If you ever wondered about the NY Times
Well, no...I suppose one would never really need to wonder about the Times...it's pretty clear about where they stand on most issues. Nevertheless, in my last post, I mentioned an OP-ED piece by Michael Behe in today's edition. I was going through comments for a blog of an opposing position and came across a post by one of the editors at the Times:
I am an editor at the Times, and I clashed with PZ once before over a Times article on a creationist theme park. At that time I invited him not to write a letter to the editor, but to submit an op-ed piece. That’s what Behe wrote, and PZ could write a refutation of the same length. There’s no guarantee that it would be published, but if it’s good, it very well might be.Following the previous acidic and vitriolic comments on Behe and those other "ignorant liars" who believe this "crap" that were on that blog (including one who actually suggested that Behe and other proponents should be denied the right to live), I suppose actually saying that one can be "reasonable" and believe ID should be taken as a compliment. I don't and ad hominem attacks still don't answer Behe's assertions. I suppose if these folks feel that threatened by the growing influence of ID, those are the kinds of personal attacks that can be expected.
To defend Times journalism very briefly, opinion articles, like letters to the editor, are not edited or challenged for “balance.” They are intended to give people a platform to spout their views, one hopes in an intelligent way. Then the paper runs other articles or letters with contrary viewpoints. I doubt you’ll ever see the Times run an opinion piece by someone advocating that the earth is flat, or that the six-day creation is literally true, because such ideas are so thoroughly discredited as to be utterly indefensible. Unfortunately, many reasonable people believe that ID is at least somewhat defensible or at least possible. And so opinion pieces like this can get published, but so can their refutations, if PZ or another scientist wants to take a crack at it.
(italics added)
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 2/07/2005 04:45:00 PM
|
9 Comments:
Do we have a "scientific" explaination of how the human eye "evolved"?
I think you're right to point out that the human eye is one of the irreducibly complex organs within the body. Up to this point, I've not heard a naturalist explain the irreducibly complex satisfactorily. The most popular argument I've heard says that perhaps some IC systems evolved with too many "parts" and, through the evolutionary process, shed some of these extraneous parts leaving what we have today. Since it's easier to posit a designer over these kinds of hypotheses, it's clear some people are predisposed to philosophical naturalism and will not allow themselves to consider what we see as the most obvious. To me, these theories are quite a stretch, but I suppose some people buy into it...whatever. I'm sure there are other theories, but I've heard nothing that seems to hold water.
Indeed there is a scientific explanation for the evolution of the mammalian eye. Please go to:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
This is one person's conjecture, of course. Probably others have different ideas. That's just the first I found with a Google search.
Yes, I have seen that one, too. I think it's pretty weak with many questions left unanswered. There is the question of where such a "light-sensitive spot" would have evolved from...where did it originate? What is the nature of such a spot? What of it's intricate connection and "partnership" to the brain? What about the fact that a haphazard spot becomes a major informational source for the brain that guides the body? Again, if one insists on buying into this kind of explanation, one can find any number of explanations to do so. The fact is, though, unless one is dead-set against accepting the possibility of a creator (for whatever reason), none are as satisfactory. It's analogous to my being dead-set on arguing for the evolution of the computer I'm typing on. I'm sure I could make an argument, but everything about it cries out for a better explanation for such intricacy. I find the idea of haphazard, mindless mutations thoroughly unsatisfying.
I was writing my comment before David posted his, and just read it now.
Irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolutionary theory, only a problem for our imagination. One person may see a structure as being irreducibly complex, but this may be only due to a limited imagination; others may indeed be able to demonstrate usefulness of intermediate forms. Saying that something is irreducibly complex is akin to throwing up your hands and giving up, "I can't figure it out, so it must be irreducibly complex." From an investigative point of view, irreducible complexity is an automatic dead-end.
Absolutely, questions remain! The fact that questions remain does not refute the conjecture, it only calls for further investigation.
Unfortunately, my friend, I'm at the library working on research for a paper that is fast approaching deadline and can't spend as much time as I would love to at present. Let me just say, it's really not about throwing your hands up/giving up. Neither do I think it's about how vivid an imagination one has. My 4 year old has a pretty good imagination, but I'm not going to rely on it to explain away creation. I think it's more about what makes the most sense. I could certainly argue that a limited imagination, if we want to call it that, prevents atheists from believing in the possibility of a transcendent creator. It's not that theories don't abound, they just don't satisfy. Now, if they satisfy you, ok. We will certainly disagree, but it takes a great deal more faith for me to believe in what my imagination can come up with, short of something intelligent that made all that we experience. Like I posted earlier, even a guy like Antony Flew couldn't hold out against it. I'm sure it took a lot of guts and swallowing of pride to admit it.
Having just read your latest comment, I agree and admire your openness to the questions. I enjoy the questions and do not consider myself a close-minded person, but I do feel that experience and investigation have led me to a certainty of God's existence. Perhaps we will be able to dialogue further and at greater depth about this a little later. Feel free to continue posting thoughts...I'm sure there are others who may chime in. Please don't feel my limited further engagement is a lack of interest or a cop out...I'm simply swamped. Frankly, I can't believe I've found the time to post as much as I've been doing...I guess it's a nasty addiction ;-) Peace.
Inference to the best explanation. A truly open scientific inquiry would follow the evidence and data wherever it led, even if it led one to posit the existence of a designer behind the amazing complexity of life.
Just a thought....
David, thank you for your kind words. I don't mean to keep you from your work. I also got caught up in our discussion and put off my own work (making dinner). I always seemed to be writing while you were posting, and so I was one step behind. Obviously this is a topic that we are both interested in.
Thinking more about irreducible complexity and imagination: whether or not the proposed evolutionary pathway (eye) is true, the fact that someone has demonstrated in principle that intermediate steps are possible, refutes the notion of irreducibility.
You wrote previously, "I find the idea of haphazard, mindless mutations thoroughly unsatisfying." This is, of course, a philosophical argument. I have no problem with ID as a philosophical conviction. However, most ID proponents are promoting it as a scientific theory. At most, it is a hypothesis, but with no evidence in support. A problem with ID in a scientific context is that it is not predictive, it is not useful for scientific investigation. In short, it is philosophy, not science.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home