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?...

[ColdWater]

Yes. You are a supporter of macro-evolution in man’s ascent from simple organisms!

[GSWarrior]

I have no problem with accepting that there is an intelligent design behind reality.

But, unless I am mistaken, that is not what is being peddled on these threads.

[xcamel]

You are not mistaken, and I use the term ‘christian taliban’ for a reason.

[CottShop]

[[It’s not an ignorant statement. I see all these posts supporting that it is the Intelligent Designer that is responsible for the evolution of man.]]

It is an ignorant statement, and you are itnentionally misrepresentign what is said and why- nowhere are htere posts ‘supporting that ID is responsible for the ‘evolution’ of man- ID is NOT the belief that man evolved with hte help of a creator- while a scant few may beleive it is still posdsible that nature is hte ‘intelligence. orthat God ‘helped evolution along’ there are many who do NOT think nature is in any way capable of producing macroevolution- this has been explained to you many many many times here on FR and you still persist in insisting that ID is an attempt to htrow God out of hte equation- this beleif of yours whows your ignorance of ID

[UCANSEE2]

Some of those are fairly frothing dogma.

I have noticed that as well. And I have stated so to him.

Funny thing is that he doesn't 'attack' me that way, even though I disagree with him.

Do you know why?

[CottShop]

[[Yes. You are a supporter of macro-evolution in man’s ascent from simple organisms!]]

Now you sir are bearign false witness- my past posts are neough to refute your assinine statement

[ColdWater]

You reference the ID being responsible for macro-evolution events. Your words, not mine. You give no credit to God but keep referencing the Intelligent Designer as being responsible for macro-evolution events.

[CottShop]

Yes- anyone that doesn’t agree with hte biologically impossible scenario of macroevolution must therefore be from the camp of the ‘Christian taliban’- apparently, expecting nature to abide by the laws that govern it is a ‘terrorist sentiment’ i n the eyes of some- must NOT argue against Godless Naturalism- must TOE the line- must not refute science beleif with scientific fact- That apparently is what ‘true’ science is all about evidently

[DungeonMaster]

Translation: I have no answer to your question.

Step 2 of same game.

[CottShop]

[[You reference the ID being responsible for macro-evolution events. Your words, not mine. You give no credit to God but keep referencing the Intelligent Designer as being responsible for macro-evolution events.]]

how old are you CW? Because you act liek a little kid- You know damn well that isn’t my position at all- yet you are apparently hell bent on intentionally misrepresentign ID and my beleifs. IF you refuse to engage in intellectually honest discussions- then I’m through with you- I have consistently given credit to God beign hte intelligent Design behind creation- you sir ARE LYING

[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’

Here are your word supporting the Intelligent Designer instead of God.

[UCANSEE2]

You know why certain posters aren’t returning the simple and logical answer.

If not, I’ll explain.

It’s because they cannot accept they might be wrong.
It’s because they cannot accept anyone else is more knowledgeable than they are.
It’s because they aren’t here to ‘learn’ anything, only to give out proclamations of their own superior intelligence.

[jimt]

I no longer play that game with people who clearly don't believe what it says. I often get asked where the bible says sola scripura. It says all I need to know about someone when they ask that question.

And it says all I need to know about a person who can't back up his/her assertions, but makes them anyway, claiming them to be self-obvious fact.

Especially when they're demonstrably false. Or was King James' translator God ?

Ad hominem crap doesn't make your case - it makes it arrogant and foolish.

[UCANSEE2]

Actually, it's "All hat, and no cattle."

And JIMT is correct.

Thus proving those with a PHD don't 'know' everything.

[jimt]

Do you know why?

Probably your good manners and gentle way of disagreement.

[ColdWater]

how old are you CW? Because you act liek a little kid- You know damn well that isn’t my position at all- yet you are apparently hell bent on intentionally misrepresentign ID and my beleifs. IF you refuse to engage in intellectually honest discussions- then I’m through with you- I have consistently given credit to God beign hte intelligent Design behind creation- you sir ARE LYING

Kind of hard to read your rant. Is this an accurate representation?

1. God, the Intelligent Designer, created man.

2. There was no macro-evolution.

[CottShop]

[[You reference the ID being responsible for macro-evolution events.]]

I have also consistently argued that macroevolution is impossible- biologically, chemically, mathematically, and that it severely violates the second law- again you are intentionally LYING about my position- Are you a bald faced lair CW? Accordign ot your posts- it woudl seem that you are a shameless liar! I have NEVER agreed with ANYONE’s beleif that ID is responsible for macroevolution, and pointign to someone who does beleive in macroevolution IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT of their beleif- I reference relevent quotes about science- NOT their beleifs- IF they say somethign of value scientifically, then that sir is what I reference- I could care less what they beleive OUTSIDE of the relevent facts of science- Behe makes a case for the NEED for a designer, and does a good enough job to show that NEED- however his theory is too small- and informaiton theory applies to all of life’s irreducible structures, not the few he pointed out- which further shows the NEED for intelligent design, fully functional and complete creation in ALL species- you know htis full well CW- but you insist on playing assinine childish games-

apparently, ‘guilt by association’ is the best ammunition you have? This just shows how weak your argument is and how feeble your attempts at intellectually honest conversation really is-

[UCANSEE2]

For God’s sake, please slow down. Your typing is getting atrocious.

: )

[ColdWater]

You are so confused. In one post you support the merits of Behe and ID, but here you denounce it.

[GSWarrior]

You guys can hash it out all you want. I am comfortable with my belief that there are some things we humans don’t need to understand. Isn’t faith enough?