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?...

[CottShop]

[[The problem is you don’t have any good evidence against it.]]

Lol- you keep saying that- but the evidnece refutes that statement

[[Creationism says look at this book dating back over 2,000 years, and make the evidence fit into it.]]

Bzzzt wrong again

[[That is true in many areas of science. We don’t completely know how gravity works either.]]

The probklem with your ‘explanation’ is that gravity doesn’t have several key sicentific principles that it must ignore in order to be true hwile macroeolvution does- so in order to to avoid beign caught i na logically inconsistant position -you simply state that ‘we just don’t know how macroevolution could have violated these principles and statistics

[[Basically, you are arguing God of the Gaps,]]

bzzzzt- wrong again- We aregue hte evidnce- Macroevolution argues that it ‘just haven’t been discovered yet’ how macroevolution could have violated these prinicples- talk abotu gaps- Nature is the god which fills i nthe gaps apaprently- ‘Nature done it’ just falls flat when examined in detainl- Nature aint capable- plain and ismple- and no matter how you go on and on about ID, that fact won’t ever change

[[Again you’re missing my point. The ID claim is that it doesn’t posit on the intelligence, yet I have not yet met and IDer who doesn’t believe that intelligence isn’t God.]]

Then you aint looking hard enough- infact- I doubt oyu’re looking past the first couple of links in a google search on the issue, because several have indeed stated they don’t think God is the intelligence- Th3y are wrong of course- but they’re welcome to their erronious beliefs

[[[IOW, it’s still a religious movement pretending to be science.]]

IOW you’re still a broken record who is ignorant abotu ID if htis is your silly agendist belief

[[You’re the one who made a statement and then backed away from it by claiming it was just a copy/paste.]]

Bzzzt wrong- I explaiend why it was posted- Sorry- not playing your game-

[[You are responsible for everything you post, even the plagiarized parts.]]

How old are you? seriously? You act liek a kid- I sdtated that tactics liek that are best left ot lesser sites liek Darwin central where the kids go to squack on and on abotu ID and Creationsits- ut apaprently you don’t mind bringign that childish rhettoric here for all to see- Oh well- you only hurt yourself and you credibility by doign so- Have at it

[[So back to the salient point, in this thread you used an appeal to a non-scientific factor (negative social consequences if your theory isn’t accepted)]]

Lol- still playing hte victim card-

[CottShop]

[[I said “proponents”. You answered with a reply about “websites”.]]

Most websites in favor of ID are run by proponents of ID

[tacticalogic]

Most websites in favor of ID are run by proponents of ID

No proponent of ID is a website.

[tacticalogic]

Did you find anything unusual in the title of the article?

[CottShop]

[[I would go back to pointing out my baseballs on the fence analogy and saying that people should accept that for now its a subjective and thus differing issue.]]

Why? We’re not talking abotu a minor statistical impossibility, we’re talking a major statistical impossibility- and not just once, twice, trice, or several times, but trillions of times- This isn’t somethign that we can’t reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt here- and besides, Mutations do not add new non species specific info- it can only alter info already present- There are many sound reasons to reject the idea that nature did anythign even remotely akin to macroeovlution. We’re not talkign about nature p ossibly beign able to do something- we’re beign asked to bleeive it violated key scientific principles- and we’re not asked ot bleeive it did so just once, after which ‘the ball got rolling, and everythign sprang forth fro mthat one impossible incident’ We’re beign unreasonably asked to believe that nature vioalted scientific principles trilliosn of times= this isn’t minor- and it certainly stretches the reasonability of he case far too far I’m afraid

[[understand that you can’t statistically disprove something that is at least theoretically a matter of chance.]]

Your ball o nthe fence has a much better chance of happenign than nature does of vioalting key scientific principles I’m afraid- you seem to be implying htough that if somethign has ‘a chance’ then it can’t be ruled out (which doesn’t realyl apply to macroevolution, as it’s impossible) but there are upper probability limits- the likes of which, if breached, make somethign impossible- not probable, not likely, not even remotely likely, but impossible- Won’t ever happen- Macroevolutionists though are fond of stating that ‘creationsits and ID folk ‘don’t understand how probability works’ or ‘how Macroevolution works, (though they have yet to show any real life exemptions or evidences)- but again- we’re not talkign about it happening just once, or a few times, we’re talkign abotu trillions of times it would have had to occure- and yet we have absolutely zero evidence for it happening even one time- the best they can do is point to things liek sicklecell anameamia and claim it’s ‘new ifnromation’ because it ‘gives a certain measure of protection against malaria’ - nothign coudl be further fro mthe truth- but whatever-

On and on it goes

[CottShop]

[[No proponent of ID is a website. ]]

What are you smoking? I said proponents usually have websites, their websites consist of info BY THE PROPONENTS- Yay- word games- like I haven’t got anythign better to do

[tacticalogic]

Well, I suppose that its asking too much of people when the subject involves the crossroads of religion and science. An atheist scientist can say that religion should never enter into science, while a religious person can ask why an atheist scientist would even care what other people think introduced the initial spark. In short, the nature of the thread probably makes attacks on religious beliefs inevitable.

I agree that differences of opinion will arise because of religous beliefs. I don't think that religion excuses incivility. I regularly see arguments over religious differences in crevo threads that would get deleted, and the poster warned or suspended if it was posted in the Religion forum. The creation/evolution debate becomes a proxy for differences over religious doctrine and provides a forum that fosters and allows a crudeness that's considered inappropriate there.

I of course wish that everyone was as courteous and intellectually honest as me on these threads ;-)

You are not alone in that.

[tacticalogic]

Yay- word games- like I haven’t got anythign better to do

You could have saved everyone's time by simply answering the question that was asked in the first place.

[CottShop]

and just for the record- I see you are quite fond of moving the goalposts- apparently, if some scientist believes the evidence, and doesn’t htink nature is capable of creatign IC and informaiton, then by golly they must have some ‘hidden religious agenda’, and apparently, the only ones capable of makign scientific judgements in your goalpost moving mind are atheists? Youll find a list on DI called Dissent from Darwin which includes over 700 scientists from all walks of life- soem beleivers, some agnostic, some wh othink God started macroevolution after the created kinds etc- Heck, there’s probably even some who are athiest who signed on- As well I gave a list from Wallace’s website that showed evolutionsits who are intellectually honest enough to cede that life could not have vioalted the 2LOT, and you’ll find many quotes o nthe net from evolutionsits who nonetheless beleive the evidence doesn’t support the ‘consensus’ hypothesis that RM+NS= Macroevolution, and htink there must be another mechanism by which life evolved- And, to top it off, you’ll find the symposium of top scientists in Chicago awhiel ago who concluded that life could not have statistically happened via RM+NS- Do all these folks have soem ‘hidden agenda’ in your mind?

[CottShop]

[[You are not alone in that.]]

Says the man who not so subtly insults with thinly veiled jabs and accusations

and by hte way- it’s not just on this site- it’s also prevlent on science sites as well- amoung scientists no less- so let’s not pretend we’re nythitgn special here, or lesser than ‘professionals’, and let’s certainly not feign shock at ‘other’s behavior’ when we ourselves do the very same hting- K?

I wil lgive you credit for mostly tryign to keep civil- however, I have seen you indulge your sense of ‘gotcha’ (incorrectly I mgiht add) on many occasions too- and quite frankly, ‘subtle insuklts’ (which aren’t really so subtle) are more demeaning than blatant in yo face insults- it’s just that htose hwo indulge in subtle insults think they’re being ‘civil’- they are not

[tacticalogic]

I'll admit to having answered insults in kind, and being less than tactful in response to intentional mischaracterizations.

If there's something specifically I've posted you think was unwarranted or unfair, let's have it. I might be wrong.

[antiRepublicrat]

the only ones capable of makign scientific judgements in your goalpost moving mind are atheists

No, having a significant number of atheists on your side, as there are a significant number of the religious on evolution's side, would lend some credence to ID not being religiously motivated. You have yet to show even one, yet alone a decent percentage.

[antiRepublicrat]

Bzzzt wrong again

That's pretty much the definition of creationism, it happened as it says in the Bible, period, end of story, nothing can conflict with it. If there's an apparent conflict it's a problem with the evidence or the thinking of the observer, not the Bible. That's a fact, deal with it.

The ONLY way you can refute this is to admit the possibility that the Bible is scientifically and factually incorrect. But your belief in your religion won't let you do that.

That's fine, I don't have a problem with your personal belief. But don't try to call it science. That's absurd.

Lol- still playing hte victim card-

This is about the third time I've tried to explain this extremely simple concept to you, and as often goes with creationists you keep twisting it to an absolutely different meaning.

That's it. I'm done with you. I've debated with far more rational loony left liberals.

[CottShop]

You’ve been fairly civil i nthis thread- unlike soem fellow evos-

[[I’ll admit to having answered insults in kind, and being less than tactful in response to intentional mischaracterizations.]]

Join the club

[CottShop]

[[No, having a significant number of atheists on your side, as there are a significant number of the religious on evolution’s side, would lend some credence to ID not being religiously motivated.]]

Once again you just don’t get it- it’s not about ‘consensus’ it’s abotu hte facts, and whether the theories are scientifically possible or not- either macroeovlution is possible, or it’s not- you’ve decided however that a theory rests o nwhether there is a certain number of atheists, or certain number of people calling themselves religious, regardless of whether their actions show they are truly Christ’s own or not (that doesn’t matter to you- as logn as they cal lthemselves Christians, and support evolution which contradicts God’s word, then chalk them up as A-OK in your eyes when it comes to the numbers games you liek to play)

[[You have yet to show even one, yet alone a decent percentage.]]

What is the goalpost yardage today? 10%? Tommorrow will it be 17%? how about hte fact that evo scientists have specifially concluded macroevolution couldn’t happen, or that nature is incapable, or that mutations only work on info already present, and can not supply the needed new non species specific info to move species beyond their own kinds? What of htose who have noted all manner of problems with darwinism? Are they all agendists too? Is everyone of the 700 o nthe dissent fro mDarwin agendists too?

[[But don’t try to call it science. That’s absurd.]]

I see you’re goign to carry on with your absurdly ignorant argument that ID isn’t science- Guess I was setting my hopes too high that you’d set aside petty rediculous accusations, and step up to the itnellectually honest line of debate- My mistake— And Sorry- but the facts refute your petty claims

[[But your belief in your religion won’t let you do that.]]

Bzzzzzzt Sorry- wrong again- Golly- you’re batting a 1000 tonight- The facts and evidneces are what support the bible and refute the scientifically impossible hypothesis of Macroevolution- Donthca just hate it when the facts don’t support your position? Must get tiring arguing assumptions and not beign able to present any facts and evidences to support your preferred hypothesis eh?

[[If there’s an apparent conflict it’s a problem with the evidence or the thinking of the observer, not the Bible.]]

‘Apparent problem’? sorry- but htere are factual problems with your preferred hypothesis, not apaprent problems- and yes, there are problems with the thinkign of hte observer IF they glibbly keep dismissing these serious violations of science time and tiem again and insisting it ‘could have happened’ despite complete lack of evidnece to back that silyl law defying claim- and That’s a fact, deal with it.

[[That’s it. I’m done with you.]]

awww- ya gotta leave so soon? But I was bout to poison the tea

[tacticalogic]

You’ve been fairly civil i nthis thread- unlike soem fellow evos-

And you've been considerably more civil than some of the cretionists.

Join the club

There have been times I've regretted being drawn into that race to the bottom.

There's room for criticism on both sides. What I don't see anyone on the evolutionist side doing is starting threads with the apparent intention of staging that race.

[SampleMan]

Your ball o nthe fence has a much better chance of happenign than nature does of vioalting key scientific principles I’m afraid- you seem to be implying htough that if somethign has ‘a chance’ then it can’t be ruled out (which doesn’t realyl apply to macroevolution, as it’s impossible)

I don't think you are getting my baseball analogy. I think it reasonable to rule out statistical improbabilities when they become dizzyingly improbable. However, that is a subjective decision. It can not be objectively ruled impossible that I will win the Florida Lottery twice a week for the next 52 weeks. However, if I do, I guarantee that no one will believe that it was just a fluke.

[SampleMan]

Did you find anything unusual in the title of the article?

Unusual? No. Inciting? Yes.

[CottShop]

[[I don’t think you are getting my baseball analogy. I think it reasonable to rule out statistical improbabilities when they become dizzyingly improbable.]]

Again, your ball was an improbability, macroevolution is an impossibility on several levels- not just one- in order for your ball to be representative of an impossible macroevolutionry scenario- you would have to have hit a rock, have it change into a ball midflight, hit a flower, which turned into a fence while the ball was bounced in the air- not goign to happen- can’t- rocks don’t become baseballs no more than chemicals become biological life with compelx metianformation- Chemicals can not produce metainformaiton no more so than a rock can turn into baseball- and no matter how long it took that rock that was hit, to reach the fenceline- even if it took several billions years, it’s not goign to become a baseball, with all the properties of regular baseballs- it can’t- it’s an impossibility every bit as much as chemicals turnign into biological life-

improbabilities are a much different animal than impossibilities are

[[However, if I do, I guarantee that no one will believe that it was just a fluke.]]

The lottery odds are much much smaller than odds against macroeovlution- I don’t htink people appeciate or can even comprehend just how astronomical the odds agaisnt macroevolution really are- you at least have a chance to hit the lottery 2 tiems a wekk for 52 weeks- with macroevolution, it’s impossible

[SampleMan]

Again, your ball was an improbability, macroevolution is an impossibility on several levels- not just one

Technically no. If the DNA of a wolf egg were to have enough simultaneous mutations, it would be a cat. Can I believe this could happen naturally? NO. But is it statistically possible? Yes, you just have to add enough zeros.