--- "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
August 20, 2005 - An Open Letter to Science Magazine From William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, and Jonathan Witt. <snip> Darwinists like Kenneth Miller point to the hope of future discoveries, and to the type III secretory system as a machine possibly co-opted on the evolutionary path to the flagellum. The argument <http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html> is riddled with problems <http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm>, but it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behe's argument is testable.
Thanks for the references, Don. Miller's article is reproduced as chapter in _Debating Design_ (2004). Dembski takes another more repolished reply in the wrap-up section of _Debating Design_. I have read both Dembski's preliminary response and his second response in _Debating_. Frankly, the math is over my head, but in neither article does Dembski really respond to Miller's key points: 1) the TSSS system sufficiently biochemically similar to the flagellum that natural selection could have acted on it within the required time frame to fabricate a flagellum, therefore, when computing whether the improbability function for self-assembly of the flagellum, one should begin with pre-existing complex systems. 2) Miller's main point in _Debating_, which Dembski's 2003 response is a further illustration of, is that biochemists did more research in response to Dembski's initial speculative hypothesis made between 1988 through 2000, and found additional biochemical processes and cellular structures that could have been used to make Dembski's supposed irreducibly complex process of the flagellum. Once Miller has made a showing of this plausible, alternative explanation for the development of the flagellum, Dembski's burden is to show that it self-assembly of the pre-existing, complex subcomponents is so improbable to be on the other side of the probability horizon. Dembski declines to do so, but instead simply points to another in a series of recent "hot off the press" biochemical papers to claim that he does not need to even do the mathematical work. Dembski saying Miller's response analysis is "riddled with problems" doesn't remove Dembski's burden of respond. Dembski is not principally a research biochemist and does not intend to do, what Miller calls, the "hard-work" of detailed examination of cellular biochemical processes, in order to see if alternative biochemical mechanisms pre-exist in the cell, for each initially hypothesized irreducibly complex organism. Will the history of 1988 through 2000 repeat itself with Dembski's new 2003-2004 objection of continued irreducilbe complexity, based on emerging 2003 research of the flagellum, being called into question during 2005-2010 from biochemists doing the "hard-work" of further investigating cellular biochemistry? Scientific research works in increments, principally by peer-reviewed papers. It may or may not work out in a few years that the ideas in new emerging biochemistry paper will prove out. Finally, in Dembski's chapter in _Debating Design_, even Dembski admits that ID theory is a _provisional theory_, currently in an early phase of assembling biochemical proof. Because of the difficulty of dissembling true intelligent design intervention from the concurrent cause of natural selection, Dembski predicted that maybe only a few examples of biochemical ID would ever be found. Dembski wrote his _Debating_ chapter after Dembski's preliminary 2003 article that you reference above. Dembski was an editor of _Debating Design_. In contrast in _Debating_, Behe takes a more expansion approach. Behe predicts that evidence of biochemical ID will be found in almost every biological cell and every biochemical subsystem. Before we start educating our children based on a provisional hypothesis, maybe we should let the scientists play their differences of opinion out and Utah secondary schools should stick with the existing life-science secondary school cirriculum of the National Science Education Standards of the National Committee of Science Education Standards and Assessments of the National Research Council. That cirrculum is appended to the end of this note. - Canopus56 ----------------------- NSES high-school life science cirriculm, a subcomponent of which is "Biological evolution" http://books.nap.edu/html/nses/html/6e.html#csb912 BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Species evolve over time. Evolution is the consequence of the interactions of (1) the potential for a species to increase its numbers, (2) the genetic variability of offspring due to mutation and recombination of genes, (3) a finite supply of the resources required for life, and (4) the ensuing selection by the environment of those offspring better able to survive and leave offspring. [See Unifying Concepts and Processes] The great diversity of organisms is the result of more than 3.5 billion years of evolution that has filled every available niche with life forms. Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms, as well as for the striking molecular similarities observed among the diverse species of living organisms. The millions of different species of plants, animals, and microorganisms that live on earth today are related by descent from common ancestors. Biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities which reflect their evolutionary relationships. Species is the most fundamental unit of classification. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs