Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

No. The one example is convincing evidence that Behe principle of "irreducible complexity" is false. More examples of the same might make the argument more convincing to others. How many do you need before you are convinced?I suspect the strategy for Creationists will not be more examples, but rather to make the example less convincing by offering other interpretations (although I can't imagine what that might be yet).Excellent post by Loudmouth.

Your point is well-taken, and the arguments will no doubtably head that direction.Nevertheless, the "court of public opinion" is (hopefully) based on convincing set of evidence from facts (including how many examples), theory, and testimony. That's the theory, but as evidenced in the EvC Forums you have to consider the strength of a person's belief system that is being challenged.The early proponents of an old Earth faced strong opposition, but as the weight of evidence grew, more and more people were convinced of an old Earth. Those that do not accept the old Earth theory seem to only believe young Earth because of religious convictions.The ability to communicate quickly in simple terms seems to be the only way to convince folks that do not have the time or interest to delve into this topic very deeply, like all the passionate participants in these forums. The quick-and-simple examples are what convince the general public, including many Christians. That is the appeal of Creationist arguments and Intelligent Design arguments. They seem to make sense at first glance ("common sense"). Only if you (the public) think about the issue in more depth and do a little research will you see the pseudo-scientific reasoning behind most if not all of the Creationist stances (and perhaps some of the scientific stances). And most people would rather do something else with their time.IMO, neither Evolutionists nor Creationists have put a simple quickly-understood case forward that is very convincing to switch to their side. The closest single argument that I am persuaded by is the current and past evidence for continental drift, which means an old Earth.However, all the evidence in the world for an old Earth will not sway a true fundamentalist. The reason has to do with the logic chain that leads to belief without running into scientific issues:
- Could God exist and have created all this?
- Does life have meaning?
- If God exists, why wouldn't He have communicated to us?
- Of all the proposed communication (Bible, Quran, Mormon book, etc.), which seems to be the most likely to be true? (i.e. what evidence backs up the claim?... this is usually "testimony")
- Since the Book claims authority, if one part of the Book is not true, how can you believe that any other part is true?So, the crux of the matter (IMO) is the belief in testimony that gives credence to the Book.The Intelligent Design advocates are trying to have it both ways (science and God). In the long run, they may be the popular stance, but find themselves hotly contested by scientific and religious strongholds.I would like to see similar simply-understood posts to LoudMouth's that cover the eye and wing. I realize that's asking a lot, though.