Presentation on theme: "The Best Arguments Against ID Sean D. Pitman, M.D. November 2006 www.DetectingDesign.com."— Presentation transcript:
The Best Arguments Against ID Sean D. Pitman, M.D. November 2006
ID answers everything; therefore nothing –ID is utterly boring –How did this happen? Goddidit! ID is thinly disguised creationism (religion) ID uses God of the Gaps arguments ID proposes no testable falsifiable predictions that have not already been falsified –Irreducible complexity (Behe) –Specified complexity (Dembski)
Everything and Nothing Does the ToE explain everything; Therefore nothing? –Wasnt everything evolved by a mindless Nature? How can scientists, like forensic scientists and SETI scientists propose intelligence behind certain phenomena when mindless nature could have done the same thing?
ID is Utterly Boring The most basic problem [with ID] is that its utterly boring. Everything thats complicated or interesting about biology has a very simple explanation: ID did it. –William Provine, science historian at Cornell University SETI scientists are looking for particular types of radio signals coming from space – which they would hail as evidence of alien intelligence –If such a signal were ever found, would any scientist be bored by such a hypothesis? 2+2=4 is boring; 2+2=5 is much more interesting!
ID is Religion, Not Science Religion talks about non-physical non- testable non-falsifiable truths –Any examples? – of a non-falsifiable truth? –Love? –Joy? –Beauty? –Mathematics? –God?
ID uses God of the Gaps Arguments So do all scientific hypotheses No hypothesis is 100% provable Absolute certainty removes the usefulness of the scientific method There is always the potential for falsification with additional information that reduces the gap in knowledge Given current knowledge, which potential hypothesis most likely explains how the gap was, is, or will be crossed?
ID Has Been Falsified (i.e., it was a valid scientific theory) Irreducibly complex systems do not exist Random mutations combined with natural selection easily produce Dembskis complex specified information (CSI)
No IC systems? The logic of their argument [IDists] is you have these multipart systems, and that the parts within them are useless on their own. The instant that I or anybody else finds a subset of parts that has a function, that argument is destroyed.- Kenneth Miller, biologist, Brown University –Like a car without a motor (lights still work) –Like a man without eyes (everything else still works)
All of the systems that Behe claims to be irreducibly complex really arent. A subset of bacterial flagellum proteins, for example, are used by other bacteria to inject toxins into other cells... –Ker Than, staff science writer, LiveScience
TTSS Toxin Injector The Subsystem
Which Came First? TTSSFlagellum
TTSS Sub-System Uses about 10 of the 50 or so structural proteins used to form the flagellum Supposedly evolved hundreds of millions of years after the flagellar motility system Flagellum found in many kinds of bacteria TTSS system restricted to a few pathogenic gram-negative bacteria that attack plants and animals – which came along billions of years after flagellar motility
Little similarity (homology) to anything within less complex motility systems – only homologous to a flagellum subset Several scientists have recently promoted the idea that TTSS evolved from the fully formed flagellar motility system; not the other way round. –Nguyen, L., Paulsen, I. T., Tchieu, J., Hueck, C. J. and Saier, M. H., Jr., Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 2 (2),
The Real Gap Problem cat to hat to bat to bid to did to dig to dog –19,683 possible combinations –Defined vs. non-defined: about 1 in 18 –For two-character sequences: about 1 in 7 What about 7-character sequences? –Ratio of about 1 in 250,000 A linear increase in minimum distance develops between what is and what might be beneficial with each increase in minimum structural threshold requirements – i.e., the Gap Problem
Specified Complexity The second major argument for intelligent design comes from William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher... [who] argues that nature is rife with examples of non-random patterns of information that he calls complex specified information or CSI for short. To qualify as CSI, the information must be both complex and specified. The letter A, for example, is specific, but not complex. A string of random letters, such as slfkiwer, on the other hand, is complex but not necessarily specific. A Shakespearean sonnet, however, is both complex and specific. – Ker Than
Dembskis Hypothesis Falsified? If Dembski were right, then a new gene with new information conferring a brand new function on an organism could never come into existence without a designer because a new function requires complex specified information. - Kenneth Miller
Specific Examples? Nylonase – Kinoshita et al., 1975 –Nylon not invented until 1935 Lactase – Barry Hall, 1983 –Lactase deletion experiments with E. coli Aha! Dembskis hypothesis falsified! –If truly falsified, it would mean that it was a valid scientific hypothesis – by the way...
Limited Evolutionary Potential Antibiotics –Resistance evolves very rapidly via blocks or disruptions to a previously established system Functions based on small single proteins –Lactase, nylonase, etc (no more than 3-4 hundred amino acid residues at minimum) –Occasionally evolve (Barry Halls lactase deficient E. coli and Kinoshitas nylonase eating bacteria) No novel functions with threshold specificity requirements greater than 1,000 specifically arranged amino acid residues have ever been shown to evolve – not one example in literature