Jump to content

Anyone read "Darwin's Black Box" ?


Trurl
 Share

Recommended Posts

I checked at reviews for this book. A science explanation for intelligent design. No religion. But I thought it would be a good read for the scientist looking at science for answers.

Darwin's books are now public license. I don't care to study them but I have read excerpts that I consider bad science. I think that is what the author of the book while argue that the is much more that needs to be explained. The reviews also mention how DNA and evolution relate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Trurl said:

I checked at reviews for this book. A science explanation for intelligent design. No religion. But I thought it would be a good read for the scientist looking at science for answers.

Darwin's books are now public license. I don't care to study them but I have read excerpts that I consider bad science. I think that is what the author of the book while argue that the is much more that needs to be explained. The reviews also mention how DNA and evolution relate.

Intelligent Design is a brilliant marketing concept developed as a back door method of getting creationism into school science curricula in the USA. This was clearly and publicly demonstrated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case over a decade ago. Michael Behe's book is part of that attempt to bamboozle the public. A far better read for "the scientist looking at science for answers" in this field would be something like Kenneth Brown's "Only a Theory" which systematically dismantles the nonsense of Intelligent Design.

Darwin formulated his ideas over a century and a half ago - there are bound to be errors and ovesights in his work. Breaking news, in the century and a half since he published his works tens of thousands of scientists have conducted research that has developed his remarkable insight into arguably the most solidly established theory in science. That said, I would be interested to know which particular ideas of his you consider to be "bad science". Perhaps I could then either agree with you that those ideas are outmoded, or show how you have misinterpreted their intent from the few excerpts you have read. (Warning: creationists routinely quote Darwin out of context in order to suggest he claimed something that supports their argument. When such excerpts are read in context their assertions are contradicted.)

Note to moderators - I'm not sure if we are even meant to give breathing space to pseudoscientific nonsense by taking the time to denounce it. Please remove this post if it is counter to forum policies.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

A science explanation for intelligent design.

There is no such thing.

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

But I thought it would be a good read for the scientist looking at science for answers.

Not likely. There could be some examples to use in school lessons on logical fallacies, critical thinking, etc.

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

Darwin's books are now public license. I don't care to study them but I have read excerpts that I consider bad science.

So you can't be bothered to read it but you think it is wrong. Arrogance or naivety, I'm not sure.

How about you give us some examples of this "bad science" and maybe we can tell you whether it is something you have failed to understand or, perhaps, something that Darwin got wrong but we know have a better understanding of.

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

I think that is what the author of the book while argue that the is much more that needs to be explained.

And, of course, a lot more has been explained since Wallace and Darwin's work. But there is a lot more to understand. That doesn't make Creationism any more credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

I checked at reviews for this book. A science explanation for intelligent design. No religion. But I thought it would be a good read for the scientist looking at science for answers.

!

Moderator Note

So why is this posted in religion?

 
9 hours ago, Trurl said:

Darwin's books are now public license. I don't care to study them but I have read excerpts that I consider bad science. I think that is what the author of the book while argue that the is much more that needs to be explained. The reviews also mention how DNA and evolution relate.

!

Moderator Note

What is it you wish to discuss, the book and ID, or Darwin and evolution?

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Moderator Note

So why is this posted in religion?

 

The book does not contain religion. I post here to see if anyone has or wants to read the book. Something of the sort "I'm a scientist but scientific evidence points to a creator as much as it doesn't." "God doesn't play dice"

I want to see if anyone is familiar with the book and follow scientific evidence that supports a creator may exist.

I haven't read the book, but it might be an intersting read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only science that may support a (non divine) creator, or some degree of intelligent design, is digital physics.

Creationism and intelligent design is frowned upon by most scientists, but that is because they suggest evidence of a god.
With digital physics, God is removed from the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Trurl said:

The book does not contain religion. I post here to see if anyone has or wants to read the book. Something of the sort "I'm a scientist but scientific evidence points to a creator as much as it doesn't." "God doesn't play dice"

I want to see if anyone is familiar with the book and follow scientific evidence that supports a creator may exist.

No scientific evidence points to any creator. That claim is totally unscientific and ignorant to make. We do though have plenty of evidence to show that spacetime/universe evolved from t+10-43 seconds up to the present time, plus the fact that the only scientific answer to life is Abiogenesis, either Earth based or via Panspermia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

If you read the book you may like it. I read 4 chapters and it does not promote religion. It is science. There is a difference between intelligent design and God.

The book exposes the limitations of Darwinism.

But what if an organ was 3D printed or A.I. perfected? Would the android ask, “Who created my creator?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Trurl said:

If you read the book you may like it. I read 4 chapters and it does not promote religion. It is science. There is a difference between intelligent design and God.

The book exposes the limitations of Darwinism.

But what if an organ was 3D printed or A.I. perfected? Would the android ask, “Who created my creator?”

It seems vanishingly unlikely. As, by your own admission, you can’t be bothered to read what Darwin wrote, why would anyone take seriously a book recommended by you criticising his ideas?

in any case, criticising Darwin is of little interest to scientists. Science has moved on quite a bit in the 150 years since Origin of Species came out.

You seem to be flogging a dead horse.

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You seem to be flogging a dead horse.

I think it's a strawhorse. Attacking one of the dead founders of evolutionary theory is MUCH easier than attacking the current theory.

Attack Darwin, then keep calling the theory "Darwinism" to give it a sour taste. Sort of like what was done to attack Obamacare. Attacks on science in general NEED ignorance and misunderstanding in order to be successful. It's part of what hides the religious agenda, so people think they aren't promoting religion. It's misconstrued, because ID proponents are professional misconstruction workers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think it's a strawhorse. Attacking one of the dead founders of evolutionary theory is MUCH easier than attacking the current theory.

Attack Darwin, then keep calling the theory "Darwinism" to give it a sour taste. Sort of like what was done to attack Obamacare. Attacks on science in general NEED ignorance and misunderstanding in order to be successful. It's part of what hides the religious agenda, so people think they aren't promoting religion. It's misconstrued, because ID proponents are professional misconstruction workers. 

Yes I think that’s about right. Let’s see if our poster is willing to argue some specific points of contention here on the forum. My guess is he won’t want to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2019 at 7:55 PM, Trurl said:

I checked at reviews for this book. A science explanation for intelligent design. No religion. But I thought it would be a good read for the scientist looking at science for answers.

Darwin's books are now public license. I don't care to study them but I have read excerpts that I consider bad science. I think that is what the author of the book while argue that the is much more that needs to be explained. The reviews also mention how DNA and evolution relate.

My views on it is that the central thesis doesn't need a book to explain it. It's not even scientific either. What Behe is trying to argue is a trivial and primitive argument in which he strawmans Darwin's theory. I suggest watching Qualiasoup in which he disproves Behe's unscientific claim.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

My views on it is that the central thesis doesn't need a book to explain it. It's not even scientific either. What Behe is trying to argue is a trivial and primitive argument in which he strawmans Darwin's theory. I suggest watching Qualiasoup in which he disproves Behe's unscientific claim.
 

 

Quite. The book is old news and was discredited years ago, as the Wiki article on it explains: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Black_Box

Behe* has had no credibility since his appearance at the Kitzmiller / Dover School trial, back in 2005. 

Basically, the pseudoscience of “Intelligent Design” is dead, but the corpse still twitches from time to time when people surface from the creationist community.

 

* though he still seems to have tenure at Yee-Haa university or somewhere..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Like I said intelligent design is not always related to creationism.

I was contrasting my post to the thread “ Who created God”

Some theorize that there is no evidence of God today so why did he exist in the past then decide not to show himself today?

But we have evidence of intelligent design today. We clone, gene edit, and such. So if creative design exists today what about the past?

That is my argument. The author is explaining the biological systems are too complex not to be designed. He uses verbose analogies such as why blood clots and how the eye reacts to light. It’s over done. We know it is complex.

On a different point why in science do we always have to have a beginning? Humans have a beginning and end? I realize we can’t picture a universe that always existed, but is that a limitation based on us?

And note that science and religion were not always opposites. Early scientists were to explore the mysterious of Gods creation.

You could argue scientists have been persecuted by religion. But much of Darwin was used to fuel the holocaust. Even Einstein barely escaped with his life.

But my point is we don’t all have the same opinions, but different views doesn’t mean war. Evolution has many logical theories but aren’t we more than that?

I mean if you look at cells you think evolution. But what if you look in your life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Trurl said:

But we have evidence of intelligent design today. We clone, gene edit, and such. So if creative design exists today what about the past?

You believe in the past mankind knew about DNA and gene editing.  That is an absurdly far fetched idea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I mean if you look at cells you think evolution. But what if you look in your life?

Since I am completely composed of cells, and stuff made by cells, then looking in my life, I see cells.

Behe's book is not aimed at scientists. It's aimed at religious people who have a sketchy knowledge of science, but who are beginning to wonder about evolution. It's smoke, mirrors and bullshit. ( going by the reviews )

It might  be an entertaining read, I don't know, life is too short to read all that kind of stuff. 

But it should be in the fiction section, not non-fiction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Like I said intelligent design is not always related to creationism.

I was contrasting my post to the thread “ Who created God”

Some theorize that there is no evidence of God today so why did he exist in the past then decide not to show himself today?

But we have evidence of intelligent design today. We clone, gene edit, and such. So if creative design exists today what about the past?

That is my argument. The author is explaining the biological systems are too complex not to be designed. He uses verbose analogies such as why blood clots and how the eye reacts to light. It’s over done. We know it is complex.

On a different point why in science do we always have to have a beginning? Humans have a beginning and end? I realize we can’t picture a universe that always existed, but is that a limitation based on us?

And note that science and religion were not always opposites. Early scientists were to explore the mysterious of Gods creation.

You could argue scientists have been persecuted by religion. But much of Darwin was used to fuel the holocaust. Even Einstein barely escaped with his life.

But my point is we don’t all have the same opinions, but different views doesn’t mean war. Evolution has many logical theories but aren’t we more than that?

I mean if you look at cells you think evolution. But what if you look in your life?

Intelligent design IS related to creationism. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Dover changed its curriculum to accommodate intelligent design in its biology classes. The court ruled that the change was not related to any scientific consensus, but rather a political and religious with the pretense of science. Furthermore, the court ruled that intelligent design was unscientific and a form of creationism (which even then is not hard to deduce since the theory explains a creator). 

I suggest watching the video I linked. It answers your questions and arguments and I'm not to regurgitate something that has been already said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trurl said:

Some theorize that there is no evidence of God today so why did he exist in the past then decide not to show himself today?

Some theorize that a god big enough for its own capital on a common noun once existed and at sometime stopped showing itself? Who theorizes that?

2 hours ago, Trurl said:

But we have evidence of intelligent design today. We clone, gene edit, and such.

So then, the fact that we can make flying machines out of steel proves that iron is capable of flight?

2 hours ago, Trurl said:

On a different point why in science do we always have to have a beginning?

We don't. We notice that a process is taking place. We attempt to trace it back through one or more causal chains as far as possible, predict its effects, explain how it works and experiment with how we can manipulate it to work for us. Each time we know a little more about the process and how it works, we can trace it a little farther back, predict a little more accurately what will happen next, and influence it to our benefit. In fact, every process is part of a longer, more complex process that we are trying to understand. 

 

2 hours ago, Trurl said:

Evolution has many logical theories but aren’t we more than that?

Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professor Richard Lenski has a series of blog posts that do a much more thorough breakdown of the flaws in Behe's argument in his most recent of three books "debunking" evolution than I have the time or patience to undertake. 

Post 1, Post 2, Post 3,  Book Review in Science

Why does this matter? One of the centerpieces of Behe's attempted deconstruction of evolutionary theory is his interpretations of the LTEE experiment, which Professor Lenski has conducted for the last 34 years in his lab at Michigan State. Which means that the blog posts above represent a detailed, exhaustive deconstruction of Behe's arguments against evolution, as presented by the distinguished scientist that actually conducted the experiments himself. 

Or, in other words, Richard Lenski himself has invested a bunch of time and effort to explain why Richard Lenski's own experiment doesn't prove what Michael Behe says it does, so Michael Behe's books are probably not worth reading. 

 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Trurl said:

Like I said intelligent design is not always related to creationism.

I was contrasting my post to the thread “ Who created God”

Some theorize that there is no evidence of God today so why did he exist in the past then decide not to show himself today?

But we have evidence of intelligent design today. We clone, gene edit, and such. So if creative design exists today what about the past?

That is my argument. The author is explaining the biological systems are too complex not to be designed. He uses verbose analogies such as why blood clots and how the eye reacts to light. It’s over done. We know it is complex.

On a different point why in science do we always have to have a beginning? Humans have a beginning and end? I realize we can’t picture a universe that always existed, but is that a limitation based on us?

And note that science and religion were not always opposites. Early scientists were to explore the mysterious of Gods creation.

You could argue scientists have been persecuted by religion. But much of Darwin was used to fuel the holocaust. Even Einstein barely escaped with his life.

But my point is we don’t all have the same opinions, but different views doesn’t mean war. Evolution has many logical theories but aren’t we more than that?

I mean if you look at cells you think evolution. But what if you look in your life?

Every word you write seems to drip creationism, even though you may deny that ID is inherently creationist.

There is plenty of room for scientists to be religious believers, but none at all for people that try to shoehorn supernatural agency into science. Science looks for explanations of nature in nature. In other words, the scientific method employs methodological naturalism. That has been at its heart since natural science first developed after the Renaissance.

Also at the heart of science is the requirement for a theory to be able to predict what we should be able to observe. It should be obvious that ascribing phenomena to supernatural agency, not bound by physical laws, defeats any hope of explanations that are predictive.

For these reasons “intelligent design” is not only pseudoscience, but actually anti-science.

I find it far easier to respect the views of an overt creationist than someone who pretends to be scientific while undermining the very principles on which science is founded. For these reasons I despise Behe and the rest of the (diminishing) ID gang. 

ID was always a political, social engineering project, originally conceived by a lawyer who is now, thankfully, dead. ID will soon go the same way, deservedly.

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2019 at 7:55 PM, Trurl said:

Darwin's books are now public license. I don't care to study them but I have read excerpts that I consider bad science.

Consider getting both Darwin's Black Box by Behe, and Darwin and the Barnacle by Scott.

 

Anyone want to chime in on whether Gradualism is fact over Catastrophism? Soft-bodied animals from the Cambrian era? A lithium-boron bolide from outerspace? Not to mention that iridium one later on.

Edited by NTuft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, NTuft said:

Anyone want to chime in on whether Gradualism is fact over Catastrophism?

It’s a false dichotomy. Geology is more subtle than these archaic either/or descriptions. Models that are in the process of being formed are often incomplete and get modified as more information comes to light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’s a false dichotomy. Geology is more subtle than these archaic either/or descriptions. Models that are in the process of being formed are often incomplete and get modified as more information comes to light

Punctuations to be accounted for, then? I'll try to work on assumptions.

Also I should probably read at least one of the books I recommended. Or this whole topic, for starters.

Edited by NTuft
emeralds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

It might  be an entertaining read, I don't know, life is too short to read all that kind of stuff. 

I have not read Darwin's Black Box, but I do have a copy of Behe's later work The Edge of Evolution, along with another dozen or two creationists' works. Wells, Dembski, Denton, Johnson, Stove - the usual suspects. Religious fundametalism threatens our society and it makes sense to know your enemy.

On 6/6/2022 at 6:40 PM, Trurl said:

The book exposes the limitations of Darwinism.

Other members have asked, but you seem to have ignored them - can you specify a couple of examples of what you perceive as the limitations of Darwinism, or any mainline aspect of evolutionary theory?

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Some theorize that a god big enough for its own capital on a common noun once existed and at sometime stopped showing itself? Who theorizes that?

It is a common thought in some theological circles. I've run across it many times. If you wish I can try to dig out specific examples for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Area54 said:

It is a common thought in some theological circles. I've run across it many times. If you wish I can try to dig out specific examples for you.

[that a god big enough to capitalize "god" for once showed itself and no longer does]

It would be interesting to see what they came up with.

Though I would much prefer that the poster who made the claim backed it up.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.