Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:16 PM
23 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, dwise1, ooh-child, Taq, Theodoric (6 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,790 Year: 4,827/19,786 Month: 949/873 Week: 305/376 Day: 98/57 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Typical ID response to rebuttals?
mark24
Member (Idle past 3299 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 31 of 34 (247042)
09-28-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Ben!
09-28-2005 2:27 PM


Re: IC HAS evolved, we've seen it. What's the objection now?
Ben,

That's just not how it works. There has to be explicit argumentatation about WHY you can generalize from a specific case to a broader range of cases. It isn't a "default" that you can just hang your hat on.

IC has evolved.

What are these broader cases where the knowledge we have presents a block to the evolution of IC? If there isn't one, then there is no reason to claim that IC systems can't evolve elsewhere. I am not extrapolating from a single example, even if we didn't have an example of IC evolving there is still no good reason to claim that IC cannot evolve. Biological IC can potentially arise via known mechanisms, if you have information to the contrary then you need to present it. This IS the way it works, if creationists insist on placing themselves in a position where they have to prove a negative, then that's their look out.

This is how science works, we observe IC, we can construct theoretical arguments as to how it arises, we can then test this by observation. This has been done. Given the knowledge we have, by far the most evidentially supported explanation of IC is evolution, with both direct observation of it happening & the known mechanisms that allow it to arise. I would like to stress, even without studies like Hall 1982, evolution is still by far the best explanation. It invokes no unknowns & simply invokes known mechanisms.

If you wish to scupper this notion, then you need evidence of your own theory that better explains the observations.

It seems to me that well understood & mundane mutation & natural selection that we know can be responsible for IC, is a far better explanation for IC than merely dreaming up a deity that we have no evidence for whatsoever as a crutch for our incredulity. Wouldn't you agree?

What do you think the evidence suggests is the best explanation of IC?

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Ben!, posted 09-28-2005 2:27 PM Ben! has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14801
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


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 yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3136 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 33 of 34 (247109)
09-28-2005 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Annafan
09-19-2005 9:18 AM


whether there is a general pattern?
I dont think so, I think it is much simpler than any stealth design.



Here is "the problem". The distinction is fairly easy to understand. The problem is that this problem was also easily understood by any ivy league Freshman in the 80s. In fact the discussion of "dilettantism" went on especially with a friend of mine, the two of us starting up PUGWASH on the Cornell Campus in 84
http://www.pugwash.org/about.htm
http://www.pugwash.org/
or so. There is no Cornell Psychology Dept saying a smart student like me needs to take little red pills; a Jewish doctor in Florida hospitalizing Christians for placebo complaints; the state of Lousiana trumping up State Charges and tireing out of state cars just to leave the posts to the internet later; or dsyfunctional families that say HOW talent is cultivated but not how to stay on a budget.

It is a very simple point. Kant made it many years ago. Why can't we change? More importantly than how is why, why is "higher education" NOT higher than something a few fresh freshman do if they do not kiss??

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-28-2005 10:23 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Annafan, posted 09-19-2005 9:18 AM Annafan has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19809
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 34 of 34 (247117)
09-28-2005 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Ben!
09-28-2005 2:27 PM


Re: IC HAS evolved, we've seen it. What's the objection now?
Ben

There has to be justification to jump from this specific scenario to ALL scenarios, and that justification simply hasn't been given.

there is a logical falsehood involved here:

the claim is that an IC system could not evolve, therefore evidence of an IC system is evidence of a designer,

there is an IC system that has been shown to evolve, so this refutes the claim that evidence of an IC system is evidence of a designer.

This does apply to all IC systems, because the premise has been falsified.

There has to be explicit argumentatation about WHY you can generalize from a specific case to a broader range of cases. It isn't a "default" that you can just hang your hat on. And I haven't seen the articles in the website that RAZD quoted, or from RAZD either.

The reason you can generalize is because of the claim of IC to be de facto unrefutable evidence of design. This has been shown to not be the case, the premise is falsified therefore the conclusion is logically invalid.

Every other IC system now defaults to the argument from incredulity (I just can't believe it can evolve) and a lack of personal ability (to envisage such happening).

It is an invalidated hypothesis, and science dictates that it is dismissed as such and we go to the next theory.

but it has to be QUALIFIED. If there is no other food supply, the damn organism would die before it ever evolved this "IC" system.

But has any organism evolved use of a new food supply when the previous one(s) have been eliminated? Or do they normally add food supplies as they are able to expand their sources? Putting an organism is a situation with low normal food supply, but an alternate food source they are not currently using does not make them evolve to use it, but allows this to happen.

Does that help?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Ben!, posted 09-28-2005 2:27 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019