Collins and ID
Dr. Collins summarizes (and dismisses)ID as being founded on three (inadequate) principles.
Straw man one: ID was created to overthrow evolution with an apparently scientific theory and as such is not science. Not actually an argument.
Straw man two: ID does not make predictions based on a hypothesis that can be tested and therefore is not science. Also not actually an argument and I don't think completely true.
Collins third argument is quite limited, but the most interesting argument concerning what he believes to be the cornerstone of ID - irreducible complexity. While I wouldn’t say that irreducible complexity is the foundation of ID; it is a significant argument. For instance the bacterial flagellum (locomotion device) is surprisingly complex requiring about 30 different protein components to work; if any are missing, a tow truck is required. The flagellum has a motor, driveshaft, CV joint, and propeller to name a few of the critical components. The ID argument goes like this. Evolutionary mechanisms save mutations that benefit an organism because they give the organism an advantage in the survival of the fittest. Mutations that do not give an advantage tend to be lost because the large population of organisms without the mutation have an equal or greater survival potential and the larger pool will swamp out the single mutation or the new organism becomes a meal for a more fit organism. An organism with a motor, driveshaft, CV joint, and propeller would have greater mobility in catching prey or eluding a predator and therefore greater survival value. An organism with a motor and drive shaft with no CV joint would twist its tail off and that would be the end of that innovation.
For the flagellum to survive, all the components would have to mutate (or be created) at once; if any are missing, the organism would be just a more complex meal. The odds of 30 mutations occurring at once are so poor that it is difficult to conceive of it happening outside a laboratory with a bunch of engineers designing the project, ergo Intelligent Design. Collins argues that recent scientific discoveries lead him to believe that the 30 in fact do not need to arrive at once because individual components could have survival value all alone. One of those discoveries is a bacteria with a stinger made from the same stuff as the drive assembly of the flagellum. Evolution would predict that the stinger came first, and then was co-opted as a drive shaft when motor mutation happened. I guess this innovation would allow the stinger to be used as a drill so the bacteria could inject poison into its target even if the target happened to have a shell. This argument is less than compelling. I wonder how many different proteins there are that have the stiffness, strength, and shape to be used as both a stinger and a driveshaft. Collins leaves that to our imagination or future scientists.
Collins completely ignores the foundation of ID which asks the question of how you can recognize an object or pattern created by chance or intelligence. For instance if you were walking on a beach and you saw a complex ripple pattern in the sand; you say that it is complex, but not specific and could have been caused by a riptide. If you saw the letter “A” in the sand, you could say that it is specific, but not complex. It might possibly have been caused by a snake lying on the sand which was caught by a hawk and dropped a couple of time before the hawk successfully dispatched the snake and carried it off. On the other hand if you saw “Gilmore was here” written in the sand you would assume an intelligent source. The pattern is both complex and specific. These rules have been identified and studied for a long time. The SETI project has looked for and found thousands of signals from outer space and found none that met the complex specificity requirements of a message designed by an intelligent neighbor somewhere in space. Collins completely ignores complex specificity as an important argument.
Rats – To be continued AGAIN…….
Straw man one: ID was created to overthrow evolution with an apparently scientific theory and as such is not science. Not actually an argument.
Straw man two: ID does not make predictions based on a hypothesis that can be tested and therefore is not science. Also not actually an argument and I don't think completely true.
Collins third argument is quite limited, but the most interesting argument concerning what he believes to be the cornerstone of ID - irreducible complexity. While I wouldn’t say that irreducible complexity is the foundation of ID; it is a significant argument. For instance the bacterial flagellum (locomotion device) is surprisingly complex requiring about 30 different protein components to work; if any are missing, a tow truck is required. The flagellum has a motor, driveshaft, CV joint, and propeller to name a few of the critical components. The ID argument goes like this. Evolutionary mechanisms save mutations that benefit an organism because they give the organism an advantage in the survival of the fittest. Mutations that do not give an advantage tend to be lost because the large population of organisms without the mutation have an equal or greater survival potential and the larger pool will swamp out the single mutation or the new organism becomes a meal for a more fit organism. An organism with a motor, driveshaft, CV joint, and propeller would have greater mobility in catching prey or eluding a predator and therefore greater survival value. An organism with a motor and drive shaft with no CV joint would twist its tail off and that would be the end of that innovation.
For the flagellum to survive, all the components would have to mutate (or be created) at once; if any are missing, the organism would be just a more complex meal. The odds of 30 mutations occurring at once are so poor that it is difficult to conceive of it happening outside a laboratory with a bunch of engineers designing the project, ergo Intelligent Design. Collins argues that recent scientific discoveries lead him to believe that the 30 in fact do not need to arrive at once because individual components could have survival value all alone. One of those discoveries is a bacteria with a stinger made from the same stuff as the drive assembly of the flagellum. Evolution would predict that the stinger came first, and then was co-opted as a drive shaft when motor mutation happened. I guess this innovation would allow the stinger to be used as a drill so the bacteria could inject poison into its target even if the target happened to have a shell. This argument is less than compelling. I wonder how many different proteins there are that have the stiffness, strength, and shape to be used as both a stinger and a driveshaft. Collins leaves that to our imagination or future scientists.
Collins completely ignores the foundation of ID which asks the question of how you can recognize an object or pattern created by chance or intelligence. For instance if you were walking on a beach and you saw a complex ripple pattern in the sand; you say that it is complex, but not specific and could have been caused by a riptide. If you saw the letter “A” in the sand, you could say that it is specific, but not complex. It might possibly have been caused by a snake lying on the sand which was caught by a hawk and dropped a couple of time before the hawk successfully dispatched the snake and carried it off. On the other hand if you saw “Gilmore was here” written in the sand you would assume an intelligent source. The pattern is both complex and specific. These rules have been identified and studied for a long time. The SETI project has looked for and found thousands of signals from outer space and found none that met the complex specificity requirements of a message designed by an intelligent neighbor somewhere in space. Collins completely ignores complex specificity as an important argument.
Rats – To be continued AGAIN…….
posted by complexspecificity | 9:33 PM
1 Comments:
Keep going...I'm with you.
Post a Comment
<< Home