Dr. Michael Behe author of Darwin's Black Box

[Jared Jammer]

The point being, Behe redefines the use of scientific theory to fit his own agenda, as he admitted.

As I've already explained, Behe has not redefined the use of scientific theory. He uses the word exactly as it's used in science. Furthermore, even if we limit theory to the National Academy of Sciences' definition, I.D. still fits the bill.

Get a real argument, please.

 

[tumbleweed41]

For a half days worth of testimony where Behe attempts to redefine a scientific theory to fit his own definitions see HERE (Online PDF)

 

[tumbleweed41]

As I've already explained, Behe has not redefined the use of scientific theory. He uses the word exactly as it's used in science. Furthermore, even if we limit theory to the National Academy of Sciences' definition, I.D. still fits the bill.

Get a real argument, please.

Sorry Jarred, but ID does not fit the bill of a Scientific Theory.
Which is why creationists like Behe attempt to expand the Scientific Theory to encompass an unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable, preconception that consistently fails to pass peer review.

Irreducible complexity has been debunked through numerous peer reviewed papers showing that what Behe claims is irreducible is in fact, reducible.

 

[Jared Jammer]

Let me know when irreducible complexity is finally submitted for peer review.

By the way, you accidentally () didn't answer my question.

How do you falsify the claim that Darwinian evolution can evolve a multi-protein system?

What laboratory finding would convince you that Darwinian evolution could not have created such a system?

Let's see you and your fellow Darwinists apply the same degree of critical thinking to the Darwinian position as you do to that I.D. position.

 

[tumbleweed41]

By the way, you accidentally () didn't answer my question.

Did you notice I did in the post above?

 

[freethinker44]

There have been no conclusive refutations of Behe's concept of irreducible complexity.

Name one concept of irreducible complexity that hasn't been refuted. Just give one example of some mechanism that can't be reduced to a simpler mechanism. Just one mechanism that could not have evolved from something else, that must have been placed there by some intelligence. Just one.

 

[Jared Jammer]

here you go...


http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/diagenda.html

Behe is also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which has an openly religious agenda to spread Christian theology into government. And he is a professed Christian (Roman Catholic).

He keeps his blog free of religious content, but his blog is not the only place he talks about ID.

wa:do

What you've done is what is known as motive-mongering. You've pointed out that Behe is religious, and then used this fact to claim that his motivation is religious. That may or may not be, just as it may or may not be that atheism is the motivation for many of Darwinian evolution's supporters.

This doesn't answer my question.

Yes, Behe is religious. The majority of the great scientists throughout history have been.

I didn't ask you whether or not Behe was religious, nor whether or not he was motivated by his religious beliefs*.

I asked you (actually, Kronik, but it's an open challenge) to point out the religion in Behe's reasoning. That is, look at Behe's arguments (I.C., or anything else), and point out where he inserts religious doctrine of any sort.

You can't do it. You can't do it because at no point does Behe's arguments rely on religion. They're entirely secular.



*This is what's known as motive-mongering, and it works both ways. You can claim that Behe is motivated by his theism; I can claim that many Darwinists are motivated by their atheism. At the end of the day, it's irrelevant. All that matters is the arguments and the evidence.

 

[tumbleweed41]

How do you falsify the claim that Darwinian evolution can evolve a multi-protein system?

What laboratory finding would convince you that Darwinian evolution could not have created such a system?

Let's see you and your fellow Darwinists apply the same degree of critical thinking to the Darwinian position as you do to that I.D. position.

OK

Legume genome evolution viewed through the Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicus genomes

Chemical and biological evolution of nucleotide-binding protein. - Abstract - UK PubMed Central

Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 906 (1994): Simple Model of Self-Organized Biological Evolution

Role for Ferredoxins in the Origin of Life and Biological Evolution

The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Volume 1, Number 4 - SpringerLink

Protein structure and neutral theory of ... [J Biomol Struct Dyn. 1986] - PubMed - NCBI

Clinical and Biological Evolution of HIV-1 Seroconverters in... : JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes



(And there are over a thousand more...)

 

[tumbleweed41]

What you've done is what is known as motive-mongering. You've pointed out that Behe is religious, and then used this fact to claim that his motivation is religious. That may or may not be, just as it may or may not be that atheism is the motivation for many of Darwinian evolution's supporters.

This doesn't answer my question.

Yes, Behe is religious. The majority of the great scientists throughout history have been.

I didn't ask you whether or not Behe was religious, nor whether or not he was motivated by his religious beliefs*.

I asked you (actually, Kronik, but it's an open challenge) to point out the religion in Behe's reasoning. That is, look at Behe's arguments (I.C., or anything else), and point out where he inserts religious doctrine of any sort.

You can't do it. You can't do it because at no point does Behe's arguments rely on religion. They're entirely secular.



*This is what's known as motive-mongering, and it works both ways. You can claim that Behe is motivated by his theism; I can claim that many Darwinists are motivated by their atheism. At the end of the day, it's irrelevant. All that matters is the arguments and the evidence.

All of his arguments are based the involvement of a supernatural being in the "design" of all living organisms in the universe.
Supernatural as in unconstrained by the physical Laws of the universe.
This, my friend, is religion, not science.

 

[painted wolf]

What you've done is what is known as motive-mongering. You've pointed out that Behe is religious, and then used this fact to claim that his motivation is religious. That may or may not be, just as it may or may not be that atheism is the motivation for many of Darwinian evolution's supporters.

This doesn't answer my question.

Yes, Behe is religious. The majority of the great scientists throughout history have been.

I didn't ask you whether or not Behe was religious, nor whether or not he was motivated by his religious beliefs*.

I asked you (actually, Kronik, but it's an open challenge) to point out the religion in Behe's reasoning. That is, look at Behe's arguments (I.C., or anything else), and point out where he inserts religious doctrine of any sort.

You can't do it. You can't do it because at no point does Behe's arguments rely on religion. They're entirely secular.



*This is what's known as motive-mongering, and it works both ways. You can claim that Behe is motivated by his theism; I can claim that many Darwinists are motivated by their atheism. At the end of the day, it's irrelevant. All that matters is the arguments and the evidence.

I think you are confusing non-secular and secular.... you say he is secular, that means he is motivated by his religious beliefs. I will assume you meant "non-secular" as in he isn't motivated by his religious beliefs to push ID.

One can not be entirely non-secular and work for the Discovery Institute. It's goals are entirely secular.

Thus, while Behe may keep his wording in public carefully constrained... he can not be motivated by non-secular goals. Otherwise he wouldn't be a fellow at DI.

wa:do

 

[Jared Jammer]

Name one concept of irreducible complexity that hasn't been refuted. Just give one example of some mechanism that can't be reduced to a simpler mechanism. Just one mechanism that could not have evolved from something else, that must have been placed there by some intelligence. Just one.

That's not gonna work, kiddo.

The burden of proof is on those who say that mutation and natural selection is capable of producing multi-protein systems to demonstrate this so.

They've done no such thing.

Have they speculated? You bet your sweet *** they have. But, again, speculation is not actual science. You can try to talk yourself and others into believing that Darwinian evolution has the creative power to engineer these complex systems, but until you actually demonstrate this creative power, Behe's stinging challenge will remain unmatched.

Also, one more correction. The issue isn't that the evolution of multi-protein systems is physically impossible -- it's not. It would violate no known physical law.

The issue is that it's so implausible as to be logically impossible. Random mutation must first create the functional proteins which make up the system, and then assemble them into the actual system. This isn't happening, and Darwinists know it, too, which is why they're absolutely terrified to actually test it in the laboratory, and, instead, cling to their wild and loony speculations.

 

[Jared Jammer]

I think you are confusing non-secular and secular.... you say he is secular, that means he is motivated by his religious beliefs. I will assume you meant "non-secular" as in he isn't motivated by his religious beliefs to push ID.

One can not be entirely non-secular and work for the Discovery Institute. It's goals are entirely secular.

Thus, while Behe may keep his wording in public carefully constrained... he can not be motivated by non-secular goals. Otherwise he wouldn't be a fellow at DI.

wa:do

You're confused. Secular means absent religion.

Michael Behe is not secular. He's clearly stated that he is a religious man. Good for him.

Michael Behe's motivations may or may not be secular, but motivation is irrelevant in science. Behe being religious no more discredits his ideas than, say, Richard Dawkins being atheistic discredits his. Motivations do not matter in science; arguments rise and fall on their own merits, or lack thereof.

Michael Behe's arguments -- his reasoning -- are entirely secular. Nothing in Michael Behe's extensive scientific literature depends on any religious belief or doctrine. I.C. is a concept that any honest person of any belief -- including atheism -- can accept. I, myself, am non-religious, and I accept I.C.

 

[Jared Jammer]

All of his arguments are based the involvement of a supernatural being in the "design" of all living organisms in the universe.
Supernatural as in unconstrained by the physical Laws of the universe.
This, my friend, is religion, not science.

None of Behe's arguments require the supernatural. What they require is the existence of a prior intelligence. Intelligence is not supernatural, and it's not illogical to propose arguments which include the possibility of an intelligence which preceded our own.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's not gonna work, kiddo.

The burden of proof is on those who say that mutation and natural selection is capable of producing multi-protein systems to demonstrate this so.

They've done no such thing.

On the contrary...

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/981203.Chmielewski.ptds.html

Ammonia From The Earth's Deep Oceans: A Key Step In The Search For Life's Origins

Whitehead Study Supports Existence Of Ancient RNA World, Helps Provide Insight Into Early Evolution Of Life

Yale Scientists Recreate Molecular "Fossils," Now Extinct, That May Have Existed At The Beginning Of Life

The path from the RNA world. [J Mol Evol. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI

A supersymmetric model for the evol... [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI

Directed evolution of a type I antifreeze protei... [Protein Eng. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

Directed evolution of biosynthetic pathways. Rec... [J Biol Chem. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=96264808&dopt=Citation

Reconstruction of ancestral protein... [J Mol Evol. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9071013&dopt=Citation

 

[painted wolf]

ScienceDirect.com - Current Opinion in Genetics & Development - The evolution of resistance genes in multi-protein plant resistance systems
ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Protein Chemistry - Rational evolutionary design: The theory of in vitro protein evolution
Bioinformatics, genomics and evolution of non-flagellar type-III secretion systems: a Darwinian perpective - Pallen - 2008 - FEMS Microbiology Reviews - Wiley Online Library

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

None of Behe's arguments require the supernatural. What they require is the existence of a prior intelligence. Intelligence is not supernatural, and it's not illogical to propose arguments which include the possibility of an intelligence which preceded our own.

Not supernatural? So this "intelligence" is subject to the physical Laws of our universe?

Amazing!

1. How was this sub-molecular designing accomplished?
2. From whence came the designer?

 

[painted wolf]

You're confused. Secular means absent religion.

LoL... egads... it's late and I'm more tired than I thought.

Michael Behe is not secular. He's clearly stated that he is a religious man. Good for him.

Michael Behe's motivations may or may not be secular, but motivation is irrelevant in science. Behe being religious no more discredits his ideas than, say, Richard Dawkins being atheistic discredits his. Motivations do not matter in science; arguments rise and fall on their own merits, or lack thereof.

Michael Behe's arguments -- his reasoning -- are entirely secular. Nothing in Michael Behe's extensive scientific literature depends on any religious belief or doctrine. I.C. is a concept that any honest person of any belief -- including atheism -- can accept. I, myself, am non-religious, and I accept I.C.

I'll address the rest once I've had some sleep. Have a good night.

wa:do

 

[Jared Jammer]

OK

Legume genome evolution viewed through the Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicus genomes

Chemical and biological evolution of nucleotide-binding protein. - Abstract - UK PubMed Central

Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 906 (1994): Simple Model of Self-Organized Biological Evolution

Role for Ferredoxins in the Origin of Life and Biological Evolution

The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Volume 1, Number 4 - SpringerLink

Protein structure and neutral theory of ... [J Biomol Struct Dyn. 1986] - PubMed - NCBI

Clinical and Biological Evolution of HIV-1 Seroconverters in... : JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes



(And there are over a thousand more...)

None of these demonstrate any potential falsifiability of Darwinian evolution in constructing a multi-protein system. If you disagree, then present the specific evidence.

Note that I'm not asking for speculations about how Darwinian evolution could've produced multi-protein systems. I know all about that (Darwinists use it constantly), and I'm terribly unimpressed by it.

What I want to know is what finding would falsify the belief that random mutation and natural selection can engineer multi-protein systems.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I, myself, am non-religious, and I accept I.C.

Non-religious theist.

No matter.

Painted Wolf is also a theist. And I myself am a deist.
(That's right, we both believe in a concept of god, and yet find it unnecessary to ignore the natural world and the laws that govern it in order to justify that belief.)

 

[tumbleweed41]

What I want to know is what finding would falsify the belief that random mutation and natural selection can engineer multi-protein systems.

Irreducible complexity.