I've read Behe's argument but don't understand why you think it is a 'God of the gaps' one?
He basically argues that Random Mutation + Natural Selection can't account for the origin of life or for "irreducibly complex" systems.
I think this follows logically from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Have I misunderstood him?
Just a side note: If you're using wikipedia for information on "hot-button" topics, be wary. The articles are supposed to have a NPOV (Neutral Point of View).
However, on articles related to ID there are ongoing editorial fights and censorship. Pro-evolution editors are refusing to adhere to the NPOV standard and instead rewriting explanations of ID, William Dembski, etc. put forward by the pro-id editors. They're also engaging in tactics that result in the pro-id editors being unable to fairly present ID and the work of its theoreticiaans - being banned, etc. Thus you're not necessarily getting and accurate statement on the matter.
that should be "present ID and the work of its theoreticians fairly"
I know that on hot topics the Wikki has just the weakness you outline. Abortion is another example.
I call Behe a God of the Gaps argument because it's impossible to know, in advance, that something is 'irreducably complex'. When all the other possibilities are rejected and God is brought in as the only alternative, then you have a 'gaps' argument. Perhaps the explanation will come tomorrow or 20 years from now. Then the 'gap' will be filled.
I prefer arguments for the divine that are metaphysical to those that are physical. Theologically speaking, I don't expect to find *clear* signs of God in physical things because then faith would not be freely chosen, we'd be obliged. The bible also tells us not to put faith to the test. I touched on this in the Emily Rose post when I mentioned how miracles need to be shrouded in mystery.
We don't need proof, we just need to be open to the possibility of God, then the compelling nature of that view can slowly be seen.
Btw, I'm still sitting on your e-mails from a while back and feeling guilty about it.
Don't worry about the e-mails if you're busy. They were meant as one-way comments, I wasn't expecting a response. Even if you did provide one, I doubt I'd understand all of it.
Anywayz, getting back to the subject. I still fail to see why! 
Maybe I'm just dense.
Let me try again. Random Mutation + Natural Selection (RM+NS) *requires* something to work on, i.e. it needs a an organism with particular abilities that reproduces. So it can't be invoked as an explanation for the *origin* of life.
It may serve as a mechanism for biological adaption - i.e. microevolution, but fails (due to Behe's irreducible complexity criteria) to explain speciation (which is what Darwin's theory attempts to explain).
However, even its strength in this area is now being doubted. New research on how bacteria develop antibiotic resistance suggests that it is the bacteria themselves that regulate the mutation rate in their DNA!!! Mutation rate is low if they are in favourable conditions while the introduction of an antibiotic causes them to "actively" increase the rate of mutation. They don't just sit around and wait for the stray cosmic ray that might cause a "random" mutation!
[Aside: Even at the bacterial level, it seems that "suffering"/"dying" causes "abundant life". God is Cool!]
I agree that it is not possible to know a priori which systems are irreducibly complex, i.e. systems that either work completely if all the necessary parts are present or not at all if even a single part is missing.
The failure of evolutionary theory to explain irreducibly complex systems (once found) is not an argument for God. It is an argument against Evolution, i.e. RM+NS causing speciation. Behe and IDers don't say that irreducible complexity + specified complexity + explanatory filters are arguments against Evolution and pro-God. They say that ID is an argument against Evolution (causing speciation) and pro-Intelligent Design.
[Aside: Behe doesn't posit God as the explanation. He assigns God as the Intelligent Designer but that is because he is Roman Catholic, not because he is pushing God into his biological argument.]
This explanatory failure is not due to a lack of knowledge of the flagellar motor and other IC systems. The failure is precisely because we know the systems is amazing detail. Every system presented as an "evolutionary stage" on the way to Behe's flagellar motor (for the past 7+ years) has been shown to be a descendant of the motor! Similar things have occurred in the blood clotting cascade!
Thus IDers argument (real IDers, not the Creationist-kooks jumping on the ID bandwagon) is anti-Darwinism and pro-Intelligent Design. It doesn't constitute emperical proof of God. It merely posits that it is reasonable to say that an intellegence (similar to ours) designed life. It says no more. Darwinists who demand "Who is the designer?" or "Who designed the designer?" need to look elsewhere.
contd...ID theory isn't metaphysics. Its logic, biology and mathematics.
My views: Thus your expectation for "clarity" is on target. ID gives you no such clarity. It just makes a very weak claim about the Designer - that it/he/she/whatever is Intelligent. This designer thus made something - life - that not only "works" but takes advantage of local entropy by adapting to the local environment. Life, at the intra-cellular level is itself "intelligent" it bears the stamp of its maker!
So Intelligent Design theory provides a convincing theory that requires one to open up to the existence of a "greater" being even if they're a dogged materialist. Hence it isn't a "we don't know, so God" argument. It is a "we know so much, therefore Intelligent Designer".
Feel free to criticize me if I've read the IDers wrong.
That should be a face above, not .
Sorry, but these are just not acceptable explanations to me. The Darwinian general theory of evolution and creation are irreconcilable, and trying to combine the two into any version of theistic evolution makes for bad science and bad theology. I don't see that ID is any different...seems like just another kind of compromise to me. Why bother with any intelligence that designs by chance? Is that like a wise fool?
I see. I have to confess that while I've read a number of Darwin books, Behe's was not one of them. Let me try again.
I find the suggestion that we 'know' in a scientific way that something is irreducibly complex to be very dubious. Too much lies in the eye of the beholder and how he looks at causality and complexity. Those issues are epistemically speaking taken on faith; they're subjective and thus it's like using faith in one thing to open the door for faith in another.
I think that if we subject faith to verification, we are bound to loose before we begin. We've already surrendered everthing to nominalism. Verifying and theories flying back and forth is the natural hurly burly of science and that is fine.
But religion ought not to be rocked about like that because the consequences of doubt and cynicism are so serious. If we say that God is a precondition for any kind of meaningful thought, including science, I think we are not only being true, but treating the subject with the gravitas it deserves. And we don't concede anything to nominalism (that I can see).
***
If you're not following my posts I will take it as proof that my writing is slipping! You seem to know both more science and more theology than I do, with only a few years of amatuer philosophy behind me and no science beyond high school biology.
I find the general theory of evolution to be much more based on a philosophy than science. Looking over these discussions, could anyone doubt that they are more suited to philosophy than science? If there's any substantial science there, I'm sorry but I missed it. Call me old fashioned, or one of those Creationist kooks, or whatever, but I believe the biblical record of Genesis accounts for, more or less, the origin of man. Any science that demands a denial or significant compromise of the Genesis account is clearly un-Christian and un-Catholic. I believe Cardinal Schonborn made very significant correction to this debate and dispelled any notion that the Catholic Church, or Pope JPII, or BXVI are satisfied evolutionists. I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It represents the orthodox teaching of the Church and can be relied upon to keep each Catholic in a spiritually safe and useful place. Nothing that it says demands adherence to the so called general theory of evolution which rests on the processes of random mutation and natural selection. Behe is right to believe that God had to start off the whole process since it's just too fantastic to think that the irreducibly complex came into being by those same processes. But then the rest of his agrument is just a cozy compromise with the same processes. He admits that God uses evolution, which is random, yet this evolution is independent of God's intelligence. Sounds like design by chance, or maybe even, if you like, intelligent design. Either way design by chance is like calling a fool wise, or vice versa. This is the basic problem with ALL kinds of theistic evolution.
Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. They both serve man's good, and we don't have to pour them into the same pot in order to feel that we've reconciled them to our satisfaction. They can both stand tall on their own merits and still contribute to man's basic and urgent needs as long as they both stay within their God ordained limits. This will be profoundly unsatisfactory to the Darwinian "scientists", even if a few of them try to make token concessions to the Christian, such as I believe talk.origins does. Probably science will eventually find a satisfactory and useful explanation, based on true science, to account for the subject of origins, but Darwinian evolution, common descent, or blended philosophies thereof fail to give God, Genesis, Catholicism and Christianity their due respect.
Eric, you're right about the Catchism: "Nothing that it says demands adherence to the so called general theory of evolution which rests on the processes of random mutation and natural selection" That's correct. On the other hand, Schonborn and the Popes have never said it is evolution is wrong. What they've said is that IF it is true, it cannot be that mutations are random. To remain compatible with the faith it has be understood that every hair and every genetic molecule is God guided. If you don't like this view - and I respect that, if that's the case - can you see that it is not out of bounds? I am actually trying to argue that faith underpins science, even evlutionary science.
Curt, I've tried to answer your questions in more detail, and so I have posted to my own blog on this subject. Come visit and read what I had to say.
You might be interested in this passage by Abdu'l-Baha - he bridges "evolution" with "man always existed as man".
Thus it is evident and confirmed that the development and growth of man on this earth, until he reached his present perfection, resembled the growth and development of the embryo in the womb of the mother: by degrees it passed from condition to condition, from form to form, from one shape to another, for this is according to the requirement of the universal system and Divine Law.
That is to say, the embryo passes through different states and traverses numerous degrees, until it reaches the form in which it manifests the words “Praise be to God, 184 the best of Creators,” and until the signs of reason and maturity appear. And in the same way, man’s existence on this earth, from the beginning until it reaches this state, form and condition, necessarily lasts a long time, and goes through many degrees until it reaches this condition. But from the beginning of man’s existence he is a distinct species. In the same way, the embryo of man in the womb of the mother was at first in a strange form; then this body passes from shape to shape, from state to state, from form to form, until it appears in utmost beauty and perfection. But even when in the womb of the mother and in this strange form, entirely different from his present form and figure, he is the embryo of the superior species, and not of the animal; his species and essence undergo no change. Now, admitting that the traces of organs which have disappeared actually exist, this is not a proof of the impermanence and the nonoriginality of the species. At the most it proves that the form, and fashion, and the organs of man have progressed. Man was always a distinct species, a man, not an animal. So, if the embryo of man in the womb of the mother passes from one form to another so that the second form in no way resembles the first, is this a proof that the species has changed? that it was at first an animal, and that its organs progressed and developed until it became a man? No, indeed!
Curt, I should have written clearly. I didn't mean that you were slipping. I meant that I'm the ignorant one (having only a few weeks/months of philosophy and theology and much more science [1university-level]). Being an IT nerd, *I* have difficulty following some of the "in-depth" posts as I don't have a good background in either philosophy, theology or prayer! 
Regarding the ID points, I don't think we completely disagree. I think that I might be talking past you. I'm focusing on the science (physics) while you seem to be focusing on the metaphysics. I'll respond soon....have chores to do now.
georgia construction loan georgia construction loan georgia construction loan. car interest loan low rate car interest loan low rate car interest loan low rate.
Commenting by HaloScan
