viruses will mutate *faster* in the future than they have in the past?
Synthetic "life" reminds me of a favorite joke:
The scientist challenged G_d, since he could now "make life," and no longer needed the Creator. The scientist reached down to scoop up some dirt with whic to create his lifeform, when the Lord stopped him, saying, "Create your own dirt!"

- by Beverly on Jan 4, 2006 at 4:19 AM | link

Joseph, yes, ID proponents do use the fossil record as evidence for their position, but I've never seen anybody make the claim "that the fossil record of our planet holds evidence of "irreducibly complex" traits."
And the fact that Meyer and Behe both make fallacious arguments doesn't excuse Glenn's fallacious arguments in his article.

- by Macht on Jan 4, 2006 at 4:40 AM | link

Beverly
Do you suppose that viruses will mutate *faster* in the future than they have in the past?
They already do, so you don't need to 'suppose' anything, we've already dug our own hole already. For a simple example, it took years for penicillin resistance to become widespread among bacteria, now pathogens are able to adapt much quicker to antibiotics than they previously could, in a mere space of months. The factors for this are rather wide ranging, from the higher presence of antibiotic resistance genes in the environment (feeding antibiotics to farm animals) and stronger selection pressures for antibiotic resistance.
So the answer to that is 'yes' and they are just going to get better at us. Creationist doctors may not believe in evolution if they feel like it, the only problem with that is the bacteria and viruses that are out there use whatever method works best. That method isn't 'design' (intelligent or otherwise) it's pure evolution and it beats the pants off our best human designed antibiotics and treatments.
Macht
I have found that Behe doesn't directly claim this is the case, but at the same time this is because Behe has picked a good thing to make claims about. Obviously, molecular pathways like those of the blood clotting cascade and the like will not fossilise. What Behe does say about the fossil record is that none of the observed changes among fossils (as evolution predicts) counter his claims of irreducible complexity:
It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton's theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.
Behe on the fossil record here.
Of course, that Behe waves his hands and pretends this is sufficient to basically dismiss a lot of experimental science (of which, it should be abundantly clear is almost entirely absent from ID research) is more humorous about the quote.
You are right thought, Behe doesn't make this claim because unlike creationists he has protection for making the same fallacious argument on a different scale:
"This leg joint is too complex, it can't have evolved!"
vs.
"This flagellum is too complex, it can't have evolved!"
The first can be easily disproven through the discovery of fossils that demonstrate a creature without those parts. The second (as I mentioned earlier) cannot fossilise and so you couldn't hope to disprove it with fossil evidence. If you interpret that statement very liberally, you could think that Behe was using the fossil record to support IC because at least the fossil record cannot reject his particular IC claims.
Of course, the real point about that sentence is that Behe attempts to just dismiss completely the fields of science (like population genetics) that could disprove IC.
And the fact that Meyer and Behe both make fallacious arguments doesn't excuse Glenn's fallacious arguments in his article.
Glenn made a mistake that is probably reasonable enough given that most ID advocates parrot each-others arguments a whole deal most of the time. This is nowhere near as bad as the twists of logic that the likes of Behe or Minnich use to support their positions.

- by Joseph O'Donnell on Jan 4, 2006 at 5:54 AM | link

"I have found that Behe doesn't directly claim this is the case, but at the same time this is because Behe has picked a good thing to make claims about."
This is exactly why it is so ridiculous that anybody would even think that Behe is using the fossil evidence record as evidence of IC. He's making claims about molecular biology, not paleontology! The passage that you highlighted also makes that abundantly clear. And I'm not sure that Glenn's mistake is all that reasonable. First, it isn't even clear to me that it is true that "children in Kansas will learn that the fossil record of our planet holds evidence of "irreducibly complex" traits," regardless of whether any ID advocates take that position or not. Second, if you are going to attribute some argument to somebody, you should find out from their own writings if they actually make that claim. The fact that others may "parrot" his arguments doesn't make it right for Glenn to attribute something to Behe that he doesn't hold.
"This is nowhere near as bad as the twists of logic that the likes of Behe or Minnich use to support their positions."
So a few twists of logic are okay?

- by Macht on Jan 4, 2006 at 6:37 AM | link

Joseph: "'This leg joint is too complex, it can't have evolved!' ... The first can be easily disproven through the discovery of fossils that demonstrate a creature without those parts."
You've demonstrated what I suspected before, that you do not understand what irreducible complexity means.
Glenn: "And if evolution is a 'given' then ID is false. The end."
Ditto.
Y'all want to define the concepts of ID and irreducible complexity in your own very narrow terms so that you can easily dismiss them. Why? If nothing else, these ideas are pointing out areas of sloppy thinking and faulty logic that need to be worked out. One would think that a seeker after truth would welcome that.
First, what is evolution? My genetics teacher back in 1979 or so said that it is a change in gene frequency over generations. Glenn, please put forth your own definition of evolution so that we can see how ID cannot be consistent with it.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jan 4, 2006 at 10:55 AM | link

Although I have no reason to posit an intelligence behind or even immanent in the phenomena treated by evolutionary biology, it isn't at all difficult to imagine how such an intelligence could be perfectly compatible with the operation of causes recognized by current practitioners of evolutionary biology. So some care is needed in selecting the brush with which we paint the views in question.
For Laura: please do explain to me what is meant by 'irreducible complexity,' and how, given this meaning, it can be reliaably employed as an inter-subjective criterion to identify biological traits that could not have evolved through mere natural selective processes. If you can do this, even moderately persuasively, I think you will have no difficulty getting your ideas published in the most prestgious scientific venues.

- by Bob Koepp on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:08 PM | link

Laura;
You've demonstrated what I suspected before, that you do not understand what irreducible complexity means.
On the contrary, I know how the definition of IC 'evolved' so to speak and what it is, probably even more so than you. I observe you failed to respond to any of my other points as well, particularly on how the same fallacy that supports the irreducible complexity of things like the flagellum was used previously by YECs for things (on a bigger scale mind) like the knee or bombadier beetle.
Firstly, irreducible complexity isn't Behes work by a mile, it came right from the good old young earth creationists. They used to make claims that X structure in nature was too complex, ergo Goddidit. The knee joint was highlighted as one such example and here you go for your own amusement the irreducible knee joint from AiG. So carrying on there were various other examples, like the bombadier beetle among others and such forth.
That eventually died the horrible death sometime around 1987 (actually, YEC did as well ho-hum) and now we have the same argument, but with biochemical nonsense attached. Now here is where Laura demonstrates she has no concept of irreducible complexity. The original definition of IC was that if you removed any one part of a system, it would no longer function and was as such 'irreducibly complex'.
Unfortunately for Behe, his "IC" systems were found to be, well, not IC. The blood clotting cascade, the immune system and flagellum were all found to have subsystems or systems that functioned despite loss of various parts. The infamous mousetrap also failed, as Ken Miller and others demolished it by building a series of mousetraps out of less and less parts. As a result, Behe and the other ID proponents went back to the drooling, pardon, I mean drawing board to come up with a new definition of IC.
William Dembski, who is apparently the "Issac Newton of Information Theory" altered the definition of IC to get around these initial problems with Behes original proposal in Darwins Black Box. Dembski redefined IC so that it's the 'arrangement' of parts that makes a system irreducibly complex. In other words, a system is now only IC when removal of parts means it ceases to function and the rearrangement of the remainging parts cannot perform the same function.
That of course is a key concession and essentially dooms IC to a scientific death. The only way for IC to be of any worth as an actual realistic concept is to deliberately avoid normal mechanisms of evolution like co-option. Of course, if we go back to Behe, he isn't really of that opinion although he has slightly redfined IC.
From Behe himself at the Dover trial:
A. Yes, in my article from the journal Biology and Philosophy, I defined it this way. "By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system which is necessarily composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Q. Now, you have up there "necessarily" in italics. Is there a reason for that?
A. Yes, the definition that I gave in Darwin's Black Box did not have those italicized words necessarily, but after the books came out and an evolutionary biologists at the University of Rochester named Allen Orr pointed out that it may be the case that if you had a system that was already functioning, already doing some function, it's possible for a part to come along and just assist the system in performing its function, but after several changes perhaps it might change in such a way that the extra part has now become necessary to the function of the system but that could have been approached gradually.
And I, in thinking about it I saw that he was thinking of examples that I did not have in mind when I wrote the book. So I kind of tweaked the definition here in this article to try to make it clear and try to exclude those examples that I didn't have in mind.
According to Behe, you can see my analogy is directly spot on Laura. You see, according to Behes definition a limb joint can be IC, because in Behes own words:
"By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system which is necessarily composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
A limb joint certainly fits the definition there Laura, or are limb joints not composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the structures basic function? Isn't this the same argument advanced by the Young Earth Creationists over at AiG about the limb joint?
Or is this a demonstratable example of the evolution of an argument as I said in my post? :)
Now Behe was also quizzed at the trial, somewhat hillariously actually on this very topic we're discussing.
Again, from Behes hillarious farce at the dover trial on the stand
Q. Now, Dr. Padian testified on Friday that the concept of irreducible complexity applies above the molecular level, is that correct?
A. No, that is incorrect. In Darwin's Black Box I was at pains to say that the concept of irreducible complexity applies only to systems where we can enumerate the parts, where we can see all the parts and how they work, and I said that in biology therefore that necessarily means systems smaller than a cell, systems whose active molecular components we can elucidate.
When you go beyond a cell, then you're necessarily talking about a system, an organ or animal or any such thing, that is so complex we don't really know what we're dealing with, and so it remains a black box, and so the term irreducible complexity is confined to molecular examples.
As Behe generally goes, this was a typical showing where he doesn't really explain why IC systems can't exist above the molecular level. It seems more of an attempt to avoid the obvious falsification problems YECs faced with their original "IC" arguments and less to do with actual science. His logic here is highly fallacious, because by his reasoning you can determine the structure, function and interaction between 'larger' systems (not just on the small scale) yet not determine if it fits the following definition:
"By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system which is necessarily composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
(and before you claim I don't understand IC again, perhaps you could bear in mind the quote above is Behes OWN words). How exactly, does a joint such as that of a knee fail this criteria Laura? If Behe himself couldn't give a satisfactory explanation in a court, I have to wonder if you can explain how a limb joint would fail yet a molecular structure like a flagellum suddenly becomes relevant.
Now back to quoting you again
Y'all want to define the concepts of ID and irreducible complexity in your own very narrow terms so that you can easily dismiss them. Why?
Don't need to, I can use Behes definition or alternatively I can go to Dembski. Dembski does a great favour because he castrates IC for me according to his definition, and Behes is just useless on its own to begin with.
If nothing else, these ideas are pointing out areas of sloppy thinking and faulty logic that need to be worked out. One would think that a seeker after truth would welcome that.
No they aren't really. For example, using a common scientific paper search engine like pubmed reveals some interesting things. IC as a concept appears in a mere 10 papers, none of which are actually endorsing the concept. In terms of a scientific concept IC is going nowhere and has stimulated nothing.
On the other hand, comparing IC to horse feces on pubmed reveals that horse feces has 945 papers associated with it. Not only that, horse feces are actually important in many of those papers and were key to the experiment.
Ergo, horse feces are more useful scientifically than IC. QED.
First, what is evolution? My genetics teacher back in 1979 or so said that it is a change in gene frequency over generations.
You are correct on the basic definition and if you remember it now from that long ago he must have been a pretty good teacher! Aside from that, ID can be consistent with evolution from the point of view of 'theistic evolution', which is a form of 'intelligent design'. It only differs in that God uses evolution as a mechanism for the life on the planet but did not directly 'design' anything in nature like a flagellum or anything. For the record, I am a theistic evolutionist.
Also, for the record here are the definitions of IC as given by Behe and Dembski (from ISCID, haloscan only permits a certain amount of linkage love):
Michael Behe's Original Definition:
A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)
William Dembski's Enhanced Definition:
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)
Michael Behe's "Evolut

- by JM O'Donnell on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:17 PM | link

Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
Note here that the second definition, given by dembski allows for the rearrangement of those parts to perform the same function. However, when you remove sufficient parts and can no longer achieve the same function what is left is the core "irreducibly complex" structure.
So Laura, can I expect a full response actually explaining what I got wrong (or do not understand) about ID. I'd be most keen to know what I (evidentally) have missed reading the two main ID proponents (Behe and Dembski). Oh and addressing my argument that the 'molecular' IC we see now is just a natural evolution to avoid the problems of fossils falsifying the 'macromolecular' IC of the old YEC movement would be nice too.
[Ha, there is actually a maximum length that can be posted to these things comments sections, never even realised]

- by JM O'Donnell on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:19 PM | link

I have no interest in getting my views published since I'm not sure yet what my views are. It's why I keep engaging in these discussions when I find them.
But here is my understanding regarding irreducible complexity: For natural selection to work all by itself, every step from no-legs to legs has to represent an advantage over the step before, or at the very least, no disadvantage. It's about the mechanism for getting from X to Y. The fact that a previous creature had no legs and the current creature does is not a rebuttal. What were the specific mutations that resulted in those legs? Why was each one successful?
Even though for me, the jury is still out on ID, I think it is a very good thing for proponents of natural selection to have these questions asked. Actually, it's because I'm not sure that I like to see these questions. They should bring an end to a lot of arm-waving and sloppy language and "then a miracle occurs".

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:21 PM | link

Whoops, you posted while I was compulsively checking mine. I'll read yours now.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:23 PM | link

Well, I started to read your post and prepare a thoughtful response, and then I saw this:
"Behe and the other ID proponents went back to the drooling..."
Never mind.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:30 PM | link

So in other words you can't actually answer the fact you don't understand IC yourself Laura?
For example you said:
But here is my understanding regarding irreducible complexity: For natural selection to work all by itself, every step from no-legs to legs has to represent an advantage over the step before, or at the very least, no disadvantage.
But Behe (a leading ID advocate) claims the following:
A. No, that is incorrect. In Darwin's Black Box I was at pains to say that the concept of irreducible complexity applies only to systems where we can enumerate the parts, where we can see all the parts and how they work, and I said that in biology therefore that necessarily means systems smaller than a cell, systems whose active molecular components we can elucidate.
So irreducible complexity has nothing to do with going from "legs to no legs" and concerns itself (according to Behe) only with cellular structures like the flagellum.
Are you sure you understand the theory you supposedly support?

- by JM O'Donnell on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:34 PM | link

Ack, I forgot to close an infernal italics tag and it has consumed all. Also, here is the link to the Behe statement, again from the Dover trial. None the less, next time you claim someone doesn't 'understand' something understand it first. IC as defined by Behe and dembski doesn't apply to "legs to no legs" or any large structure, only to cellular structures like the flagellum and molecular pathways like the blood clotting cascade.

- by JM O'Donnell on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:40 PM | link

Was this not you:
"You are right thought, Behe doesn't make this claim because unlike creationists he has protection for making the same fallacious argument on a different scale:
"'This leg joint is too complex, it can't have evolved!'"
Now you're saying
"IC as defined by Behe and dembski doesn't apply to 'legs to no legs' or any large structure...."
I think you're too emotional about this - witness the "drooling" statement. I'm really turned off by emotion on this issue, except from a psychological perspective. It makes people act unreasonable and contradict themselves.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:10 PM | link

And by the way, no, I'm sure I don't understand ID, which is why I am not pushing it, only asking questions. I don't find your responses helpful because I don't trust your objectivity.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:12 PM | link

Yes, however if you read the post you find I spend the entire thing defending why I did that. :p

- by JM O'Donnell on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:16 PM | link

Well, I can't read your post.
See, I argue the other side of this issue too, with other people. I'm trying to get some kind of internal concensus in my own worldview, and in doing that I'm trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. I find arguments like "if a designer designed us, who designed the designer" and "if we evolved from apes why are there still apes" to be equally frivolous, irritating, and time-wasting. But I really have a whole lot of unanswered questions about natural selection, evolution, ID, and so forth, and in asking those questions I don't want to look like a dumbass, so I try to avoid taking in information that has a high probability of making me look that way if I spit it back out. Name-calling runs up a big red flag for me. I'm not saying that there is anything in your post that would make me look like an idiot if I quoted it, but I can't take the risk of finding out. Sorry for all your hard work writing that post.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:35 PM | link

Check your email then, as I sent you one a while ago upon realising my original assumption ended up going an unanticipated tangent!

- by JM O'Donnell on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:40 PM | link

The problem is in people becoming polarized around ideologies concerning what evolution "proves."

- by Beverly on Jan 4, 2006 at 2:42 PM | link