What science fiction?
I've been following Chris' advice, and reading the judgement in the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District case. It's fantastic, and far funnier than it has a right to be. There's something I need a hand with, though. Here's the background, from the John Jones' judgement:
Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is based upon an analogy to human design. Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design. (18:116-17, 23:50 (Behe)). Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, [intelligent design] ID completely fails.
Unlike biological systems, human artifacts do not live and reproduce over time. They are non-replicable, they do not undergo genetic recombination, and they are not driven by natural selection. (1:131-33 (Miller); 23:57-59 (Behe)). For human artifacts, we know the designer’s identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer’s abilities, needs, and desires. (D-251 at 176; 1:131-33 (Miller); 23:63 (Behe); 5:55- 58 (Pennock)). With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. (38:44-47 (Minnich)). In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. (23:61-73 (Behe)). Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe)).
What science fiction has Behe been watching? When hapless, and usually soon-to-be-devoured spacefarers find something complicated, their line of argument doesn't proceed
1. There is something complex hereInvariably it's more along the lines of
2. Humans didn't build it.
3. Therefore God did.
1. This is far too complex for us to have built it, though we can sort of see quite how well designed it isIn other words, even the science fiction films depend on some sort of baseline for design skill. And hypotheses about the desires and motivations about designers are revealed, bloodily, in the ninety minutes subsequent to discovery of complicated and alien things.
2. We don't have this level of technology. Yet.
3. Captain, there's something else down here.
4. Captain?
Or is there a SciFi movie that I'm forgetting?
posted by Raj @ 8:48 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Much as I hate to defend Behe, his actual words at the trial were:
"Again if something showed strong marks of design, and even if a human designer could not have made it, then we nonetheless would think that something else had made it. Lots of science fiction movies are based on scenarios like that"
So he's arguing that SF movies support the premise that non-human design can be recognised by humans. He doesn't make the connection to a supernatural cause at this point.
This is bogus on so many levels, the main one being that everything in SF movies is ultimately designed by humans because the SF movies are made by, um, humans (and Chronicles of Riddick is sure proof of UNintelligent design).
Anyway, he's wrong. Is the Alien a designed bioweapon or a naturally evolved predator? The script floated both possibilities (I can't remember whether the lines made it into the final edit) and the characters never came to a conclusion before being eaten.
The failure of ID to define 'design' in any way other than 'I know it when I see it' is a rather telling flaw.
True enough, Steve. I've found Behe's testimony here, and it's also true that I did a little violence to his argument. But the cross examination sets things straight:
Q. Science fiction movies are not science, are they, Professor Behe?
A. That's correct, they are not. But they certainly try to base themselves on what their audience would consider plausible within the genre, so they can offer useful illustrations at some points, for some points.
Post a Comment
<< Home