RAZD, the experiments were dona in a lab right? I think IC is using "real" life evidence as being complex? So shouldn't a test to falsify it use "real" life as well?
Isn't this the same as me sticking a rabitt fossil in the pre-cambrian?
Also, I can see where IC can be falisified with there strick guidelines. And if it MAY or MAY not have happened isn't good enough or "we don't know". Isn't tho, there some things about Gravity, or the BB that we don't know 100%?, but still qualifies as a theory?
(P1) complex systems exist in biological organisms where there are multiple parts involved in a process, feature or function, and where the removal of any part of the system renders the whole process non-functional. (P2) if NO such system can evolve then it must be developed by some other process, and then, AND ONLY THEN, the existence of any "IC" system is evidence that "some other process"MUST have occurred. (C1) Therefore such a system MUST be made, designed, created by some other process.
Leaving aside for now the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy (and the fact that precept (P2) of this argument is basically based on ignorance or denial of how such systems could have formed), we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that ONE such "IC" system HAS evolved: if ONE such "IC" system evolves then it invalidates the "then AND ONLY THEN" condition that is necessary in order that "some other process" MUST be involved.
I guess what I mean is, if ONE such "IC" system has NOT evolved is that a case for "IC" ? Is Behe or others putting themselves in a "box" with their definitions?
Also, even with questions concerning the BB that Science is still learning or will always be discovering, it still is a strong theory is what I mean. Maybe the two aren't comparable in anyway. Im sure there not, im just trying to relate it to a current theory(which is RAZD's point, it doesnt stand up to the Scientific method) I guess im confused as to the standard for evidence for 'IC".
Have any systems ever shown possibly not to have evolved? Are there any in question? Have any systems ever been shown to "possibly" be designed? Forgive these questions if they don't make sense. Im in no way an expert on "IC".
RAZD, I understand. I guess I was always under the impression that 'IC" was "evidence" for (ID) or was a "branch" of (ID).
It's confusing. And I admit, I don't understand a lot of it, as you can see. I read some of Stephen Myeres paper on the "higher taxonomic categories" and got lost. Is it that complicated or am I an idiot? Is it just smoke and mirrors IYO?
IYO, is there a better way they could present ID in Philosophy class? Would you change it as opposed to it is now? What im asking is, is there a better way to present it that would make more sense that would give it a little more validity? This is really a question for the other thread, sorry.