Replies

Sorry Joe. Your bulverism aside, “Irreducible Complexity” is a perfectly valid, non self contradictory, concept. The term (like “Bulverism) was coined by Michael Behe (an evolutionist, by the way) of Lehigh University to describe a concept that was not previously acknowledged or catalogued, that being a functioning mechanism whose constituent parts must be arranged in a specific order for that function to manifest. Further, that nothing inherent to those constituent part require them to be arranged in the functioning mechanism as opposed to a non functioning order.

That the term dovetail nicely with Dembski’s “Intelligent Design” theory is only reinforces the strength of a thesis whose critics chief tactic has been studied ignorance.

Moreover, how is our “third grader” better served by “some pretty amazing stuff going on” than an effort to describe objective reality?

papertyger: "Your bulverism aside...The term (like “Bulverism) was coined by Michael Behe (an evolutionist, by the way)"

Ah, "bulverism", great word, I love it!
But it was coined by CS Lewis, not Michael Behe.
And "bulverism" implies some kind of ad homenim disparagement, which I didn't do.
And, it turns out that Michael Behe is an anti-evolutionist, by the way.
Otherwise, nice try, FRiend.

Further, "bulverism" or no, my argument in post #48 is exactly correct:

"It's the same kind of argument as the media crying, 'Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion' and then demanding that people prove to the media's satisfaction they're wrong."

papertyger defining "irreducibly complex": "a functioning mechanism whose constituent parts must be arranged in a specific order for that function to manifest."

But the core essence of it is simply this: "I can't see how this could evolve naturally, therefore it's 'irreducibly complex' until somebody proves otherwise."
And, of course, the speaker with then do his/her best not to be convinced by any explanation presented.
That's "Russia, Russia, Russia" all over again.

Perhaps some of our logisticians can give us a word for that kind of argument?
How about argument from ignorance?

papertyger: "That the term dovetail nicely with Dembski’s 'Intelligent Design' theory is only reinforces the strength of a thesis whose critics chief tactic has been studied ignorance."

Both "irreducibly complex" and "intelligent design" are themselves "studied ignorance", indeed arguments from ignorance:

"because I can't figure this out naturally, and certainly don't want to, therefore it must be irreducibly complex intelligent design."

Well... the Universe itself is irreducibly complex intelligent design, I'm sure.
But most, if not all, of its component parts do yield to natural-science explanations, including many which did not as recently as, say, 50 years ago, now they do.

So the old joke has a serious meaning:

"God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him, 'God, we don’t need you anymore.
Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing – in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.'
'Oh, is that so? Explain…' replies God.
'Well,' says the scientist, 'we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.'
'Well, that’s very interesting… show Me.'

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.
'No, no, no…' interrupts God, 'Get your own dirt.' "

Point is: regardless of what process God used, whether natural or supernatural, or some combination, the Universe is still His plan, His Creation and His irreducibly complex intelligent design.
And for reasons I don't really understand, He made it possible for us to understand a lot of it through natural-science.

papertyger: "Moreover, how is our 'third grader' better served by 'some pretty amazing stuff going on' than an effort to describe objective reality?"

Our "third grader" will not understand the complexities of science any more than would, say, ancient Israelites and so every explanation will seem like "some pretty amazing stuff" and "irreducibly complex."
But the fact remains that a lot of the physical realm does yield to natural explanations, giving us a vague picture of how nature got from the Beginning to now.

Why, you ask?
Well, just my opinion: because He wants us to know and appreciate the full complexity of His intelligently designed Universe, and our place in it.
You disagree?