Thanks Paul for answering some of my critics, I was starting to be a bit overwhelmed.
From: Pamboli
"Hey Cobra - you don't normally trip up quite as quickly as that! Campaign in one sentence becomes crusade in another, though he doens't use the word crusade, and then you criticise the word that you introduced! Just how carefully did you read the article?"
Sorry, my bad. I guess that's D'oh number two for me! (By the way, I read the article twice)
From: Pamboli
"Why? How does this follow?"
If you think that design cannot be detected without previous knowledge of a designer, then the people at SETI should give up. How exactly would the SETI team infer a designer of a radio signal under Orr's strict rules?
From: Pamboli
"In what way is this statement false? There is only one statement in the quoted passage - that Behe admits some cellular processes could have evolved. This is completely true - Behe does say this."
What is false is what Orr is implying in sentence two. Basically, Orr is criticising Behe for admitting that some relatively simple cellular processes could evolve, and then saying that irreducibly complex structures can't evolve. However, this is the MAIN ARGUMENT advanced by Behe's book.
"So, Orr's point is why does Behe think some are irreducibly complex and merely complex? The answer seems to be that where we have shown evolutionary pathways, Behe accepts them and it follows that the process cannot be irreducibly complex, but when we cannot show pathways Behe declares them to be irreducably complex."
Actually, Behe gives a clear cut definition of an irreducibly complex system, and his book covers the topic quite thoroughly. It's unfair for you to say that because he excepts some evolutionary pathways, he has to accept them all. Of course, you can claim (as you did) that Behe simply claims that pathways we know aren't irreducibly complex, but that is just hand-waving.
From: Joe Meert
"I don't nor do I claim to. I am merely repeating the claims of fundamentalist christians who claim HIS perfection."
John Paul covered my argument on this one- there is no way for you to know that a perfect God would produce all perfect structures. (By the way, if you think you can design a better system for life than the one present, by all means inform us.)
From: Joe Meert
"I refer you to the most recent case of ID in Ohio. Do a search and you shall see. While ONE ID theorist also claims to be an atheist is of little consequence. The majority are clear on both the nature and the identity of the ID'er."
That's not the point. Dembski shows CLEARLY that it is possible to not believe in God and also believe in ID. The fact that the majority are clear on the identity of the designer does not matter at all. In fact, it is practically religous discrimination, because you are using the religion of the ID scientists to undermine their theory.
From: Joe Meert
"Of course not. ID is part and parcel of human endeavors. That does not necessarily mean it is part and parcel of everthing. ID is taught all the time. It simply has no relevance to biological systems."
Exactly why does it have no relevance to biological systems? Is it because it doesn't fit under a materialistic concept? (Actually, it kind of does, because aliens could have naturally evolved and created us.)
"Sure and pink elephants coulda done it. How does such a conclusion (as yours or mine) aid in the understanding of biology? Evolution explains the historical observations, it is predictive, retrodictive and testable. What does ID offer that is superior to evolution?"
Neither conclusion aids in the understanding of biology, of course, because both are theological conclusions! My little alien scenario was simply to show you that ID DOESN'T require God.
Exactly what is large-scale evolution useful for? Actually, large-scale evolution is only useful for studying large-scale evolution. And in what way does ID have to be superior to evolution? ID is very testable (and quite a bit more falsifiable than evolutionary theory). ID makes the prediction that no natural mechanism can realistically create IC systems.
From: Mark
"All I ask is that you accept the possibility that nothing is IC down here."
I thought that Irreducibly Complex Structures have basically been proven, but it has not been proven that IC structures cannot be explained by natural mechanisms. So, yes, I accept the possibility that the structures claimed by Behe and others could have evolved by natural means.
From: Mark
"Just to push the idea a little further, if an ID WAS the result of abiogenesis, & subsequent evolution allowed those aliens the intellect to create life on earth, you have argued yourself into the position that God isn't required at all anyway, & the entire argument becomes self defeating from a creationist point of view."
I'm arguing from an ID point of view. But there is the possibility that God isn't required I suppose. After all, anything's possible (including pink elephant aliens).
From: Mark
"So why WOULDN'T aliens demonstrate this sort of IC if they evolved?"
For all we know, aliens could be made out of proton matter or something wierd like that.
From: Joz
"Behe believes that certain structures are IC and must have an origin of design (i.e certain building blocks at least were created). Ergo while not being a ye creationist he is a creationist at some level...."
I find it very interesting that all the evolutionists around here get very upset when they believe a Creationist misrepresents someone. I find it interesting because you obviously don't have too much of a problem with Orr making misleading statements.
From: Joz
"And yet Orr has no problem with Wright and Kimura both of whom proposed non Darwinian theories..."
This is an extremely bad analogy. Wright and Kimura offered ADDITIONAL ways in which evolution can take place (therefore, effectively adding into the salad bowl of evolutionist explanations for everything). Behe tried to show that evolution was NOT POSSIBLE. Not a good analogy.
From: Joz
"Yes pet project, given that it is not adopted by any significant proportion of scientists and he attempts to validate it at every opportunity it is indeed a pet theory..."
Joz, you are absolutely correct. Throw out ID! For God's sake, Behe is not only attempting to validate his own theory, but his theory isn't even popular among scientists! What is Behe thinking?
From: Joz
"What stops some object A that does a job X in parralel with B from adapting to become A` which relies on the presence of B but performs X in a better fashion?"
And what stops evolutionists from making up nifty little stories and claim "In billions of years, anything is possible!" Absolutely nothing stops them, of course!
From: Shrafinator
"It isn't completely wrong, as I have had several discussions about the peppered moth with Creationists over the years."
Well, then they are not very informed Creationists. (Were your arguments based on the evidence that the peppered moth story has recently been shown to have been staged?)
From: Shrafinator
"If you deny that evolution happens, you are, by definition, denying that antibiotic resistance is possible."
No informed creationist that I've come across has denied the fact that things change over time.
[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 03-15-2002]
™ Version 4.2
