I'd like to request some buffista Car-ma, as I'm in the final stages of buying a new (to me) car. Loan's approved, insurance is mostly ready; now I just need to close and register. If everything just goes smoothly, I will be a very happy car owner by tomorrow; however, there's some residual crap with the title of my last car (the one that got stolen and junked) that I thought had gone away, but apparently hasn't (it looks likes it's still in my name, but not at my address). I just hope that can be dealt with separately and won't hold up getting this one registered and on the road.

---

Yes, and it matches what I've seen of his before -- since he doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about, he pulls out the standard list of ID talking points. (Blah blah flagellum blah blah randomness hey look over there something shiny! inconclusionwewinkthxbye)

I don't even have enough understanding to see that. I'm not doubting your word. I trust you more than him or Orr, and I just want to know. Where is Dembski doing this, in any sense, where what he is saying is not true/correct/relevant to Orr's original points (or whatever)?

I'm reading it now, and it makes me clench my fists. The objections are not sound. He's not a scientist. For example, the fact that you don't have every single organism that represents an example of the evolution of a trait is not at all damning, and to expect it is ridiculous.

Okay, this level of assertion/refutation/rebuttal is where they lose me. I'm going to ask you questions. I know you're not a scientist, but I trust your opinion, and you almost certainly have a better understanding than I do, because at least you know what frustrates you. I just know I'm feeling frustrated. When you say the above, are you referring to what I've copied below, because I can't find where he's saying what you're saying he's saying, but I don't understand much of what he's saying.

**This last point about the absence of detailed Darwinian pathways is the Achilles heel of Orr’s criticism of Behe. Orr remarks that “Behe and his followers now emphasize that, while irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve, biologists can’t reconstruct in convincing detail just how any such system did evolve.” To which Orr immediately adds, “What counts as a sufficiently detailed historical narrative, though, is altogether subjective.” This last point constitutes an damning admission — indeed, it gives away the store. Is Orr saying that evolutionary theory is in the business of telling historical narratives that are purely subjective. If so, how can it constitute a science? And if not, where are the detailed Darwinian pathways that could convince any unbiased bystander that the flagellum really did evolve by Darwinian means? Orr suggests that design theorists are tendentiously raising the bar of scientific evidence for Darwinism too high. But this is not the case. Without detailed, testable Darwinian pathways that produce irreducibly complex systems like the bacterial flagellum, why should anyone believe that such pathways exist at all? Note that ID theorists are not, as Orr intimates, asking for the actual history of the flagellum. That history might have taken any number of paths. Rather, we are asking for even one path — one detailed enough to assess whether the Darwinian mechanism could in fact produce the flagellum and systems of comparable complexity.

**One theme that Orr has played up is the idea of evolution working by borrowing components, folding in novel components into evolving structures, components that are dispensable initially but then become indispensable over time. As a sheer possibility, this might account for how a bacterial flagellum might emerge. But where is the evidence? Orr doesn’t present any. Instead, he describes a hypothetical scenario in which GPS devices, though for now dispensable in automobiles, might in fifty years prove indispensable as GPS systems get used to drive our cars. An interesting speculation, no doubt. But then Orr adds a completely misleading conclusion: “At that point, G.P.S. would no longer be an attractive option; it would be an essential piece of automotive technology. It’s important to see that this process is thoroughly Darwinian: each change might well be small and each represents an improvement.” THOROUGHLY DARWINIAN??? This is technological evolution, with each point in the process superintended by intelligence. Moreover, the changes at any stage are hardly gradual — a GPS placed into an automobile does not fall under what Darwin called “numerous, successive slight modifications.”

**Equally misleading is (continued...)

---

( continues...)

Orr’s point about trying to reconstruct the “complex historical process” by which “a bustling urban street” might have come about. Granted, one may not be able to tell the exact order in which the shops appeared. But one could at least tell a plausible detailed story about how it could have happened (first that greasy spoon restaurant, then the drug store to supply meds for the indigestion caused by the greasy spoon, then a Starbucks to wash away the bad taste, etc.). To reiterate, Orr does not appreciate that ID theorists are not asking for actual historical narratives. They are asking for detailed Darwinian pathways that could have produced the complex biological structure in question (should these also serve as historical narratives, fine, but that’s not and never was the issue).

---

He's saying that in order refute ID you need to reconstruct the process by which a trait evolved (and no matter how far it gets reconstructed, he commonly responds by saying that's not detailed enough, as indicated below). As far as I know, the prevailing argument against this is that it's difficult and unnecessary. I am perfectly convinced by the Darwinian side-- we have plenty of evidence. What I find compelling against ID is that the ID side hews to the part of evolution that's hard to reconstruct-- an incredibly complex and essentially random process imperfectly represented by the geologic record. But that doesn't mean ID is right. Anyway, here's where he says it, from your excerpt:

the absence of detailed Darwinian pathways is the Achilles heel of Orr’s criticism of Behe

biologists can’t reconstruct in convincing detail just how any such system did evolve

(Orr's claim is that "convincing detail" is subjective; Dembski takes this to be a major concession, which it is not.)

where are the detailed Darwinian pathways that could convince any unbiased bystander that the flagellum really did evolve by Darwinian means?

Why would it have to be an unbiased bystander? The problem with this comment is that the science behind proving something like this is too complicated to convince a bystander.

Without detailed, testable Darwinian pathways that produce irreducibly complex systems like the bacterial flagellum, why should anyone believe that such pathways exist at all?

Here's the essence of the argument-- if we don't know how you got from A to B, how do you know that something got from A to B? Well, we know that it was at A, and we know it came to B. We have a testable and evidenced theory of how it came to be. The exact nature of the route is hard to trace, but that doesn't disprove the fact that the trip was made from A to B.

Finally, he moves on a bit:

To reiterate, Orr does not appreciate that ID theorists are not asking for actual historical narratives. They are asking for detailed Darwinian pathways that could have produced the complex biological structure in question (should these also serve as historical narratives, fine, but that’s not and never was the issue).

This is total BS-- they ARE asking for actual historical narratives, or they're not at all convinced by the mountains of data accumulated to show how and why a certain trait could have evolved. It's gobbledygook.

---

Why does the CA DMV have music on its front page? How is that civilised?

---

I pulled out a dusty Depeche Mode cd for the plane ride home. Probably still good driving music, but ...wow. Teenage angst!

And sex de la kink. I don't think I noticed it so much when I was young and clueless, but now - whoa the kink...

---

He's not a scientist. For example, the fact that you don't have every single organism that represents an example of the evolution of a trait is not at all damning, and to expect it is ridiculous.

Right. Science is a method: you work with the data you have, or can get. Of course there are going to be gaps, just like, on a graph, you have to norm dots into a trend-line. Nobody looks at a hitter's batting average, sees that the guy rode the bench for two days, and says, "Well we just don't know how good a hitter he is, do we?"

To supplement Bon Bon's analysis (quoted parts are Dembke):

Is Orr saying that evolutionary theory is in the business of telling historical narratives that are purely subjective.

No. Orr is saying that ID-proponents like Behe are constantly changing the finish-line, by saying, "Oh no, sorry, that's not a detailed enough explanation for me. You lose!" Whether that's so or not, I don't know, but in that sentence Dembke is misrepresenting what Orr is saying, by dint of misconstruing a subordinate clause.

The whole rest of that graf is repetition of Behe's original point, and fails entirely to engage with Orr's counterpoint, because Dembke failed to parse the sentence he's rebutting correctly. Thus, Dembke is basically saying. "Does Orr have a point? Who knows! But I do know my point, which is..." Verdict: marathoning (repeating your point while failing to engage your opponent's point) = shitty argumentation.

THOROUGHLY DARWINIAN???

Anybody who uses all-caps in professional writing needs to be taken out behind the barn and whupped. Preferably by his mother. Lacking a living parent, the condemned may be assigned yours truly for his punishment. Verdict: My foot in somebody's ass.

This is technological evolution, with each point in the process superintended by intelligence. Moreover, the changes at any stage are hardly gradual — a GPS placed into an automobile does not fall under what Darwin called “numerous, successive slight modifications.”

This strikes me as a (potentially intentional) misunderstanding of Orr: Orr is using GPS devices in cars as an analogy for the "extra becomes essential" mechanism. Of course GPSes are supervised by intelligence. But that's not the point: the point is, 50 years from now, your car will not be able to drive itself without a GPS. Something got appropriated (by whomever) away from its original (cool toy) purpose, and put to a different use (automated navigation). Who did the appropriating is not what Orr is arguing: he's arguing that the appropriation is a mechanism that makes problems for the whole idea that something is "irreducibly complex." Dembke is seizing on the details of Orr's analogy, rather than comprehending its larger point. Verdict: Red herring (a distracting side-issue that takes attention away from the main issue) = shitty argumentation.

To reiterate, Orr does not appreciate that ID theorists are not asking for actual historical narratives. They are asking for detailed Darwinian pathways that could have produced the complex biological structure in question (should these also serve as historical narratives, fine, but that’s not and never was the issue).

I can't make heads or tails of this one. Orr is providing various potential pathways throughout his essay, by analogy for a lay audience. If ID is asking for them, then ID has been answered, so... what's to argue? I presume that Dembke is asking for something more detailed and [Nutty forgets most of her biology] than Orr provides, but, Orr is writing for the New Yorker, so of course he's not going to provide details. New Yorker articles are long and boring enough!

It's possible that what Dembke is asking for is something that all of science can't provide, but -- he doesn't explain why what Orr does provide isn't good enough. Also, see above with the "constantly changing the finish-line" issue, which Orr tries to address (and which Dembke refuses to address). Verdict: Marathoning + a bit of the straw man (continued...)

---

( continues...) = shitty argumentation.

I can't say much about he guy's science, but his rhetorical skills are for shit.

---

Thanks to that upthread mention of Depeche Mode, I now have "I Just Can't Get Enough" on permanent earworm. Love that song.

---

Nice work bon bon.

---