Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

Great warning, Asgara, thanks. Now that we have all calmed down and can continue our discussion without personal attacks and insults, let us proceed.It appears that some people try to argue that life could not have arisen by naturalistic means because it has properties ("information", irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and so forth) that could only have come from some intelligence. However, the argument is not valid, and, in fact, is just gibberish unless the arguer does the following:1) Provide a rigorous, measurable, scientific definition of the property in question. This is so that everyone can understand what it is that we are talking about, and to prevent the fallacy of equivocation (as in the use of the scientific term information, which is the same word used in colloquial speech to refer to a transfer of knowledge between two sentient beings).2) A demonstration that life or a biochemical system or DNA or whatever actually has this property.3) A demonstration that this property cannot have arisen by purely naturalistic means.There may be other necessary conditions, too, but those should become apparent as the discussion proceeds. This seems to me to be enough to get the ball rolling again.

Most oil companies (including the ones located here in Texas and Oklahoma) use evolutionary models to locate the most likely places for exploitable oil fields. Are there any that use a creationist model?

I would make a crack about how people with engineering degrees tend to think they own all subjects; unfortunately, from my experience in physics it appears that physical scientists are not immune from this, either.

I hope the argument isn't that the theory of evolution must be false because self-replicating systems are impossible without a cell membrane.

quote:

---

Thus life is irreducubly complex respecting carbon....

---

So now we are using a non-standard meaning for "irreducibly complex".-

quote:

---

...there is no demonstrable alternative but to suppose a non-natural source for all carbon....

---

Except that there is a demonstrable alternative, namely nucleosynthesis in the interiors of stars.

Was that reply really meant for me? I can't really tell, since it doesn't seem to make any sense.

Yet you brought up the fact that there was no naturalistic origin for carbon. Either the origin of carbon is relevant to the discussion, or it is not relevant to the discussion. Either way, its relevancy or irrelevancy applies to both you and me equally.

Actually, there was no character assassination in that post. JonF was merely clarifying the signatories' affiliations and fields. No mention, or even hints, as to those peoples' characters.

quote:

---

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)

---

Note the phrase: "removal of any one of the parts". Not "the removal of any particular part".Yet you write:

quote:

---

Life systems are thus ireducibly complex with regard to carbon.

---

"With regard to" implies that it may be possible to remove other parts, just not this part.Life systems are either irreducibly complex, or they are not. They are not "irreducibly complex with regard to" some part or another. Your extra phrasing is, at best, a redundancy; at worst, it shows that you don't understand the concept.

Let me remind you of what you said: Let's consider my pocket watch. Would Behe consider it irreducibly complex? No, because removing the crystal would not interfere with its functioning in any way; in fact, removing the calendar would not interfere with its time keeping function.Yet, if I take out its battery, it would cease to function completely. Is my watch "irreducibly complex respecting its battery"? If you say yes, then you do not understand what irreducibly complex.If I remove all of the iron atoms it will also cease to function, since most of it is composed of iron alloys. Would you say that the watch is "irreducibly complex respecting iron"? If you say yes, then you do not understand what Behe means by irreducibly complex.

I'm just pointing out that you do not understand Behe's concept of irreducibly complex. Your post is further evidence of that.

quote:

---

Now evolution posits that there are no living irreducibly complex systems in that every such system can be accounted for by a series of less complex "versions" which never the less performs adequate to the tasks required of it.

---

This is a very different definition of "irreducibly complex" than you have already given, to wit: Do you see the difference between these two definitions? If not I can explain the difference in a little more detail.-

quote:

---

If ever there is a system which cannot perform in a state where one component is removed then that system is IC.

---

What do you mean by "one component"? If you mean "any one component", then that is the same as Behe's definition. If you mean "one particular component" then that is neither of the definitions you have now given.-

quote:

---

In my special case I simply remove all the carbon atoms from the living entity and see how it performs.

---

Not only do I think that Behe did not intend for "all the carbon atoms" to count as a "component", but picking this one particular example of a "component" to remove does not show that the living entity is "irreducibly complex" by either of the definitions you have given. Do you see why? If not, I can explain in more detail why this does not establish that either definition applies to a "living entity".

Are you referring to my post? It's hard to tell since you replied to your own post, and your writing is muddled enough that it isn't often clear what you actually mean.I will assume that you meant to reply to this post; please correct me if I am mistaken.Let's see, the "first paragraph I noted" was" Let us parse your sentence. Okay, this is the main clause of your sentence. It contains the main idea of your sentence. Now you are introducing a subordinate clause. This clause will be an adjectival clause, and will describe what you mean by "living irreducibly complex systems". This is the subordinate, adjectival clause that exresses what you mean by "living irreducibly complex systems." In other words, you are clarifying what you mean by "living irreducibly complex systems". You are telling the reader what you mean by "living irreducibly complex system"; in other words, you are offering a definition. A definition that, as it so happens, differs from Behe's.Maybe this is not what you intended to say, but it is what you wrote.

So you are saying that you have used the phrase "in that" inappropriately. Good. Let us proceed.Now tell us how your "carbon atom" thing shows that Darwinian evolution is wrong.

I didn't lose it; my insults were very well controlled. Nonetheless, I was surprised that I didn't get an admin warning. But everyone seems better behaved now.