Science v Intelligent Design: Miller v Behe

And Behe insisted on insinuating that he's still a "scientist"?

Hello, lurker here. :) I have one question, and I wasn't sure where else to post it: while I, personally, believe evolution to be true, a friend of mine believes in intelligent design. A lot of her arguments I was able to easily refute (they were things like the argument from personal incredulity), but she had one argument which I wasn't, and that was: since there are so many species, how come humans are the only ones who evolved to be very intelligent (i.e. intelligent enough to create things like culture, government, different languages, religion etc.)? Since I don't really have much formal education in evolution, I was at a loss for an answer. Do any of you know how to answer it?

Dale Husband Wow! Talk about misrepresenting your opposition! Behe claims that an evolutionist like Miller is an intelligent design proponent, when in fact he is anything but! Why shouldn't Miller be upset with Behe? Whatever else Behe and Miller may have in common, they differ in one critical respect: Miller does NOT lie about his scientific work or about those he disagrees with.

Izzhov: Hello, lurker here. :) I have one question, and I wasn't sure where else to post it: while I, personally, believe evolution to be true, a friend of mine believes in intelligent design. A lot of her arguments I was able to easily refute (they were things like the argument from personal incredulity), but she had one argument which I wasn't, and that was: since there are so many species, how come humans are the only ones who evolved to be very intelligent (i.e. intelligent enough to create things like culture, government, different languages, religion etc.)? Since I don't really have much formal education in evolution, I was at a loss for an answer. Do any of you know how to answer it?

Michael Behe I think the reason for Miller’s deep disdain of a relatively minor difference in our positions on evolution is not scientific. Rather, it’s theological. It’s called the problem of evil. Briefly stated, if God is responsible for designing not only the lovely parts of biology, but also the dangerous and nasty parts as well, then we have a theological problem on our hands. What kind of a God designs not only pretty flowers, but deadly malaria, too? Is God actually malicious? On the other hand, if God simply designed a process like Darwinism that He knew would lead to life, then, the thinking goes, He didn’t directly design those nasty parts of biology — the process did. So God escapes any blame for bad stuff.

since there are so many species, how come humans are the only ones who evolved to be very intelligent

there have been several theories put forward to try and explain this (like elimination of competition - which also relates to why only a single species of human remains extant), but to my knowledge, there just is insufficient information to come to any conclusive resolution as yet. This by no means is a weakness of evolutionary theory, as we have reams of experiments supporting it as a very satisfactory explanation for much of what we do see, and so far there is no reason to presume it would fall flat as more information comes to light. In fact, we are just beginning to scratch the surface looking at how evolutionary theory applies to behavior in animals (it's really only been in the last 40 years or so that we have even begun testing the evolution of specific behaviors), let alone in humans. So far, it appears to work just as well to explain and predict the evolution of behaviors as it does with morphology/physiology (not surprisingly). The difference being it is much harder to examine the fossil record to get a long term view of behavior.

However, this issue of human "achievement" aside, there are a great many questions that we have insufficient information to answer to our own satisfaction, and not just in biology. That's what science is all about, seeking answers through a tried and proven method. ID is not about that, since they have tried their method for hundreds of years (yes, long before even Paley) and produced... nothing.

does that mean we resign currently unsatisfactorily answered questions to god?

nope.

ever heard of "the god of the gaps" argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

If your friend insists on pushing this point, ask them how they can explain it to YOUR satisfaction using "intelligent design".

they'll fail miserably, not even able to formulate a testable hypothesis, since there is no way to explain how their fictional designer operates to begin with.

so ask your friend, which has the better track record of success in explaining and predicting what we see:

science,

or

"goddidit"

Ichthyic: there have been several theories put forward to try and explain this (like elimination of competition - which also relates to why only a single species of human remains extant), but to my knowledge, there just is insufficient information to come to any conclusive resolution as yet. This by no means is a weakness of evolutionary theory, as we have reams of experiments supporting it as a very satisfactory explanation for much of what we do see, and so far there is no reason to presume it would fall flat as more information comes to light. In fact, we are just beginning to scratch the surface looking at how evolutionary theory applies to behavior in animals (it's really only been in the last 40 years or so that we have even begun testing the evolution of specific behaviors), let alone in humans. So far, it appears to work just as well to explain and predict the evolution of behaviors as it does with morphology/physiology (not surprisingly). The difference being it is much harder to examine the fossil record to get a long term view of behavior. However, this issue of human "achievement" aside, there are a great many questions that we have insufficient information to answer to our own satisfaction, and not just in biology. That's what science is all about, seeking answers through a tried and proven method. ID is not about that, since they have tried their method for hundreds of years (yes, long before even Paley) and produced... nothing.

which don’t have an evolutionary advantage and thus allowing them to reproduce anyway, doesn’t the system break down in that case?

yes, and no.

selection is still operating in other areas... remember that it is a measure of FITNESS, not just survivability, that is of the most importance.

anything that affects your ability to pass your genes on to the next generation is fair game.

It's meaningless to live 120 years and never reproduce.

Actually, Izzhov, the complications towards which you are gesturing seem not to be limited to humans. After all, whenever specific behaviors are passed on from generation to generation (i.e. traditions), the capacity for those general sorts of behaviors is certainly passed on through genes, but the actual behaviors are not. Thus, unrelated individuals might also learn those behaviors, meaning that behaviors which may affect fitness can be passed on without genetic inheritance - which I think is pretty cool.

Human culture is of course the most obvious and important example of this: Human cultures and individuals blend and borrow ideas and behaviors from each other frequently without any question of genetic inheritance entering into it. But the passing down of traditions without regard to kinship has been observed in other primates: Various termite-feeding and nut-cracking techniques practiced by different troupes of chimpanzees in different areas, for example, are also learned by individuals raised in other troupes when they are adopted into a new troupe with new traditions. Feeding techniques obviously have the potential to alter fitness, but there are also non-primate examples: Mating songs sung by some whales and birds are sometimes learned from unrelated males, for example, and one can easily imagine that mating songs have fitness effects. For another example, tool-making and -using techniques among New Caledonian crows are not necessarily learned only from parents or other kin. Corvids in general, and especially this tool-using species, are very clever imitators and quick learners.

Basically, any time a species evolves the capacity for culture in some form, the possibility arises for cultural selection (which does not depend on genetic inheritance) to occur along side of and in addition to ongoing natural selection. Traditions which have a positive effect on fitness might spread without regard to which animals are passing on which genes, insofar as traditions can be passed on to non-offspring and even non-kin (although more rarely, since culture is usually passed on to youngsters in a given group).

since there are so many species, how come humans are the only ones who evolved to be very intelligent

Some scientists, like, James Kay, Eric Schneider, Dorion Sagan and Scott Sampson, think that it's because we are selected for our ability to crack tough energy-gradients, per the second law of thermodynamics.

This idea extends to make for a part of a more-plausible answer to the fine-tuning problem, as well, since a true anthropic cosmological principle offers a causality-responsible solution to the problem from first physics principles, rather than the speculative rationale that Dawkins resorts to when he appeals to the unobservable possibilty for an infinite number of universes. Even Dawkins admits that his is a weak argument, (LOL @ Torbjörn... ;), and a soulution from first principles kills both, god and unobservable "whatifs" in one fell-swoop, so it is an infinitely stronger argument that only a darwinist, (rather than a neodarwinist), can or will recognize.

Reiterating Icthyic's comments. In simplest terms a species that evolves the capacity for culture and in this case medicine has changed the game, but only superficially. Culture becomes subsumed under the large blanket of environment. Because the environment changes the selection pressures change, but that is a perfectly normal part of the process. Conceptually I think it is a very simple situation. I suspect mathematically it becomes much more complex because the environment can change very rapidly, and the agent being selected for can know effect what traits are selected for.

Izzhov:

This doesn't answer your question, but I am curious whether your friend indicated whether she thinks, as Behe does, that humans nevertheless share common ancestors with other species. Or whether she prefers the "classic creationism" assertion that humans are the product of their own abiogenesis event.

BTW, I have always found it fascinating how ID rarely chooses human intelligence as the example of where "the system breaks down," even though that would be the "holy grail" to their classic creationist supporters.

But Behe is equivocating on the meaning of the term “Intelligent Design”.

— PvM

A major reason for there being no equivalent non-human culture, apart from the difficulty dolphins would have in establishing one in the open ocean, is surely that humans would permit no competition. Even amongst humans other groups are often regarded as sub-human and therefore a target worthy of attack. Think of what it would be like if the rival was not actually human.

What I don't understand (among other things) is why Behe thinks it would ever be possible to demonstrate that something could not have evolved. I sometimes wonder whether, when he publishes his latest screed on the unevolvability of 'the' bacterial flagellum, Plasmodium or HIV, it occurs to him that he might possibly be in the situation of the person who said we will never know what stars are made of, a couple of years before helium was discovered in the sun.

how come humans are the only ones who evolved to be very intelligent (i.e. intelligent enough to create things like culture, government, different languages, religion etc.)?

doesn’t the system break down in that case

This idea extends to make for a part of a more-plausible answer to the fine-tuning problem, as well, since a true anthropic cosmological principle offers a causality-responsible solution to the problem from first physics principles, rather than the speculative rationale that Dawkins resorts to when he appeals to the unobservable possibilty for an infinite number of universes.

Even Dawkins admits that his is a weak argument, (LOL @ Torbjörn… ;),

and a soulution from first principles kills both, god and unobservable “whatifs” in one fell-swoop, so it is an infinitely stronger argument that only a darwinist, (rather than a neodarwinist), can or will recognize.

I have some problems with Miller's favorable view toward cosmological ID. That said, let's point out the huge differences between Behe and Miller at just about every turn.

First off, Miller believes "these constants may well reflect the will of a creator we would both identify as the God of Abraham." He doesn't call it science, nor does he imply that it ought to be taught in the science classes. He thinks that cosmological "fine-tuning" is evidence for the believer, not for the unbeliever.

And this holds over in the biological realm, as well. Miller suggests that God could be hiding in the irreducible randomness, which is about as close as he comes to Behe's "Divine Mutagen". But again, for Miller that's at most a theological idea, not at all science. Even theologically, Miller evidently prefers the idea that God ultimately left the "creation" to work out according to freedom, without God lurking in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Most of all, Miller knows the difference between interpreting the unknowns according to his theological presuppositions, and science. Behe does not. Even Miller was sort of obscuring that huge difference, even though it is glaringly obvious in his remarks about Behe's faulty logic and worthless "science."

Behe's 'one of the most important developments in science of the twentieth century' amounts in real terms to his "discovery" that not everything about evolutionary pathways is known at present. Miller always knew that, and recognizes that invoking an unknown (to science) cause for it is completely unscientific, even if as a theist Miller entertains the possibility in his book.

Miller is something of a creationist after all, but only in the old sense of the word--by faith. Behe appears to have no faith or "true religion" as the latter is understood in Xian theology, for he claims the unknown God to be the cause of biological unknowns, in stark violation of both science and of faith.

Perhaps Behe's first fatal failing was his lack of understanding of religion, and only because of that, he failed to understand science and its crucial limits.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

As to why human-style intelligence is apparently rare: I wonder if in pre-technological times, maybe intelligence by itself isn't really all that superior to the abilities that other predators have even without making tools. As that guy in "Beastmaster" said, "face the animal on his own terms, and you aren't all that strong" (or something like that).

Henry

since there are so many species, how come humans are the only ones who evolved to be very intelligent

Since there are so many species, how come humans are the only ones who evolved to be very intelligent

since there are so many species, how come humans are the only ones who evolved to be very intelligent

Regarding Behe's thought that the reason for Miller’s difference from his positions on evolution is the theological "problem of evil", "if God is responsible for designing not only the lovely parts of biology, but also the dangerous and nasty parts as well, then we have a theological problem on our hands."

This has been noted as a significant part of Darwin's reasons for rejecting fixity of species, and embracing transmutation / evolution.
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml

The issue, for reasons unclear to me, is called Theodicy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

The tension between theodicy and the requirements of the scientific method in the 1830s made the belief that God intervened in the course of nature increasingly hard to sustain, and Baden Powell promoting the view that the only rational and safe solution to the problem of reconciling science and theology is to keep them completely separate and to give up entirely the concept of miracle as having anything to do with science....

http://human-nature.com/dm/chap5.html

Powell's view prevailed, until the 1920s Fundamentalist reaction introduced Creationism as back-to-Paley rejection of science, culminating in our theologically learned friend Behe and chums..

With regard to why intelligence evolved only in humans, there have been a lot of good answers in this thread. The first thing that comes to my mind is that -- evolutionarily speaking -- there is nothing special about intelligence. It is crucial for the survival of OUR species, but flies get along perfectly well without it. So does every other non-intelligent species. Step into any war zone and you may be led to wonder if large brains will ultimately turn out to be a successful evolutionary experiment.

Richard Dawkins discusses this issue a lot and his point is that there is something rather human-centric about the question. It seems like an interesting question to us because, well, intelligence is the major distinctive characteristic of our species. IIRC, the example Dawkins used in one of his recent books was the elephant: one can imagine elephant scientists running around speculating on why the trunk evolved only once.

I recently read Vonnegut's "Galapagos", which describes a sequence of events which leads to a small group of people being isolated on an uninhabited island while the rest of the human race goes extinct (due to an infectious micro-organism which destroys human ova). A million years later, humans have evolved into seal-like creatures with flippers instead of hands and much, much smaller brains- smaller heads are better streamlined :)

I thoroughly recommend the book, it's both very funny and displays an excellent grasp of evolutionary theory. A central theme is that a lot of the things people are currently doing with their big brains are not survival-directed, indeed are often directly inimical to long- and short-term survival.

I suppose one could argue that every species alive today does something better than any other species; otherwise, competition would have eliminated it by now. So we can look at humans as an evolutionary experiment in producing a species with enough intelligence to mananage its environment, but not enough to do so wisely. I doubt this experiment will last very long.

It is an open question whether technological tool users will be a successful evolutionary adaption. Evolution is blind and drives species towards local optimuns of fitness.

The average species lasts 1-5 million years. So far we are at the .2 megayear mark, or less. Some people claim that we have a paleolithic brain with 21st century technology. In other words, our abilities to manipulate the material world have outrun our wisdom to do so.

It is an open question IMO. At one extreme, we could be the first intelligent species in the galaxy and could spread outward and own it all.

At the other extreme we could be all dead in a century or two. I used to associate with some deep time ecologists. Their big debate was whether we have overshot the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet and there will be a die off. Maybe when the fossil fuels run out and our agricultural areas are exhausted.

I'm just hoping everything hangs together for my expected lifespan. Please, just another 3-5 more decades.

"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

Arthur C. Clarke

“It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.” Arthur C. Clarke

Mike from Ottawa:

"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." Arthur C. Clarke

Ol' Art blew that one. We didn't evolve intelligence, at considerable cost, without it having any survival value. Was Clarke just being quoty or does he not understand that organisms don't evolve with an eye to the future?

Hello,

As a person who keeps her mind open, I've most recently been wondering where the proof for evolution-in-action has gone. I have read so many evolutionists talk about how humans are partially evolved from fish, monkeys, etc. and they sometimes present those all too common drawings of monkeys to humans. But where are the real pictures and the real reports? If evolution takes billions of years to happen, how do we even know it does happen at all?

I know a few evolutionists have added theories such as vestigial organs and punctuated equilibrium in an attempt to prove evolution has happened, but these theories are fraught with flaws themselves. (I can bring up a few arguments if you'd like me to.) Can someone please explain where you see the real proof?

KH asks where's the evidence? Sigh... Here's a start.

K H said: As a person who keeps her mind open, I've most recently been wondering where the proof for evolution-in-action has gone ... Can someone please explain where you see the real proof?

KH, forgive us, but we've heard it all before. Your mangling of the ideas of evolution shows clearly that you've never studied it, so your "open mind" is merely another way of saying, "I'm not interested in the evidence".

Humans are not evolved from monkeys, and nobody ever said so, except creationists who lie about it. We are evolved from earlier anthropoid primates, almost certainly the gracile (ie, slight and small) australopithecines. Look them up, and you'll find the evidence, if you want it. Ample amounts have been found for them, and for transitional forms between them and modern human beings. For the latter, try googling "habilenes". Again, there is no plain English word for them, but they're too close to humans to be called "apes". The habilenes (Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, if they are separate) certainly were tool makers. We can't be absolutely certain that they are our direct ancestors - they could just possibly be on another branch - but they merge seamlessly into Homo erectus, who certainly is our ancestor. That's another name to look into.

Like all air-breathing vertebrates, we are descended, some four hundred million years back, from fishes that lived on mudflats. Over a period of ten million years or so, they evolved limbs to crawl between waterholes, and gained the ability to breathe air. Try checking "tiktaalik". Contrary to creationist lies, there is a complete transitional series leading from fish to tetrapod amphibians. There are also transitional series between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and dinosaurs and birds.

Now, I reckon that you'll come back (if you come back) and demand to see "proof" that an ape gave birth to a human, or a fish laid eggs that hatched into frogs, or a dinosaur suddenly grew wings. If you do, it means that you don't want to understand what evolution is saying, or how it works, or what evidence means. In that case, you shouldn't be here. It'll only end in tears.

Dave Luckett said: Humans are not evolved from monkeys, and nobody ever said so, except creationists who lie about it. We are evolved from earlier anthropoid primates, almost certainly the gracile (ie, slight and small) australopithecines.

Dave Luckett said: Humans are not evolved from monkeys, and nobody ever said so, except creationists who lie about it.

Dave Luckett said: KH, forgive us, but we've heard it all before. Your mangling of the ideas of evolution shows clearly that you've never studied it, so your "open mind" is merely another way of saying, "I'm not interested in the evidence". Now, I reckon that you'll come back (if you come back) and demand to see "proof" that an ape gave birth to a human, or a fish laid eggs that hatched into frogs, or a dinosaur suddenly grew wings. If you do, it means that you don't want to understand what evolution is saying, or how it works, or what evidence means. In that case, you shouldn't be here. It'll only end in tears.

Dave Luckett said: Yes, I have indeed come back, but to respond to you. First, I am extremely interested in the evidence evolutionists have to present, and isn't that what I have asked for? I sincerely do not mean to pick a fight or argue for the sake of arguing, but it appears when I ask to see the evidence, you say, "Well, when you say that, you don't really want to see it, so I won't show you. Go away." Also, I don't see how anything will end in tears since I asked a simple question in the first place. I do appreciate your answers, and I will certainly look them up. I may come back with a few more questions, and I do hope you will understand all I want to gain from these questions is to learn, not to argue or act blindly. Respectfully, K H

There is god.God does not need to take care of all that was created.God put natural laws and they just follow their own course.Evolution just follow natural laws.Evolution does not refute gods presence