Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Typical ID response to rebuttals?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 34 (246980)
09-28-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Ben!
09-28-2005 2:07 PM


Re: The Acid Test - IC invalidated by observed evolution.
One problem is that "part" is not well-defined. At the level of proteins the favourite ID example of the bacterial flagellum is not IC - and Behe doesn't define the "parts" of a flagellum at that level. So a part could itself be a system (which need not be IC).
That said, can you say how the Hall experiment does not fit Behe's definition of IC ?C

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Ben!, posted 09-28-2005 2:07 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Ben!, posted 09-28-2005 2:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 34 (247048)
09-28-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ben!
09-28-2005 2:32 PM


Re: The Acid Test - IC invalidated by observed evolution.
ID "therists" have also used the concpet of an "IC core". Which, in essence, means that it is OK to have non-essential peripherial components
However, the ID side has largely admitted the failue of IC as an argument - they have been trying to tinker with the definition to get the argument to work. As yet they havn't come up with anything that is any better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ben!, posted 09-28-2005 2:32 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024