This is in response to a similarly titled post from a friend of mine, Bob Murphy. Before I proceed I should mention that we both go way back, almost 7 years and I have him to thank for helping me out with a number of questions I have regarding economic phenomenon. Most recently this includes several questions in my interview with Peter Schiff as well as my previous article on Petrodollars and Inflation.
However, this post is not necessarily directed at him, but rather is an excuse to close a number of tabs I have open in my browser.
To get started, be sure to read Bob’s post about why ID is scientific. I posted a comment at the bottom and have been meaning to respond to the rebuttal.
Better yet, be sure to read through the issues he raises in these three sequential threads (1 2 3)
He made the following comment in reply to me:
Good question, but I’m going to punt on it. I haven’t kept up with this stuff since I really got into it about 3 years ago. So the obvious stuff: Cataloguing ever more examples of “irreducibly complex” features of organisms. E.g. if there were compelling neo-Darwinian stories for everything except the human iris, then that would be one thing. But if there are tons and tons of cases where the biologists have to say, “Well, maybe some day we’ll come up with an explanation. You can’t prove that we won’t!” then the case for the neo-Darwinian story is weaker and weaker.
As luck would have it, a brand new video was made that quickly discusses the evolution of the vertebrate eye. Furthermore the wiki entry on the evolution of the eye is extremely comprehensive.
While I am not an optometrist I do believe this material makes a convincing case for natural selection.
Furthermore, if you have a chance be sure to watch Chapter 8 of the excellent video, Judgement Day, which dramatizes the Dover decision.
When ID supporter Michael Behe was on the hot seat in Dover he made his case regarding bacteria flagellum (see the transcript of the video here). His is the lead proponent of the theory of irreducible complexity which essentially says certain organelles are too complex to have evolved from one step to another because there is no evolutionary need to produce the intermediary steps.
However, he was rebuffed at the hearing by David Derosier, the very scientist he tried to quote as supporting his theory. Derosier is still an active expert in the bacteria flagellum field (which is obviously gigantic and super sexy). In the documentary he noted that in fact the little mechanical tail that whips back and forth probably evolved from the rod found in Yersinia pestis, the same little guy that caused the Bubonic Plague.
In fact, the rod has all of the foundational underpinnings that the flagellum currently uses! QED Derosier.
As far as evidence piling up in support of “irreducible complexity” it appears this is untrue too. For instance the clotting system found in mammals that fish lack is something Behe suggests is IC. Yet, based on nearly two decades of research by Russell Doolittle, this again appears to be incorrect.
The hits keep coming
While this post is hardly designed to be entirely comprehensive of the issues discussed, I’d like to throw one more errata into the ring.
It seems that our friend Mr. Generic Lizard appears to be capable of evolving on new homesteads. On an island in the Adriatic, five wall lizards evolved to a point where their digestive systems and heads changed dramatically due to copious amounts of flora it could fearlessly gobble up (… I know, genocide! is what Ben Stein will cry).
Another point from Bob that I’d like to counter is this:
E.g. physicists can use experiments to try to determine the charge on an electron. But it goes beyond the boundaries of science to ask why the charge should be that, and not some other number.
Last week I quipped back, ‘I don’t think that modern-day speciation would somehow unravel because fossil hunters digging through geographic strata are unable to detail exactly why a positron has a mass of 511 KeV.’
This is not the first time I’ve been confronted with this situation. Another friend of mine, Libertarian Jackass (yea, he used to run that popular blog) posted a comment here over three years ago (I never forget!):
This is ridiculous. Even IF you can explain how Chemical X mixes with Chemical Y to produce XYX, you STILL can’t explain why it must be so. Even if you can explain why the sky is blue, why must it be blue? You’ll still never be able to answer those questions…
In retrospect, my response to him was retarded. However, I do believe there are natural explanations for this phenomenon. For instance, diffuse sky radiation is the reason why the sky is blue.
Furthermore, as I mentioned to Bob, the underlying question of “why do certain particles have certain charges” does not in any manner change the explanatory power of biological evolution. Just because a biologist may be currently unable to explain a particular cellular activity or engineering process does not mean that a top-down designer is the creator.
In addition, ignoring all of biology for a minute, what does ID have to say for astronomy? I know what Hugh Ross thinks, but he’s an OEC. And this is an area that I consider myself fairly well-informed and believe that ID has zero explanation for. The fine-tuning argument is entirely backwards. The reason why bacteria, let alone humanity was able to thrive on this rock was not because of some miraculous supernaturalism, but rather because every bit of life adapted to every extreme condition threw at it.
It’s the same reason I doubt there is any complex quasi-intelligent life anywhere in this galaxy: it is very difficult, near impossible for life to survive and evolve to our relatively complex conditions. Miracle, no. Testable, yes.
And for those who have seen Expelled, every one of the cases in which Stein states someone was fired over academic freedom was absolutely wrong. Not one person lost their job or was denied tenureship for their advocacy of ID.
As I mentioned to Bob, from all accounts it appears that with Expelled, the advocates of ID wasted a perfectly good opportunity to educate the masses with regards to the science of ID. Instead they focused on sensational politics, personalities and academia. What about testable or duplicatable explanations?
See the following articles discussing this specific question/topic:
Stellar Appreciation Day
How long did it take for the rings to form around Saturn?
Long distance phone calls in outer space
Are Half-Lives Legit or Just Something Sagan Liked?
Fighting debris with debris creates more debris
Admitting You Are Wrong On Easter
Intelligent Design and the Light-Year