Comments on Michael Behe at it againTypePad2005-02-10T03:25:50ZSkepticohttps://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/michael_behe_at/comments/atom.xml/exarch commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d83491ed9453ef2006-06-06T11:18:08Z2007-08-19T12:57:50ZexarchSomeone linked to this, and so I felt inclined to respond. Sorry to dredge this old cow up. Dana Hata...<p>Someone linked to this, and so I felt inclined to respond. Sorry to dredge this old cow up.</p>
<p>Dana Hata made a good point:<br />
<i>The earth's magnetosphere appears to have the purpose of protecting the earth from radiation, though that doesn't mean it was designed to do so (creationists may disagree).</i></p>
<p>The earth's magnetosphere is an excellent example of the <b>appearance</b> of design though. While it stops dangerous radiation that might kill most life on earth, that doesn't mean it was designed to do that. If the earth had a layer that stopped <b>all</b> sunlight from getting through to the surface, we might find life here that would die when exposed to direct sunlight. But that doesn't mean this hypothetical layer was designed to protect such life, just that life forms that die when exposed to direct sunlight are rare on this planet for the simple reason that most places on this planet get anywhere between 6 to 16 hours of direct sunlight a day, so they simply wouldn't survive here very long. If the earth had such a hypothetical layer, it <i>could</i> survive.</p>
<p>This is why the <i>appearance</i> of design is so misleading.</p>Torbjorn Larsson commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8347fb94e53ef2006-04-03T00:53:23Z2007-08-18T13:32:27ZTorbjorn Larsson"In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution," Bait and switch, works every time. "the...<p>"In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution,"</p>
<p>Bait and switch, works every time.</p>
<p>"the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed."</p>
<p>That's the US public. Is ID only meant to be applicable in US? </p>
<p>BTW, isn't repetitive Beheviour symptomatic for some problems? Just wondering.</p>Rockstar commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d83455ab8653ef2005-09-07T15:17:02Z2007-08-18T12:01:03ZRockstarhttp://rockstarramblings.blogspot.comEven with a verbal beatdown like that, he'll go on keeping the faith... Almost sad to see him go. Ah,...<p>Even with a verbal beatdown like that, he'll go on keeping the faith...</p>
<p>Almost sad to see him go. Ah, well. We'd probably never change his mind.</p>BronzeDog commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d83455ad5553ef2005-09-07T14:59:59Z2007-08-18T12:00:44ZBronzeDogAnd thus ends our efforts to bludgeon the obvious into someone's head. Oh well. Since he won't be around to...<p>And thus ends our efforts to bludgeon the obvious into someone's head. Oh well.</p>
<p>Since he won't be around to waste our time anymore, I'll contribute: The correct answer to the time-travelling circuit board or whatever, is that he wouldn't know. It wouldn't be <i>completely</i> unreasonable to infer design, but that might just be my knowledge of circuit boards speaking.</p>
<p>Until IDers come up with some positive way to test for design (claiming nature can't make X is a negative), ID will remain the useless non-science nonsense it is now.</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8348b026569e22005-09-07T02:31:13Z2007-08-18T11:54:25ZSkepticoAlbert/Phoenix: I see you’ve chosen to play semantics and avoid the question. Up to you, but if you won’t answer...<p>Albert/Phoenix:</p>
<p>I see you’ve chosen to play semantics and avoid the question. Up to you, but if you won’t answer the difficult questions about your beliefs, then (to coin a phrase), “full knowledge will never be gained” (by you, I mean). </p>
<p>Re: <b> But I would say just as Darwin would know that the PC board was not of natural origin the paleo- archeologist would know the items you listed were not of natural origin.</b></p>
<p>Darwin <i>would not</i> know the PC board was designed – how would he “know” that? That is your fallacy – it “looks” designed, so it is. To Darwin it could be anything. By “looks” designed, you really mean that you know it is designed because you know what it is. Other things that you think “look designed” (such as DNA) are not. What you mean here is that they are complex and you don’t see how they could not have been designed, so they were. Also a fallacy.</p>
<p>Re: <b> You need not banned me. I will banned myself. It was nice chatting with you.<br />
Bye! </b></p>
<p>Oh go play victim somewhere else.</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8348b004a69e22005-09-07T01:32:02Z2007-08-18T12:24:25ZPhoenixRe: It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was...<p>Re: It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.<br />
Don’t say that they known there was an intelligent designer that is how they deduced the rock was designed. It is from finding the carved stone that the paleo-archeologist deduces that that it must have come from an intelligent designer. It is from the artifacts that are left behind by the designer, that the paleo-archeologist determines if the creature is intelligent.</p>
<p>Skeptico, I think you are using one those creationist ploys. The above was the exchange we had before you asked the question: “How do they know that?” You are taking the last sentence and reading more into than what was intended. But I would say just as Darwin would know that the PC board was not of natural origin the paleo- archeologist would know the items you listed were not of natural origin.</p>
<p>I probably would be banned from the Creationist site to.</p>
<p>You need not banned me. I will banned myself. It was nice chatting with you.<br />
Bye!</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8348af4b369e22005-09-06T19:38:48Z2007-08-18T12:18:09ZSkepticoAlbert/Phoenix Re: Skeptico,I did not say by “knowing how rocks fracture” that you could determine that those objects did not...<p>Albert/Phoenix</p>
<p>Re: <b> Skeptico,I did not say by “knowing how rocks fracture” that you could determine that those objects did not occur naturally. </b></p>
<p>Yes you did. You said exactly that. This was the exchange:</p>
<blockquote> Albert/Phoenix: “They know that they did not occur naturally”
<p>Skeptico: “How do they know that?”</p>
<p>Albert/Phoenix: “They know by studying rocks and how they fracture.” </blockquote> </p>
<p>You are intellectually dishonest Albert/Phoenix, and you’re beginning to piss me off.</p>
<p>Re: <b> There are many types of artifacts left by man. Some which are no more than rock chips. </b></p>
<p>Correct. Which is why I said, please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:</p>
<p>• Flint spearheads or other weapons<br />
• Cookery pots<br />
• Decorative beads<br />
• Cave drawings</p>
<p>(Or choose another artifact that archeologists might discover – your choice.)</p>
<p>So what is your problem?</p>
<p>Re: <b> The hypothetical I gave you, illustrates the same thing as I was trying to get across to you as finding a fractured rock and knowing that it did not occur naturally without knowing if it had a purpose. </b></p>
<p>I know exactly what you were driving at. I can and will explain the error in your reasoning, but first you must answer my question:</p>
<p>HOW DO ARCHEOLOGISTS KNOW THAT THE ARTIFACTS THEY FIND WERE DESIGNED?</p>
<p>Last chance. Any more evasions of attempts to misdirect and I will simply ban your IP from making any more comments. I’m sick of this nonsense now – answer the question.<br />
</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d834558bc453ef2005-09-06T19:21:04Z2007-08-18T11:48:49ZPhoenixRockstar, Show me were I make this claim.<p>Rockstar,</p>
<p>Show me were I make this claim. <br />
</p>Rockstar commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d834558b3653ef2005-09-06T18:24:07Z2007-08-18T12:16:59ZRockstarhttp://rockstarramblings.blogspot.comYour claim dude. This was YOUR claim: It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at...<p>Your claim dude. </p>
<p><b>This was YOUR claim:</p>
<p>It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose. <br />
When I asked how they did this, you said:</p>
<p>They know by studying rocks and how they fracture. <br />
So, answer the question I had relating to that claim:</p>
<p>Please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:</p>
<p>• Flint spearheads or other weapons<br />
• Cookery pots<br />
• Decorative beads</b></p>
<p>Can those not be made of stone? Or are you no longer supporting your claim?</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d83455878253ef2005-09-06T17:02:54Z2007-08-18T11:46:54ZPhoenixRockstar, This is just quibbling.<p>Rockstar,<br />
This is just quibbling.<br />
</p>Rockstar commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d83455880653ef2005-09-06T16:44:59Z2007-08-18T11:46:39ZRockstarhttp://rockstarramblings.blogspot.comSo is that like a reverse strawman? I'm confused. artifact: An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a...<p>So is that like a reverse strawman? I'm confused. </p>
<p><b> artifact: An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool, weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest.</b>- from www.dictionary.com<br />
<br />
</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d83455839053ef2005-09-06T15:57:33Z2007-08-18T11:44:45ZPhoenixRe: It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was...<p>Re: It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.</p>
<p>Don’t say that they known there was an intelligent designer that is how they deduced the rock was designed. It is from finding the carved stone that the paleo-archeologist deduces that that it must have come from an intelligent designer. It is from the artifacts that are left behind by the designer, that the paleo-archeologist determines if the creature is intelligent.</p>
<p>They know the artifacts were designed because they know what they are – what their purpose was. How else would they know the artifacts were designed?</p>
<p><br />
Rockstar, unless I am missing something I am talking about stones and nothing else.</p>Rockstar commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8345583d053ef2005-09-06T15:49:32Z2007-08-18T11:44:40ZRockstarhttp://rockstarramblings.blogspot.comSeriously, Albert, are you fucking kidding me? If you forgot: Re: They know that they did not occur naturally How...<p>Seriously, Albert, are you fucking kidding me? If you forgot:</p>
<p>Re: They know that they did not occur naturally </p>
<p>How do they know that?</p>
<p><br />
Posted by: Skeptico | September 04, 2005 </p>
<p><br />
Re: How do they know that?</p>
<p>They know by studying rocks and how they fracture.</p>
<p><br />
Posted by: Phoenix | September 04, 2005 </p>
<p>Unless your usage of the pronoun "they" differs from the rest of the English speaking world, it is not conjecture. You made a claim, now you're trying to get out of backing it up. So back it up or admit you're wrong like a big boy.</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8348aeac569e22005-09-06T15:41:44Z2007-08-18T11:44:49ZPhoenixSkeptico,I did not say by “knowing how rocks fracture” that you could determine that those objects did not occur naturally....<p>Skeptico,I did not say by “knowing how rocks fracture” that you could determine that those objects did not occur naturally. That is your conjecture. There are many types of artifacts left by man. Some which are no more than rock chips. </p>
<p>The hypothetical I gave you, illustrates the same thing as I was trying to get across to you as finding a fractured rock and knowing that it did not occur naturally without knowing if it had a purpose.<br />
</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8348ae8b469e22005-09-06T14:28:22Z2007-08-18T11:45:04ZSkepticoPhoenix/Albert: No, YOU are the one who is evading the question. This was YOUR claim: It is common practice in...<p>Phoenix/Albert:</p>
<p>No, YOU are the one who is evading the question.</p>
<p>This was YOUR claim:</p>
<blockquote> It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose. </blockquote>
<p>When I asked how they did this, you said:</p>
<blockquote>They know by studying rocks and how they fracture. </blockquote>
<p>So, answer the question I had relating to that claim:</p>
<p>Please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:</p>
<p>• Flint spearheads or other weapons<br />
• Cookery pots<br />
• Decorative beads<br />
• Cave drawings</p>
<p>(Or choose another artifact that archeologists might discover – your choice.)</p>
<p>YOU are evading the question by asking me another question, and hoping to distract me from the fact that you cannot or will not answer the question. It won’t work and I am not going to stand for your evasion any more. Answer the question. <br />
</p>Rockstar commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8345580a153ef2005-09-06T14:08:55Z2007-08-18T12:15:18ZRockstarhttp://rockstarramblings.blogspot.comAh, an IDiot found Skeptico! Time for apologetics! The ID textbook, in full. Free of charge! Q: insert any who,...<p>Ah, an IDiot found Skeptico! Time for apologetics!</p>
<p>The ID textbook, in full. Free of charge!</p>
<p>Q: <i>insert any who, what, when, why, how question here</i></p>
<p>A: <b>God did it</b>.</p>
<p>Did I leave anything out?</p>BronzeDog commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8348ae5f769e22005-09-06T13:30:31Z2007-08-18T12:13:35ZBronzeDogHe's not evading the question. You're just not seeing the fallacies inherent in it. Even if he did answer it,...<p>He's not evading the question. You're just not seeing the fallacies inherent in it.</p>
<p>Even if he did answer it, I don't think it would mean anything. I've got a possible answer, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time with it.</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8348ae4e169e22005-09-06T12:29:48Z2007-08-18T12:14:15ZPhoenixIf we found one now we would know what it was for and so we know it was designed, but...<p>If we found one now we would know what it was for and so we know it was designed, but amplifier PCBs were not in existence at Darwin’s time, so irrelevant and a non sequitur.</p>
<p>You are evading the question. The principle here is the same as what Intelligent Design advocates are saying. Can Darwin reach any conclusion about the PC board with the knowledge he had at the time he found the board?<br />
</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d83455701053ef2005-09-06T00:46:02Z2007-08-18T12:07:46ZSkepticoRe: On one of Darwin’s visits to the Galapagos Islands he found an amplifier printed circuit board lying under some...<p>Re: <b> On one of Darwin’s visits to the Galapagos Islands he found an amplifier printed circuit board lying under some bushes. What conclusion can Darwin come to about the printed circuit board? Can he answer these questions: Does it have a purpose? Is it designed? Was there a designer? Was it formed by some yet undiscovered natural force? </b></p>
<p>If we found one now we would know what it was for and so we know it was designed, but amplifier PCBs were not in existence at Darwin’s time, so irrelevant and a non sequitur.</p>
<p>Now, please answer my question. Please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, <b>with references</b>, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:</p>
<p>• Flint spearheads or other weapons<br />
• Cookery pots<br />
• Decorative beads<br />
• Cave drawings</p>
<p>(Or choose another artifact that archeologists might discover – your choice.)</p>
<p>Stop evading the question. It was your claim, please justify it.<br />
</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d834556e3453ef2005-09-05T23:55:04Z2007-08-18T12:08:49ZPhoenixSkeptico, Hypothetical: On one of Darwin’s visits to the Galapagos Islands he found an amplifier printed circuit board lying under...<p>Skeptico,</p>
<p>Hypothetical:</p>
<p>On one of Darwin’s visits to the Galapagos Islands he found an amplifier printed circuit board lying under some bushes. What conclusion can Darwin come to about the printed circuit board? Can he answer these questions: Does it have a purpose? Is it designed? Was there a designer? Was it formed by some yet undiscovered natural force?<br />
</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8345551f753ef2005-09-05T00:20:46Z2007-08-18T11:27:31ZSkepticoPlease explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that...<p>Please explain what they know about “rocks and how they fracture”, with references, that shows how they would know that any of the following did not occur naturally:</p>
<p>• Flint spearheads or other weapons<br />
• Cookery pots<br />
• Decorative beads<br />
• Cave drawings</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d834554ff753ef2005-09-04T23:35:10Z2007-08-18T11:25:52ZPhoenixRe: How do they know that? They know by studying rocks and how they fracture.<p><br />
Re: How do they know that?</p>
<p>They know by studying rocks and how they fracture.<br />
</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8348ab69769e22005-09-04T21:38:31Z2007-08-18T11:56:01ZSkepticoRe: They know that they did not occur naturally How do they know that?<p>Re: <b> They know that they did not occur naturally </b></p>
<p>How do they know that?<br />
</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d834554e1953ef2005-09-04T21:21:57Z2007-08-18T11:25:07ZPhoenixRe: They know the artifacts were designed because they know what they are – what their purpose was. How else...<p>Re: They know the artifacts were designed because they know what they are – what their purpose was. How else would they know the artifacts were designed?</p>
<p>They know that they did not occur naturally; therefore they deduce they must have been designed for some purpose. </p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d834554ac953ef2005-09-04T19:24:07Z2007-08-18T11:24:19ZSkepticoRe: In these two cases we can say that there are NO natural random forces that can produce these objects....<p>Re: <b> In these two cases we can say that there are NO natural random forces that can produce these objects. This we are not ignorant about! </b></p>
<p>Aha, now you’re saying no natural <i>random</i> forces.</p>
<p>First, this is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" rel="nofollow">No True Scotsman</a> logical fallacy – you have subtly changed your claim (adding “random”), while phrasing your reply in a way that implies you had meant this originally. </p>
<p>Secondly, it is also a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" rel="nofollow">Straw Man</a> fallacy – EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.</p>
<p>Third, you can still only say no <i>known</i> natural forces can do that. It is only your own lack of knowledge that is making you say that, and (once again), you cannot draw any conclusions from a lack of knowledge.</p>
<p>Re: <b> It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.</p>
<p>Don’t say that they known there was an intelligent designer that is how they deduced the rock was designed. It is from finding the carved stone that the paleo-archeologist deduces that that it must have come from an intelligent designer. It is from the artifacts that are left behind by the designer, that the paleo-archeologist determines if the creature is intelligent.</b></p>
<p>They know the artifacts were designed because they know what they are – what their purpose was. How else would they know the artifacts were designed?<br />
</p> commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8348ab2b269e22005-09-04T18:58:36Z2007-08-18T11:24:10ZRe: Specifically it’s argument from ignorance - no known natural, unguided force can do that. In these two cases we...<p>Re: Specifically it’s argument from ignorance - no known natural, unguided force can do that.</p>
<p>In these two cases we can say that there are NO natural random forces that can produce these objects. This we are not ignorant about!</p>
<p>It is common practice in paleo-archeology to deduct that a stone found at a dig, or else where, was the result of an intelligent designer; even before they know if it has any purpose.</p>
<p>Don’t say that they known there was an intelligent designer that is how they deduced the rock was designed. It is from finding the carved stone that the paleo-archeologist deduces that that it must have come from an intelligent designer. It is from the artifacts that are left behind by the designer, that the paleo-archeologist determines if the creature is intelligent.</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8345549c753ef2005-09-04T18:24:13Z2007-08-18T11:25:27ZSkepticoYes, a lot of people would think that, but it’s fallacious reasoning. Specifically it’s argument from ignorance - no known...<p>Yes, a lot of people would think that, but it’s fallacious reasoning. Specifically it’s <a href="http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php" rel="nofollow"> argument from ignorance </a> - no <i>known</i> natural, unguided force can do that. But just because you don’t know of one doesn’t mean there isn’t one. You are drawing a conclusion from a lack of knowledge, but you <a href="http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/lack_critical_t.html" rel="nofollow">cannot draw any conclusions from a lack of knowledge</a>.</p>Phoenix commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8345547d753ef2005-09-04T16:48:36Z2007-08-18T11:24:41ZPhoenixRe: Let’s analyze it. We know that Mt Rushmore/watch were designed because they have a purpose. Really, I would think...<p>Re: Let’s analyze it. We know that Mt Rushmore/watch were designed because they have a purpose.</p>
<p>Really, I would think because no known natural, unguided force can produce them.</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8347b972e69e22005-05-23T20:28:50Z2007-08-17T06:10:20ZSkepticoDana Hata: You posted You can't actually know if something has a purpose without already knowing the answer to the...<p>Dana Hata:</p>
<p>You posted</p>
<p><b>You can't actually know if something has a purpose without already knowing the answer to the design question.</b></p>
<p>Correct. That's why it would be circular reasoning to do so - ie you can't assume purpose so you can't assume design. </p>Dana Hata commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8344612b153ef2005-05-23T04:14:56Z2007-08-17T05:58:47ZDana HataGreat site! I was poking around here and I got stuck on your watch-Rushmore-living organism analogy bit. You mentioned that...<p>Great site! I was poking around here and I got stuck on your watch-Rushmore-living organism analogy bit. You mentioned that "If something has a purpose, it must have a designer." That got me thinking really hard. You can't actually know if something has a purpose without already knowing the answer to the design question. We don't know that the watch was designed because it has a purpose, but rather because we know it was designed (we know where watches come from because we are told so). For this argument, you have to change the actors to uninformed ones, just as we are uniformed about the origin of the living organism. So the curious watch investigator has to be an alien or something. This alien would notice that the watch has the *appearance* of purpose (and therefore may *think* it was designed, but certainly would not *know*). However, if something has the appearance of purpose, it does not mean it must have a designer. The earth's magnetosphere appears to have the purpose of protecting the earth from radiation, though that doesn't mean it was designed to do so (creationists may disagree). The key message here is that you can't really talk about purpose in the way you have constructed your argument, but the appearance of purpose. Think about what you meant by the term "purpose" and reapply it to your two arguments for fallacies having been made, and you'll find, sadly, that neither work. Keep up the effort though, I'm sure other fallacies were made!</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8346e005169e22005-03-04T05:54:01Z2007-08-16T17:42:58ZSkepticoNote: Following from the above discussion, I have edited the post to add the word "scientific". Paragraph two now reads,...<p>Note:</p>
<p>Following from the above discussion, I have edited the post to add the word "scientific". Paragraph two now reads, "ID is not a scientific theory". Thanks to Alan Watson for pointing out the mistake.</p>Skeptico commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d83437001d53ef2005-02-13T19:31:51Z2007-04-24T11:06:04ZSkepticoAlan: thanks for your comments. You are correct about the word “theory”. I should have said, ID is not a...<p>Alan: thanks for your comments.</p>
<p>You are correct about the word “theory”. I should have said, ID is not a scientific theory. As you suggest, Behe is saying that ID is a scientific theory, since he presents it as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.</p>
<p>Regarding “purpose”. How would aliens recognize Mt. Rushmore as being designed unless they knew it was a model of something? They don’t need to know exactly what it is a model of, to know it is a model.</p>
<p>We know Mt. Rushmore and the watch are both designed. Behe suggests they are complex, as is life, and by analogy life must be designed. But he is just assuming that all complex things must have been designed. The reason we know Mt. Rushmore and the watch were designed is not because they are complex, it is because we know they had a purpose. </p>
<p>The watchmaker had a purpose. The watch had to tell the time, have two hands, 12 numbers, a case to keep the dust out, a bracelet etc. So the watchmaker started with the purpose and worked backwards to what he needed to fulfill that purpose. Evolution has no purpose. That’s the key difference. <br />
</p>Alan Watson commented on 'Michael Behe at it again'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451df0c69e200d8346c45ba69e22005-02-13T01:17:23Z2007-04-24T11:02:24ZAlan WatsonEvolution is the only cogent and coherent explanation for the existence of life on earth. It is falsifiable and directly...<p>Evolution is the only cogent and coherent explanation for the existence of life on earth. It is falsifiable and directly addresses questions that arise from observation of life forms and ties together different disciplines. Many predictions have been made based on evolution and have been shown over and over to be correct. To seriously question evolution is to willfully ignore facts.</p>
<p>That being said, ID is absolutely a theory. “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.” –www.dictionary.com </p>
<p>By this definition ID is a theory. However it doesn't meet the definition of scientific theory which I am sure is what you mean. Behe either doesn’t understand the distinction or is dishonest in his use of the word. </p>
<p>“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” –www.dictionary.com</p>
<p>I’m at a bit of a loss as to your “purpose” argument. This could simply be my ignorance though. It seems to me that if aliens from another planet came across the figures carved in Mount Rushmore they could deduce that the carvings were “intelligently designed” without deducing any purpose. Anthropologists studying carvings on rocks can deduce that they are intelligently designed without deducing any purpose. Perhaps the drawings were simply to amuse the artist, perhaps life is simply to amuse some supreme being.</p>
<p>It does not bother me at all that early people tried to fill in the gaps with god. Humans naturally desire to find meaning in life. It is one of our hallmarks (yes, I’m sure other primates and perhaps others in the animal world seek meaning but not to our degree).</p>
<p>The problem with ID, as you have already pointed out, is that while it might be a starting point for philosophical thought it is in all reality a non-starter. There is no where to go from there. There is nothing to test, no predictions to be made, no coherent explanation for differences between the same species living in different location except that some intelligent force wanted it that way. More importantly there IS a competing theory, one that is scientific and not simply conjecture.<br />
</p>