Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
When I first heard about ID, I thought it made sense. I also thought it would be taken down immediately by science.

I thought science would be able to explain Behe's questions using biological explanations.

Science did this. I thought the debate was over.

Bryan kept saying that these biological explanations weren't sufficient. I thought "and an intelligent designer is??"

Then I read Kazim's review of Behe's book...

and Bryan's rebuttal.

Here's where I'm at now.

What Behe, Bryan, and ID want is a detailed explanation on a sub-cellular level, of how these structures could have come about by natural means. So far, I've not seen this. I looked high and low in my own attempts to answer the questions, and was told every time that the explanations that I found weren't what was being asked for.

I agree.

In my ignorance, I've yet to hear anything other than a sort of layman's explanation for how it could have happened, and was satisfied with that explanation. But I'm thinking that what is being asked for is an explanation that includes the over the top detail that Behe included in his book.

I don't know whether such an explanation exists or not.

From a recent thread-

BEHE- Cleverly, Darwin didn't try to discover a real pathway that evolution might have used to make the eye. Rather, he pointed to modern animals with different kinds of eyes (ranging from the simple to the complex) and suggested that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.


BRYAN- In other words, Darwin, because he could not possibly understand the inner workings of the cell in his day, appealed to "butte hop" [my term] scientific explanation. And evolutionary biologist to this day appeal to the very same type of "explanation" of things. Behe goes to the trouble of providing the detailed biochemical descriptions he does to show that now, in this day and age, our understanding of the inner workings of the cell render them black boxes no longer. Science has triumphed in its quest to open the box, and we can now describe in great detail the molecular machines we find inside. Now that we have to ability to describe the inner workings of the cell at the molecular level, "butte hop" explanations of evolution are no longer acceptable . . . we must have explanations that deal in details of the changes that have been asserted that evolution made. Behe's technical descriptions provide the model for what an explanation *should* look like in the 21st century.

And the contrast between the detail Behe covers for the various systems he deals with, and the utter lack of detail in "evolutionary explanations" is stark. Typical of such explanations in evolutionary biology are the "A -> B -> C -> D" explanation, where hypothetical variables are used in place of actual proteins or other biomolecules. The problem of course is that talk is cheap . . . it's easy to propose hypotheticals. But when you are forced to provide actual chemical names, then you are also forced to come up with real chemical reactions that get you from A to B and so on. Nobody does this.


I'm wondering why not.

As a layperson, I would expect that science could explain the possibility of natural selection leading to these supposedly IC structures citing actual proteins and biochemicals within that possible path and the results of their interactions.

So far, no one has done that.

If I'm right, then ID is, in fact, science at this point. It has an unfortunate name, but as a hypothesis it suggests a larger question than science seems to be currently able to answer.

To clarify- I don't see Bryan as asking for THE explanation for how these structures ACTUALLY came about- only that science come up with a better explanation for how they COULD have naturally come about including each step along the way put in detail.

Not how they did- but how they could have.

In detail.

k (layperson)




Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.