Behe disagrees. Selected quotes below refute the idea that IC has been falsified by this particular test.
Miller has responded to all those points and refutes them as well. I'll leave you to decide if you have the integrity to find and read them -- as pointed out by Percy we don't debate websites here.
Of course Behe disagrees. He makes money selling a book that is based on the concept to 'marks' too gullible to understand what it means to have the concept falsified or even that it is.
The fact remains logically simple:
(1) An "Irreducible complex" system is defined as one composed of multiple parts, the removal of any one of which renders the system unable to do it's function.
(2) The system that evolved in Hall's experiment is composed of 3 parts, the removal of any one of which renders the system unable to do it's function.
(3) The evolved system meets the criteria of an "Irreducible complex" system.
Therefore the concept that NO "Irreducible complex" system can evolve has been refuted.
Note when Behe complains that "a multipart system was not "wiped out"--only one component of a multipart system was deleted" he is either equivocating on his original definition, or he is complaining that a common way for evolution to achieve ANY supposedly "Irreducible complex" system has been demonstrated. I find that rather humorous.
He does NOT say that the sytem is NOT an IC system and he does NOT say that it did not evolve.
Demonstrating two things. One, that ID is science if it's true as claimed by the opponents here, that IC was falsified. And two, that such an experiment as was discussed above, has an outcome, as predicted from ID theory.
Nope.
Tell me how the falsification of IC then falsifies ID.
Tell me what was predicted by ID that occurred in the experiment.
Oh, and while you are at it, tell me what the "ID theory" is eh?
What this demonstrates to me is
(1) that the
concept of IC was falsified as a marker of NOT{evolution} -- but it has NOT demonstrated that ID was (or can be) falsified. Different kettle of fishyness.
(2) that an great PR opportunity was missed by the whole ID camp to accept that IC was falsified, and then to advertise that as an example of how "scientific" they are -- they could have easily convinced the gullible 'marks' with such nonesense -- but instead they deny that it was falsified, thus demonstrating that they are not the
slightest interested in doing actual science, but are only interested in pushing their anti-science agenda.
(3) that many people, you included it appears, don't {understand\comrehend\realize} the important differences between idea, concept, hypothesis, and theory (in the scientific sense only) and thus are clueless when it comes to falsification and what it means and
needs to mean.
A scientific theory is based on reviewing the known evidence, and making a hypothesis of how it happened. The hypothesis is then tested (validated) against the known evidence to make sure that it does indeed explain the known evidence. The hypothesis is then used to make a prediction -- if (X) is true then (Y) will happen, but if (X) is false then (Y) will not happen. We then test to see if (Y) happens or not -- if not then (X) is falsified and
discarded, but if it does happen then (Y) gets added to the evidence and
another prediction is made.
A theory starts as a hypothesis founded on evidence, it is honed by testing, and is falsifyable by a contradictory result of a test.
In comparison the idea of "Irreducible complexity" is a facile concept empty of foundation. It is not based on a review of all the evidence, it does not provide a mechanism for how {design} is achieved, and it is not compared against the available evidence to check it's ability to explain it.
The fact that an idea can be falsified does not
de facto make the idea scientific (and certainly any falsified idea is neutered as a valid scientific concept), because it doesn't have the scientific foundation.
This is where the whole {concept} if "Intelligent Design" fails: it has no mechanism to explain today's evidence that supports evolution.
Example: How did species {A} arise from species {B}?
Evolution: {B} accumulates mutations, variations in alleles, that are then selected by natural processes, eliminating some {death before reproduction} in favor of others {reproduce, pass on genes}; over time the differences add up enough to end up with {A} (observed)
"Intelligent Design" : either (1) I don't know OR (2) {B} was {magically designed} to evolve into {A} by natural processes associated with evolution.
If (2), then How did species {B} arise from species {C}?
Evolution: {C} accumulates mutations, variations in alleles, that are then selected by natural processes, eliminating some {death before reproduction} in favor of others {reproduce, pass on genes}; over time the differences add up enough to end up with {B} (observed)
"Intelligent Design" : either (1) I don't know OR (2) {C} was {magically designed} to evolve into {B} by natural processes associated with evolution.
If (2), then How did species {C} arise from species {D}?
Evolution: {D} accumulates mutations, variations in alleles, that are then selected by natural processes, eliminating some {death before reproduction} in favor of others {reproduce, pass on genes}; over time the differences add up enough to end up with {C} (observed)
"Intelligent Design" : either (1) I don't know OR (2) {D} was {magically designed} to evolve into {C} by natural processes associated with evolution.
etc ad infinitum ... ad nauseum ... back to the origin of life on this planet ...
As such ID is incapable of making a prediction that would differentiate it from evolution.
ID actually relies on mutation and natural selection to produce the diversity of life we see.
Facile concepts are like the Dumbo Scenario:
Hey, what if elephants could fly? (= facile concept)
answer: they are too heavy for the surface area to support flight other than to simulate a falling rock (= concept falsified)
BUT HEY, what if ONE had BIG EARS -- could
it fly? (= silly facile concept)
Nobody believes that flying elephants is a scientific concept just because it is falsifiable.
Anybody can make up whatever "what-if" ideas they want - they aren't scientific.
At best they are science fiction.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2