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?...

[SampleMan]

I refuse to believe that so many people are incapable of comprehending my simple question. However, I'll provide you a picture and see if you can follow. Let's say that you find this arch on Mars:

Would you:
A. Think it was the result of an unbelievably improbable statistical anomaly of nature.
B. Think someone designed it.

That was the simple question put out there. A simple question to test whether the reader had the willingness to change their mind in the face of overwhelming evidence, if such evidence were presented.

So far, the level of obfuscation in response points to a closed mindedness on the subject. It is impossible to sway people with mere logic, when they have proved themselves capable of rejecting things regardless of facts.

People who won't answer a clear hypothetical are generally insecure, but rabidly devout in their positions. No sense arguing with them, or in this case even pursuing with the test.

[SampleMan]

God is all powerful, why would he labor when he could wave his hands and create an arch?

Who knows the mind of God? But perhaps to provide a test of who is obstinate in their thinking and who is not.

My question was simply designed to see if any level of statistical improbability would be able to shake the views of those who back that school of thought.

The answer so far has been a resounding, [I refuse to answer such questions]. I assume because they perceive the question to be trap. Very insecure thinking. I'm never afraid to answer a properly constructed hypothetical. Far from muddying the waters, hypotheticals remove the passion of the immediate question and apply the basic principles of the underlying logic to a different scenario. An argument that cannot survive a good hypothetical is a poor argument, or is simply being put forward by a poor arguer.

[count-your-change]

Why do you not ask Him?

[tpanther]

Nothing ironic about it. There's no contradiction between a belief in God and a belief in evolution.

God could have created the universe to evolve, couldn't He ?

Well...errr....sure, I suppose if you ignore that all we know happened by sheer happenstance, with no purpose, no design, no intelligence, over ga-jillions of years...just because.

[antiRepublicrat]

What original question? The bolt on Mars? It’s a disingenuous question often used by creationists. We know a bolt to be a bolt. We recognize that pattern of something we have invented. Of course we’re going to think it was designed, because we know we designed it.

Now something like blood clotting, that’s something we only discovered, put a name to, and deduced to the best of our ability its purpose.

[CottShop]

Ah the blood clotting mention- that wonderful trick of nature, that marvelous ‘natural process’ of evolution, that incidently took Miller and INTELLIGENT DESIGN to construct highher complexity clotting in an unnatural process of ‘natural progress’ in order to ‘explain naturally’ lol

It’s all so unnatural it MUST be Intelligently designed- just as the bolt on mars woudl be un-natural- but mind you- the magic wand of dismissal the evos use simply wave the wand, and the problem dissappears because ‘nature is nowe tricking us’ by producing what ‘looks like’ irreducible ocmplexity’, but which, apparently, accordign to evos, ‘isn’t really complexity’, but which takes intelligent design to ‘explain away’ the complexity.

Wow- anyone else dizzy?

[ColdWater]

“Molecular biologist Michael “ said that God may be dead since we have seen no evidence of his work in the last hundred million years.

[ColdWater]

Behe testified that man evolved over billions of years from simple organisms.

[ColdWater]

God is all powerful, why would he labor when he could wave his hands and create an arch?

There you go again! Limiting God's power based on your limited human perspective. God does not labor.

[ColdWater]

Ah the blood clotting mention- that wonderful trick of nature, that marvelous ‘natural process’ of evolution, that incidently took Miller and INTELLIGENT DESIGN to construct highher complexity clotting in an unnatural process of ‘natural progress’ in order to ‘explain naturally’ lol

Why are you worshipping the ID and not God?

[ColdWater]

Thanks. I’m not perfect by any stretch. But you have to remember that half the time I am totally kidding with these guys. I cracks me up that they take so much of what I say so seriously.

Your amusement is misplaced. We take none of what you say seriously!

[ElectricStrawberry]

I refer to many people....but when quoting someone...have the balls to ping them.

Quoting....referring to....exact same thing, eh?

Awwwwww...but then you’d have nothing to say. Care to tell me the function of the auricularis muscles?

[ElectricStrawberry]

I’ll play your tangent game..

Seeing a clearly made by man structure, I would presume a man made it. Seeing the same structure on another planet, I would presume an alien made it.

BUT, you’ve now twisted the discussion to YOUR PATHETIC PIGEON HOLE away from the orignal statement.

Seeing “and arch”, what was stated in the original, I would presume that natural forces of erosion created it. No, I didn’t see it happen, but I can see the process occuring in real time. I didn’t see the Grand Canyon “made” but I can see the millions of tons per year of silt washing through the Colorado and presume that erosion had something to do with it.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Ummmm....my puss sister and her puss boyfriend STILL have no balls and never had any, yet they both passed USMC boot.

[GourmetDan]

"I refer to many people....but when quoting someone...have the balls to ping them. Quoting....referring to....exact same thing, eh?"

Obviously you reserve the right to set standards for others and excuse your own behavior as it is convenient for you. Keep talking, hypocrite. You're doing great.

Maybe you thought no one would notice that I never said quoting and referring to were the exact same thing, eh? That's just where you have to go to justify your hypocritical behavior.

"Awwwwww...but then you’d have nothing to say. Care to tell me the function of the auricularis muscles?"

Care to tell me how you managed to train your sphincter ani externus to speak?

[GourmetDan]

"Yes did see where Behe said according to his definition Astrology was a scientific theory on the same accord as intelligent design. I guess that means that neither are correct."

Confused again Ira? I know this is difficult for you to understand. Maybe you should stop guessing?

Here's what Behe actually said, "And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories."

[GourmetDan]

Poor guy. You’re confused and are using the fallacy of composition as though it is an argument. It isn’t. It’s a fallacy.

Everyone isn’t required to accept every word of Behe’s testimony before they can object to those misrepresenting Behe’s testimony. The point is that Behe did not testify that ‘ID is no different than astrology’.

Is that difficult for you to understand?

[antiRepublicrat]

I refuse to believe that so many people are incapable of comprehending my simple question.

Answer me this question with a simple yes or no answer and you may understand the problem here:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

It is a very simple question, so you should be capable of answering it.

[antiRepublicrat]

Sample, you need to check your improbability again. The problem is that you have already picked the finishing point, and then demanded that it occur naturally. Take a penny, flip it 32 times. Before you do that, choose your outcome among the 4+ billion possibilities. Odds are you lose, right? This is your arch or your bolt, you've picked the outcome before you started so the odds are against you.

Now flip it 32 times again for evolution. We want an outcome, any outcome. We don't care what it is. We get an outcome. Now what are the odds that we now have that outcome? Well, it happened so it's 1:1. That outcome had just as much chance of occurring as any of the other 4 billion outcomes, and the chance we'd get an outcome is 1:1.

Trying to figure out the odds of us existing as we are is a meaningless exercise, because here we are. If we'd come out different with three eyes and a snorkel, you'd be trying to figure out the odds of us coming out that way. Or the odds of us coming out the zillions of different ways that may have been possible for life.

[Alamo-Girl]

He evidently does not have "ears to hear" and "eyes to see."

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3

To God be the glory!