Positive Statement For ID Science

Over at the DI, Casey Luskin is doing a three part rebuttal to Paul Gross.  In Part II, he points out Behe’s statement on the positive argument for design.  I think it’s important to point out such things since Darwinists are often fond of stating that evolution is simply anti-evolutionism and doesn’t posit a positive argument.

Advertisements

12 responses to “Positive Statement For ID Science

  1. Hi professorsmith,

    I’ve been a bit busy and must apologize for not holding up my end of the stream-of-consciousness discussion here.

    Your reference to Luskin here interests me, as I think he (and Behe) make a pretty poor positive case for ID when they point to allegedly “purposefully-arranged parts”. To understand, consider my (irrefutable, for the same reasons Luskin’s and Behe’s claims about biological systems as consisting of purposefully-arranged parts are) claim that hurricanes consist of a number of purposefully-arranged parts (the eye, eye wall, feeder bands, heat source, etc.). Moreover, recall that meteorologists call hurricanes heat engines – they go beyond suggesting that they look like engines, they explicitly call them engines. Thus, by the two (and sole) criteria Luskin and Behe use, hurricanes are akin to biological systems.

    So what does this mean? Luskin and Behe assert that such systems arise only via intelligent intervention. But we can follow the course of hurricane formation, and have a pretty good idea that natural forces suffice to assemble a system that far exceeds in size and complexity the human body. This means that the “evidence” for their positive claim is false – natural forces can and do assemble large machines consisting of purposefully-arranged parts, and no intelligence is needed.

    I’ll grant that one may suspect design when coming upon things that seem more complicated than they may understand. But suspicion is not evidence. And suspicion is basically all that Luskin and Behe have.

  2. professorsmith

    Since when does large = complex? Therein lies the fallacy of your argument.

  3. Hi professorsmith,

    You ask “Since when does large = complex?”

    A good question. Are you aware of any ID description or explanation of complexity that does not ultimately refer to very large (or inversely very small) numbers?

    Fact is, hurricanes are complex in every way IDists claim biological systems are.

    (Of course, I’m willing to concede that the ID arguments that I am co-opting here are fallacious.)

  4. professorsmith

    Now you are conflating.

    You stated that hurricanes are large and therefore complex, but then you move the goal posts to state that ID deals in large numbers? Make up your mind.

    Hurricanes are not complex, however. They are the interplay of moisture with different air pressures and temperatures.

  5. Hi professorsmith,

    You said “You stated that hurricanes are large and therefore complex” .

    Well, I actually said something to the effect that hurricanes are large AND complex. And I can back up my claim about the complexity with math.

    “They are the interplay of moisture with different air pressures and temperatures.”

    And cells are the interplay of a small number of different kinds of atoms meandering up and down various energy landscapes.

    Fact is, professorsmith, the argument “it looks that way to me” (which is all that the positive statement from Luskin and Behe amounts to) cuts many ways, and most of them refute the ID position.

  6. professorsmith

    I like how you downplay the complexity inherent in the cell. It has many working parts that all must be present for the cell to work. Hurricanes are not this way.

    And, your assertion that the argument simply amounts to “it looks that way to me” is nothing short of ridiculous. That is not the ID argument. Do IDers get to come up with our own arguments, or do you get to argue straw men?

  7. Hi professorsith,

    I trust you had an enjoyable Thanksgiving.

    You said: “I like how you downplay the complexity inherent in the cell. It has many working parts that all must be present for the cell to work. Hurricanes are not this way.”

    That’s what you claim. You don’t provide any empirical or even a coherent logical way to support your POV. I can (and have, on other boards) for my claims. Without some consistent framework, your statement that hurricanes do not have “many working parts” (they actually do) amounts to little more than “they don’t look complex to professorsmith”.

    “Purposefully-arranged parts” is nothing but “it looks that way to (insert your favorite IDists’s name)”. There is no coherent theory that tells us how to test the assertion, at least not one that allows for hurricanes to be classified in a different set as biological systems.

  8. That would be professorsmith. I apologize for the typo. (Must be some sort of tryptophan withdrawal…)

  9. professorsmith

    OK, then show me the many working parts of a hurricane. All I see is moisture and air pressure differences. Try to show us all how that compares to the complexity of the code inherent in DNA, which is just one part of the cell.

  10. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    Try to show us all how that compares to the complexity of the code inherent in DNA, which is just one part of the cell.

    Actually, the number of parts has nothing to do with Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity. He uses the example of a mousetrap that consists of just five pieces. But, says Behe, take away any of them and the darn thing won’t work.

    Same with hurricanes. Take away warm water in the oceans, or the Coriolis force and a hurricane won’t happen. That’s IC, according to Behe.

  11. Pingback: Gross Gets More Wrong « Professor Smith’s Weblog

  12. professorsmith

    Take away forces and laws of the universe and most things don’t work…too bad you are comparing apples and oranges.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s