Behe and design inference: What does it mean?

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Sun Oct 01 2000 - 16:42:17 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: "Re: intelligence without a brain"

    What is design?

    Behe

    It might be interesting to try to establish what Behe means by design or
    intelligent design.

      "Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts."

      pp 193 Darwin's Black Box

    But this means that we have to detect purpose. Can natural forces lead to a
    purposeful arrangement of parts? Of course. If design is merely defined as
    above then natural forces can lead to design. So how does one eliminate
    natural forces as the designer?

      "The problem with the statement -- that anything could have been
      purposefully arranged -- is that "we cannot know that something has not
      been designed." So then, how can we confidently detect design?"

      pp. 194 Ibid

    Behe recognizes that anything could be purposefully designed so how does one
    confidently detect design? But even if we can detect design confidently, he
    still has to deal with the problem that one cannot exclude natural designers
    without more evidence.

      "For discrete physical systems-if there is not a gradual route to their
      production-design is evident when a number of separate , interacting
      components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond
      the individual components. The greater the specificity of the
      interacting components required to produce the function, the greater is
      our confidence in the conclusion of design."
      pp 194 Ibid

    So detecting design is not that hard, we just see purpose in something and
    detect design. But that is not going to help us detect if something was
    naturally designed or not. So how does Behe infers design? By elimination of
    gradual routes and there is specificity of the interacting componentes
    required to produce the function, then our confidence in detecting design is
    greater. But that still does not allow us to eliminate natural pathways,
    unless natural pathways are "gradual routes".

    So in case of IC we have identified function and specificity, is this enough
    to detect or infer design? Behe seems to disagree. There is also the
    elimination of gradual routes.

    Behe

      "We must also consuder the role of the laws of nature. The laws of
      nature can organize matter --for example, water flow can build up silt
      sufficiently to dam a portion of a river, forcing it to change its
      course. The most relevant laws are those of biological reproduction,
      mutation and natural selection. If a biological structure can be
      explained in terms of those natural laws, then we cannot conclude that
      it was designed."
      pp 203 Darwins Black Box

      So how does Behe infer design for IC systems?

      "Throughout this book, however, I have shown why many biochemical
      systems cannot be built up by natural selection working on mutations: No
      direct, gradual route exists to these irreducibly complex systems, and
      the laws of chemistry work strongly against the undirected development
      of the biochemical systems that make molecules such as AMP."

      So one has to show that no gradual routes exist before one can conclude
      that it was designed.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 16:42:31 EDT