[Professor Okimoto writes, "ID can make no predictions on the difference between natural mutations and selection and designed systems."

This is incorrect. ID can does make such predictions. Behe's approach, for example, predicts that attempt to generate IC systems using undirected natural processes will fail in real time. That is a definite prediction, and readily falsifiable.]

You are incorrect and you miss the point, mutations are mutations there is nothing about the changes that they can point to that tells them that they are designed. They can't even tell us if the hemoglobin S allele that causes sickle cell anemia is a designed mutation or a random mutation that has been selected in the population where malaria is prevalent. This mutations has a complex interaction with cell physiology that inhibits parasite reproduction. How does this example fail in real time? It is a single base-pair mutation. Behe also admits that a stick falling between two rocks forms an IC system by chance. I guess only the IC systems that we don't understand can pass your IC test, so what good is it?

["How will we determine the designed differences from the random mutations?"

One way is this: We can try to determine what is the shortest sequence of mutations from one genotype to the other, and figure out whether the number of mutations involved is consistent with what is independently known about rates of mutation, genetic drift, etc.]

It is too bad that they can't do this for the systems that they have to use. What is the shortest sequence of mutations for the flagellum when you don't know what protein genes were available and what their sequences were in the organisms that first evolved flagellum and you don't even know what the original design was?

["SETI would be doomed if all they expected to find were unlikely combinations of naturally occurring signals."

Good point. I'm glad I never asserted such a thing.]

It is a good point because that is just what IC and ID do. They are doomed to failure by your own admission. The changes are no different than the mutations we observe in lifeforms today.

["We have lifeforms."

Yes.

"We know they got here somehow."

Yes.

"The only means of origin of these lifeforms that we have evidence for are natural means. We have no evidence of any outside interference (space alien or supernatural)."

No. Irreducible complexity is prima facie evidence of non-natural means.]

IC is just evidence for IC it is not evidence for design because nothing about design can be inferred from it. Why would they need a probability argument if IC were evidence for design? It is obvious that IC isn't evidence for design it is simple complexity. If the system is too complex for someone to calculate the probabilities for how it evolved that satisfies the criteria just as well. You don't need the IC propaganda you just reverted to the old creationist probability argument. Without the bogus probability argument that depends on probabilities that we cannot calculate at this time what does IC have that infers design? Face it, Behe has admitted that IC systems could evolve by natural means, but the ones that he is most interested in are the ones that look too complex to have evolved. Is the blood clotting systme IC? Looks like it. Is there evidence that it evolved? Too much evidence for the proponents of IC but not enough to get a really good picture of how it evolved or calculate probabilities. Solution? Move on to the flagellum because you don't want to draw attention to the evidence that we do have and the short comings of the IC methodology.

["The only evidence that opponents have is that they don't understand something, so we should give up and go with something that we have no evidence even exists."

No. We *do* understand something about irreducibly complex systems, namely that the ones whose origin we have direct knowledge of are all made by intelligent agents. That's real knowledge, and it simply won't do to ignore it. And as I've had to point out repeatedly, evidence for design is evidence for the existence of a designer. Further evidence, though no doubt welcome, is not necessary.]

You have made this claim in another post and it is not true. A thunderhead is an IC system that produces lightning bolts. Change one part of the system and you might get rain and no lightning or just a cloud or no cloud at all. Does this mean that the followers of Thor can take heart from the new IC notions? What is the probability that all the atoms and molecules in the thunderhead came together in just that fashion? The probability is pretty low (essentially zero) that any single cloud will ever form again so what use is this type of probability argument? So the back probabilities are pretty low, but we know that thunderheads form all the time under the right conditions. The thing is that we can't calculate the probabilities because we need to know the initial conditions and even if we do, we have an incomplete understanding of nature and we have problems estimating these probabilities in a fashion that would serve us in storm prediction. We have even less understanding of the initial conditions that gave rise to the flagellum. If you can't see the problem you probably never will. The probability argument is not testable at this time for the systems that they are using. If it is testable why haven't they tested it by now? Potentially testable is not the same as testable. Why is it up to opponents to figure out some way to test their hypotheses?

What about ocean currents? What about tornadoes? What about the complex termite mounds that are so well designed. Plug the ventilation holes and see how long the colony lasts. Are the termites intelligent or were they just designed by a crafty designer?

Watch out for arguments from ignorance.

-- Ron Okimoto, Asst. Prof. (posted 2/12, 9:50 a.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.