UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (8) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 25057  
Subject: The scientific irrelevance of Behe Date: 1/28/2012 7:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
This has all been said before but I'll bring it up one more time in case the Mayans were right and this is the last year.

IMO, this is a critical point in the ID argument that IDists have never adequately addressed.

Creationists seem to be under the impression that the whole origin of life's diversity issue can be simplified to a simple dichotomy: Evolution versus Intelligent Design. Therefore any evidence against evolution must be considered evidence for ID. Makes no sense.

Science is fundamentally about mechanisms, about how things happen. Mechanisms are really the only things that can be empirically tested, which is what science is all about. One hypothesizes that A becomes Z by going through a particular process. To test this, one makes predictions about what must happen if that process actually occurs.

Evolution is a mechanism. It describes how A becomes Z. It is empirically testable. In contrast, Intelligent Design is not a mechanistic proposal. Apples and oranges.

So if scientists disprove some aspects of current evolutionary theory it doesn't mean squat to ID. Suppose Behe's wildest dream comes true and the science community admits that mutations + natural selection can't produce complexity. Will there be a mass conversion to ID? Nope. The science community will just start paying more attention to stuff like emergent qualities and chaos theory or whatever other "mechanistic" alternatives come to mind. Or they might just say we have no idea what is going on.

But they won't convert to Behe-ism because ID doesn't provide a mechanistic alternative to evolution. Hence it is not an alternative to evolution. This is why ID has no impact on scientific research.

The only time scientists care about Behe or ID is when science education is threatened.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 23696 of 25057
Subject: Re: The scientific irrelevance of Behe Date: 1/28/2012 8:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Where the heck have you been? Long time no see.

Don't make me dust off my Behe quotes, we'll all be choking for weeks.

What's the best new evidence for mutations + natural selection producing complexity you've run across in the last year and a half?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 23697 of 25057
Subject: Re: The scientific irrelevance of Behe Date: 1/28/2012 9:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Where the heck have you been?

Busy working on a major climate change project.

What's the best new evidence for mutations + natural selection producing complexity you've run across in the last year and a half?

Beats me. Not my field. I think it pretty optimistic to think that one can find significant complexity changes in a few years and labs when it took nature eons and a whole planet. Besides, I'm far more impressed by the genetic relatedness between species, which varies in ways that very nicely correlates with the predictions of evolutionary theory. The evidence is sufficiently overwhelming that I think there are only two viable alternatives. Either evolution happened, or God wants us to believe evolution happened. Either way it seems in my best interest to believe evolution happened.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 23698 of 25057
Subject: Re: The scientific irrelevance of Behe Date: 1/29/2012 12:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ii
ii

. The evidence is sufficiently overwhelming that I think there are only two viable alternatives. Either evolution happened, or God wants us to believe evolution happened. Either way it seems in my best interest to believe evolution happened.


or Santa wants us to believe evolution to turn
us away from god

Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 23699 of 25057
Subject: Re: The scientific irrelevance of Behe Date: 1/29/2012 8:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
or Santa wants us to believe evolution to turn
us away from god


Well if we really are just pawns in a war between two demigods who can manipulate reality, then there really isn't anything one can assume to be true, whether it be bible or empiricism.

That's why Descartes did his thing.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 23700 of 25057
Subject: Re: The scientific irrelevance of Behe Date: 1/29/2012 9:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
or Santa wants us to believe evolution to turn
us away from god

Well if we really are just pawns in a war between two demigods who can manipulate reality, then there really isn't anything one can assume to be true, whether it be bible or empiricism.



yup.......



That's why Descartes did his thing.


which thing? his "cogito"?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: centromere Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 23701 of 25057
Subject: Re: The scientific irrelevance of Behe Date: 1/29/2012 10:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
which thing? his "cogito"?

Yup. Even in the deceptive god scenario Descartes claimed one thing had to be necessarily true.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 23702 of 25057
Subject: Re: The scientific irrelevance of Behe Date: 1/30/2012 4:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What's the best new evidence for mutations + natural selection producing complexity you've run across in the last year and a half?


Uh, how bout two posts ago.


http://boards.fool.com/yawn-evolution-demonstrated-again-298...

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (8) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement