Upside-down Day

Randman would like to have a discussion where the evolutionists play the role of Creationists, and vice versa. He hasn't specified any particular topic within the controversy, so I guess anyone is free to start this off.A proposed thread, which if accepted I might need to take a few days to begin, is a response to the bogus claims presented without any substantiation on the thread titled "Why Won't Creationists Learn?", which laughably is actually presented in the Science forums as if there were any scientific data for the premise of the thread at all.There is not, of course, since the premise is based on subjective feelings of evos that somehow creationists don't understand evolution.But in reality, my experience has been it is usually the other way around. So I propose that we demonstrate that. I'll play the part of the evolutionist and someone that is an evolutionist or maybe a few can play the part of the creationist and IDers.The evololutionist will present the best creationist and ID criticisms of evolution that they can, preferably presenting more than YECism, but presenting the whole range of criticism towards evolutionism, and we will see how well evos understand their critics.I will answer such criticisms with the standard and best evo arguments.Before accepting this, I propose the idea be discussed on this thread.It is my contention that most critics of evolutionary theory understand it quite well, but the critics of the critics rarely understand the criticism, and often don't understand ToE outside their field, and often parrot nonsense passed off in the defense of ToE.Now, if we do this, maybe we should expand this to more than just myself for the pseudo-evo side as well.This message has been edited by randman, 08-22-2005 02:28 AMThis message has been edited by Admin, 08-22-2005 02:55 PM

You are proposing that each side play devil's advocate and argue the opposite to their actual beliefs.Where do you want this put?

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Or Biological Evolution?Not exactly sure which forum would be best.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

On the understanding that I reserve the right to also post the actual criticisms in case randman is unaware of them or does not understand them I'll have a go.I'll start with Behe's "irreducible complexity" - I will note that the argument is in my own words and omits an important caveat, because it is usually omitted by creationists and ID'ers.An "irreducibly complex" system is one that does not function if any of its parts is removed. An irreducibly complex system is therefore an all-or-nothing proposition.Evolution is based on gradual change with natural selection promoting the spread of changes. But an irreducibly complex system cannot be assembled gradually. Until all the parts are present the system cannot work and therefore can offer no benefit which would cause the parts that are present to be selected.Therefore irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve and must appear all at once.

Paulk, can you give an example of irreducibly complex system?

I don't think that that is in the spirit of the thread. If randman or another creationist asks then I'll trot out the usual example. But I'm not about to get in an argument with another evolutionist.

I intended no argument. It was in the spirit of one creationist instructing another. But perhaps you are right. We'll let the "evos" ask for examples.

Not the first area I would get into, but OK.However, I would qualify the following. I don't want to get into a semantics debate, but part of a system can be irreducibly complex, and thus the part can be defined as a irreducibly complex system. For example, the color of a system could perhaps be changed with no effect, but the structure could be irreducibly complex.I also reserve the right to clarify the ID or creo arguments. Additionally, I have been up-front about areas that I consider less knowledgeable in, which if we get into the cellular structures that Behe gets in, I will advance the evo arguments, but that's not an area I am well-educated in, nor by the way an area I have used as evidence against evolution. I have not actually studied either Behe's claims in that area, nor the evo response. So maybe this will be a learning experience if we get into those specifics.On the general concept of irreducibly complex systems though, I agree with the basic description of not being able to evolve but would have to appear all at once.I also believe permitting assistance when asked of specific sources is acceptable. For example, I don't how to post pics of natural bridges, but will use that in this post. Maybe an evo or creo who is not offering a change in substantive point can help in something like that.So are we on?If so, I submit the bridge analogy which creationists use as examples of something that cannot evolve because the steps to the bridge serve no useful purpose. A half-way bridge is not useful.However, we see clear examples in nature of natural bridges that have formed as a result of erosion. So the form did have a useful purpose in a prior state or form, but became a different form due to changes around it.In a similar manner, seemingly irreducibly complex systems could just be the result of prior functions being hidden. Creationists cannot substantiate that such prior functions did not exist.This message has been edited by randman, 08-22-2005 04:46 PM

quote:

---

On the general concept of irreducibly complex systems though, I agree with the basic description of not being able to evolve but would have to appear all at once.

---

Well here is where I have to claim the right to provide answers when you don't know them. The statement above is wrong. The important caveat that I left out is that Behe grants that irreducibly complex systems could evolve by what Behe calls "indirect" routes (i.e routes other than the simple assembly of parts to produce the current system). Behe asserts that these routes are unlikely but failed to produce any argument to establish that. Even now, it has not been established, 9 years after the book was published (August 1996)

The goal here is to make the strongest argument possible for the other side.I would suggest, as we go along, but giving ample opportunity to discuss an area, that we allow others to comment on whether sufficient arguments have been made.In other words, if evos think I am not making a good argument, after awhile, it would be appropiate to discuss that, and vice versa.The idea is to see if the other side understands criticism well enough to advance it forcefully and reasonably with an understanding.Assuming that is the case, one should admit then that opinions are not based on ignorance.

This makes no sense to me. What useful purpose did this half-bridge have?

PaulK, you are not suppossed to be leaving stuff out on the creationist side. You are suppossed to put their best arguments forward, not a misrepresentation. If you are going to misrepresent the creo argument, then it won't work. It's up to you to characterize creationist arguments as best you can, and if you know they argue for indirect routes, then you need to include that.OK?My rebuttal is to go for the heart of the creationist argument in illustrating how a seemingly irreducible complex system could arise. I think it's a perfect lead-off answer, and I would not change it even after what you have posted.I do see a weakness in it, but wonder if you do?The weakness is not in the definition arena, although I reserve the right to come back to that. Your representation is that creationists claim irreducible complexity means complex systems would have to appear all at once.I am challenging that.If you are backtracking and claiming creationists don't claim that, then imo, you are not representing their argument properly.

I'm temporarily closing this thread. I'll reopen it when I've outlined a set of rules.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I sort of expected that this thread would run off the rails, but not so soon. Here are the rules that should keep this thread on track:

1. Evolutionists can only argue from the Creationist perspective.
   Creationists can only argue from the evolutionist perspective.
   ​
2. You cannot step out of your role to correct someone's viewpoint. You have to rebut the argument just as it was provided.
   ​
3. If you feel this thread reveals a weakness in someone's understanding of the other side, you can't discuss that here. The most you can do is indicate you'd like to discuss it further in another thread.

PaulK has created a parallel thread for comments/discussion generated by this thread at Upside Down Day Comment Thread.This message has been edited by Admin, 08-23-2005 07:52 AM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director