Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[hlat]

While Behe demolishes almost all competing viewpoints by pointing out that they do not explain how the complex living machinery came into existence, he acknowledges that the multiverse theory of accidental life is an unlikely possibility, with the odds being a tiny 1 in 10^1018. So the possibilities for the origin of life include creation/intelligent design (likely) or multiverse (very unlikely), and do not include any version of darwinism.

 

[aragorn]

In chapter 2 of Darwin Devolves, Behe addressed the darwinian criticism that design "flaws" mean that there were no designers, and Behe's reply was used the example of the vertebrate eye to show that the design "flaw" was actually a design feature. But both camps seem to miss the possibility that the designers were not perfect and so the creations were not perfect and have design flaws. Maybe this is addressed later in the book.

My understanding was, that what he was trying to convey was that many of those features that were considered flaws, which were used as evidence to argue that “God wouldn’t have done it in this way” later turned out to actually be beneficial variations. What Behe is saying, if I understood him correctly, is that some functions might on the surface appear less perfect, but as we look deeper, they will turn out to be quite astonishingly brilliant solutions. The designer surely is on a completely different level of intelligence, and it’s almost ridiculous to think that we would know better of how living organisms should be designed.

 

[hlat]

What Behe is saying, if I understood him correctly, is that some functions might on the surface appear less perfect, but as we look deeper, they will turn out to be quite astonishingly brilliant solutions. The designer surely is on a completely different level of intelligence, and it’s almost ridiculous to think that we would know better of how living organisms should be designed.

I think you do understand Behe. However, if 4D STO learns through creation, then it would seem to follow that the later creations were improved when compared with the earlier creations, so that their design improves. So maybe I should have referred to this idea as design improvements in the later creations instead of design flaws in the earlier creations. Either way, the designers were not omnipotent so creation was not perfect.

Changing gears, I was surprised to see in chapter 6 of Darwin Devolves that Behe noted that not all mutations that led to beneficial changes are degrading, in mentioning mutations to a fish family called cichlid and its protein rhodopsin that enhances light sensitivity.

 

[luc]

When it comes to these more complex topics, I like it that way and don't find it that annoying at all. With many things repetition is key and I don't mind spoilers when it's non-fiction. Even with all the 'prep-work' by the author I find myself having to go back and re-read things. So for me it's a good thing as well. The way I see it, learning and understanding these things is akin to learning a new language. And one of the best ways to learn it to repeatedly expose oneself to essentially the same 'concept' over and over again (though in various ways) until it sticks. In fact this works across many disciplines and while it can get tedious and boring sometimes, it is almost always worth it.

I agree, with one exception though: sometimes, authors overpromise and underdeliver, and I hate that. They spend more time making great announcements about the great insights they will offer us, but then the "meat" of the book is weak... that's bad style and bad form IMO. But other than that, I like repetition, especially with philosophical topics where it's not only about presenting research and facts, but about highly complex arguments/reasoning. If the author is capable of explaining such things in different parts of the book using different ways and different words, it's a testament to his deep understanding of the issue.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

But both camps seem to miss the possibility that the designers were not perfect and so the creations were not perfect and have design flaws.

Yes, and this is because they keep equating "designer" with "God", failing to even imagine other possibilities. I talk about this in some detail in my article, so stay tuned.

 

[Chu]

I agree, with one exception though: sometimes, authors overpromise and underdeliver, and I hate that. They spend more time making great announcements about the great insights they will offer us, but then the "meat" of the book is weak... that's bad style and bad form IMO. But other than that, I like repetition, especially with philosophical topics where it's not only about presenting research and facts, but about highly complex arguments/reasoning. If the author is capable of explaining such things in different parts of the book using different ways and different words, it's a testament to his deep understanding of the issue.

Indeed! And what you described is what I think was bothering some of us about Axe. I don't mind repetition either, and appreciate in many cases. In D. Axe's case, it wasn't even as much repetition as overpromising and underdelivering. "As soon as we finish this chapter you'll be told something amazing!" Only to move on to the next thing and promise something else, forgetting the previous alleged amazing connection to be made.

 

[Jones]

"As soon as we finish this chapter you'll be told something amazing!" Only to move on to the next thing and promise something else, forgetting the previous alleged amazing connection to be made.

The above is something that I'm a bit sensitive to at the moment because I've followed some paths with similar dynamic and it sounds like a wild goose chase. So I wonder what it is he is either not saying or hiding? I haven't read Axe yet, but it seems as though from the descriptions here that he is using a method of manipulation or diversion. Whether or not that is planned is another question.

Some interesting info about Axe:

I found this short video about him talking about his book -

He mentions there that he has used the title "Undeniable" despite knowing that Bill Nye - a supporter of the theory of evolution has written a book with the same title! There seems to be something strange about that.

 

[fabric]

I agree, with one exception though: sometimes, authors overpromise and underdeliver, and I hate that. They spend more time making great announcements about the great insights they will offer us, but then the "meat" of the book is weak...

I haven't read Axe but I've come across other books that do the same thing and it is quite off-putting. If you're gonna promise something great it better be good! It's like those click bait YouTube videos that have this cool cover and crazy title but when you watch it, it has little to do with the title or cover. So disappointing!

 

[Chu]

The above is something that I'm a bit sensitive to at the moment because I've followed some paths with similar dynamic and it sounds like a wild goose chase. So I wonder what it is he is either not saying or hiding? I haven't read Axe yet, but it seems as though from the descriptions here that he is using a method of manipulation or diversion. Whether or not that is planned is another question.

I don't think it's that bad in his case. Some people really use that to manipulate. I think he just got a bit carried away. And to be fair, it IS an amazing book/discovery if you haven't read others, and are just starting to question Darwin. We are just a more difficult audience, having been spoiled by Behe who sets the bar so high.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

The article is finally up: Darwinism, Creationism... How about Neither? -- Sott.net

Thanks for the opportunity, and thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread!

At one point in the article, I mention a blog by Dawid Swift, author of "Evolution under the Microscope", which sounds like a great book.

I would just like to bring attention to the blog here, because it's really interesting stuff: Evolution under the microscope

I especially found the parts about proteins interesting:

The forces between the packed amino acids (Dawkins’ local rules) that hold a protein in its folded state are so weak that there needs to be many amino acids involved, typically requiring a protein to be at least 70 amino acids long (see Protein structure and function by Jack Kyte) So it’s utter nonsense to suggest as some textbooks do, and Dawkins would have us believe, that proteins could have started off with just a handful of amino acids.

So what would be required for the evolution of just one new protein?

• Obviously, we need a nucleotide sequence to arise by chance that, once translated into an amino acid sequence, will result in a protein that will fold, not only that, but will serve a useful function - one that will benefit the organism. That in itself is so improbable that it should not be taken seriously - but evolutionary texts do or, rather, like Dawkins, they uncritically assume it must be possible, because they aren’t willing to contemplate the alternative of design.
• But that's only the beginning. Because, of course, a random nucleotide sequence will not be used to make a protein - it must also have the nucleotide sequence that means it is recognised as a gene and translated. But if the protein product has no value then there is no reason to recognise it as a gene - so the regulatory sequence must arise (by chance) in close association with, and at about the same time as, the sequence that arises (by chance) to code for a useful protein. Why is it that evolutionary texts never even mention this?

This shows yet again that things are even more complicated, and this just keeps popping up - everything is more complex than just about anyone thinks.

I've also read a bit on his website Evolution under the microscope, and it's interesting as well. I guess it's probably a summary of what's in his book.

 

[flashgordonv]

Wow. Mandatory Intellectomy. Congratulations. What a brilliant article. Clear. concise and educational. Anybody who reads that and doesn't come away with a new appreciation of the nonsense of Darwinism and the necessity for Intelligent Design is kidding themselves. I've posted this to FB, shoudl bring some interesting comments.

 

[Wandering Star]

I take off my coat, Mandatory Intellectomy! I bow in "Martial Arts" salute in the utmost respect!

You are a hammer hitting the nail with precision every time.

Wonderful!. In line with all your contributions in this forum.

 

[goyacobol]

The article is finally up: Darwinism, Creationism... How about Neither? -- Sott.net

Mandatory Intellectomy, I concur with Flashgordonv and Wandering Star that you did an astounding job in pulling together everything we have been discussing here. I also think you balanced your arguments by leaving it up to the reader to come to their own conclusions in a way that honors what true science should be and that is to stick to what we know for now and leave the future open to new discoveries.

I think you should continue to write these kinds of articles if you like doing it.

I am sure you have spent many hours thinking about the concepts you have written about and I think it certainly shows. I couldn't think of anything you left out.

Kudos upon kudos!

 

[Laura]

The article is finally up: Darwinism, Creationism... How about Neither? -- Sott.net

Thanks for the opportunity, and thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread!

At one point in the article, I mention a blog by Dawid Swift, author of "Evolution under the Microscope", which sounds like a great book.

I would just like to bring attention to the blog here, because it's really interesting stuff: Evolution under the microscope

Brilliant piece of work and an enjoyable read. Made my morning.

I propose that we create a list of articles and blog posts by others, etc, post it here, and everybody take a copy of the list, and every day post one or more links on FB and Twitter and other social media with maybe a short comment, or snip from the article. If a couple dozen people would do this faithfully, as a service to humanity, it might be enough of a butterfly wing's flap to initiate a change.

When an ocean liner is going full speed ahead at an iceberg, it takes a lot of coordinated effort to slow it down and turn it around. I don't know if we can do it, but we sure ought to try.

Anybody up for it?

 

[flashgordonv]

Brilliant piece of work and an enjoyable read. Made my morning.

I propose that we create a list of articles and blog posts by others, etc, post it here, and everybody take a copy of the list, and every day post one or more links on FB and Twitter and other social media with maybe a short comment, or snip from the article. If a couple dozen people would do this faithfully, as a service to humanity, it might be enough of a butterfly wing's flap to initiate a change.

When an ocean liner is going full speed ahead at an iceberg, it takes a lot of coordinated effort to slow it down and turn it around. I don't know if we can do it, but we sure ought to try.

Anybody up for it?

Absolutely! I'm in.