Pseudo-science Attacks Irreducible Complexity (that is, the Temple of Darwin attacks REAL SCIENCE)

ICR ^ | September 10, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Molecular biologist Michael Behe described a system made of several interacting parts, whereby the removal of one part would disrupt the functioning of the whole, as being irreducibly complex. Both creation scientists and intelligent design proponents highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies, because they argue against evolutionary hypotheses. The very structure of these systems—with their interdependent parts working all together or not at all—demands a non-Darwinian, non-chance, non-piecemeal origin.

A team of evolutionary molecular biologists thinks it may have refuted this concept of irreducible complexity. In a recent study, the researchers focused on a specific cellular machine involved in protein transport and claimed that it was indeed reducible to its component parts. But did they use real science to demonstrate this, or just scientific-sounding phrases?...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[xcamel]

Warning!
This is a Meta-article that contains
no peer reviewed site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever.
It is posted by a member of the new Christian Taliban
attempting to pass off his agenda as "conservatave".
They are not posted to provide proof of Creationism, but instead
merely to drag america back to the middle ages.
Buyer Beware!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology.

Is ICR defending astrology as well?

[SampleMan]

Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology.

Is "under oath" supposed to mean something here? Perhaps that he isn't lying about what his opinion really is?

If we went to Mars and found a threaded metal bolt, it could be explained as a random natural phenomenon through the application of statistical possibilities, however slight.
(Monkey + Typewriter) X Time = Shakespeare

However, common sense says it can't happen.

[GourmetDan]

"Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology. Is ICR defending astrology as well?"

This has been explained to evolutionists ad nauseum, with no effect. They repeat the same misrepresentation even after having the truth explained to them.

If you would actually read Dr. Behe's testimony instead of letting hack evolutionist websites do your thinking for you; you would see that Dr. Behe testified that ID was falsifiable in the same manner that astrology had been falsified.

But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.

[GodGunsGuts]

I see the Temple of Darwin allowed you to keep just enough grey matter to repeat the same mantra over and over and over and over and over...

[xcamel]

And you're trying to tell us that it is not what you do spamming FR with the same drivel every day?

[GourmetDan]

You should never accept a statement by an evolutionist at face value. Their minds don’t work correctly and their statements are likewise false.

Behe actually testified that ID was falsifiable just as astrology had been falsified.

In an evo mind, that translates into the false statement that you saw.

[Liberty1970]

I see. You can't refute the contents of the article, so you just post meaningless ridicule.

Your side lost. Deal with it.

[GodGunsGuts]

==But hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.

I wonder if the evos realize that their entire worldview can be summed up by the very last word of your reply.

[SampleMan]

My point is simply that those who dismiss ID out of hand as irrational, have no problem accepting the dizzying improbabilities otherwise required.

1 in a billion chance? Acceptable.

1 in a trillion chance? Acceptable.

One trillionth in a trillion chance? No problem.

Such unquestionable acceptance smacks of blind faith to me, which is what they suggest they just can't accept.

[xcamel]

Your statement would be funny, if it wasn't so incredibly sad.

[Liberty1970]

One funny thing about this whole debate is how ridiculous the evolutionist/naturalist mindset is in the context of real-world engineering and technology. Even fairly simple man-made artifacts are typically designed and engineered in non-stepwise manner (I'm thinking of the airbag crash modules built where I work, for example). Nor is it conceivable that such simple artifacts (compared to biological systems) could be built in a step-wise fashion as Darwinism requires. Yet it is an article of faith among Darwinists that literally everything in the biological world was produced in step-wise fashion, in total contradiction to our practical technological experience.

Darwinists sometimes naively point to 'evolutionary' iterations in technology without grasping the numerous intelligent decisions and multiple concrete changes in design and manufacturing for even small product upgrades. The reality is, changing most decently-optimized products requires numerous simultaneous changes to maintain function and efficiency such that it is an improvement over the old product design.

A biological example would be the shift from a reptilian lung to an avian lung. What makes a reptilian lung work in its environment is quite different from the optimal design for an avian lung, and requires substantial redesign. Not gradual 'evolution.' The same could be said for innumerable other biological features (such as different eye designs, bones, urea excretory systems, etc.) found in such a proposed transition. Evolutionism has embarassingly become a 19th-century word story unable to cope with the specifics and complexities of modern scientific discovery.

[GodGunsGuts]

I take it back, the Temple of Darwin has left just enough grey matter in your head to program you to post a few kindergarten caricatures and the same mantra over and over and over and over and over...

[Leonard210]

“This is a Meta-article that contains no peer reviewed site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever.”

It appears that the assumption of your statement is that FreeRepublic “scientists” are not intelligent enough to read an article of this nature and conclude that it is a “Meta-article”. Were you attempting to dissuade others from actually reading the inflammatory material and deciding for themselves? The article itself is not that brilliant, yet you threw up a warning like you were addressing a sixth grade school lab experiment. How incredibility paranoid.

[org.whodat]

If we went to Mars and found a threaded metal bolt,

So we found part of one of the crashed missions. Next!!!

[going hot]

same mantra over and over and over and over and over...

You saying this, is priceless. Please continue.

[org.whodat]

ROFLOL