Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Today at 04:08 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #37
At best, you can say neither is true, but the argument above leaves you no wiggle room...you have to abandon evolution.
Not so fast. Saying, "evolution can't prove such-and-such at this time" is not the same as saying "evolution can never be responsible for such-and-such".
Not knowing something is not the same as knowing something isn't.
"So, I don't think you can hide under the umbrella of since you can't show us a designer, evolution is true. At best, you can say neither is true, but the argument above leaves you no wiggle room...you have to abandon evolution."
Hardly. All you have shown is some possible holes in our knowledge which is irrelevant to whether the ToE is true or not. Of course, you will just brush aside the many many examples of evolutionary pathways that are well known and established by the evidence and only focus on those that are not. This is, of course, the definition of the God of the Gaps fallacy., which is all the Behe and Dembski style arguments are.
Fortunately real scientists don't just stop looking when they come across a question they can't answer yet. They keep looking and keep searching and have shown a disturbing trend of rapidly shrinking that box (or gap) you like to place God into.
Today at 09:56 PM Joe_Sixpack said this in Post #42 This is, of course, the definition of the God of the Gaps fallacy., which is all the Behe and Dembski style arguments are
And, of course, people who believe in the God of the Gaps have a vested interest in keeping those gaps as wide as possible
Today at 10:59 AM NebraskaMan said this in Post #33
Sum of evolutionary rationale--Dembski
In accordance, if you want to argue that there is an indirect pathway, show the path!
If this is Demski's argument, then he has shifted the goal posts. The idea that the flagellum is irreducibly complex has been refuted. Whether there is a known evolutionary pathway to explain it or not has no bearing on if it is indeed irreducible (of course, there are suspect pathways and similar pathways for similar structures to the flagellum). The mechanism for the flagellum has multiple components that exist in other systems, has multiple uses in addition to locomotion and even if the flagellum mechanism did not provide locomotion, it would still have function. It is reducible and co-optable. Demski's argument is refuted and he falls back and says "but how does evolution explain it". Basically, this is the argument of "if you can't explain it, my explaination is right". No different than his mousetrap argument before it.
All you should need to read (if you are all as well versed in this is "6. Application to Evolutionary Biology"). One day, you will realize, that there are too many COMPLEX BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS evolution cannot explain ex nihilo and that you have never seen and will never see evolution be able to explain those systems ex nihilo.
Today at 05:04 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #45
All you should need to read (if you are all as well versed in this is "6. Application to Evolutionary Biology"). One day, you will realize, that there are too many COMPLEX BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS evolution cannot explain ex nihilo and that you have never seen and will never see evolution be able to explain those systems ex nihilo.
I read it (at least, the parts that seemed relevant to my original question).
And I ask again (since I did not see an answer to this question within that document):
How does one empirically determine whether or not something is irreducibly complex (or contains "specified complexity" or whatever other term you want to use)?
All you should need to read (if you are all as well versed in this is "6. Application to Evolutionary Biology"). One day, you will realize, that there are too many COMPLEX BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS evolution cannot explain ex nihilo and that you have never seen and will never see evolution be able to explain those systems ex nihilo.
And 500 years ago, lightning was the result of an angry God. Asserting that scientists cannot explain something to scientists will never be able to explain something is a logical fallacy.
How do you know that we "will never see evolution be able to explain those systems ex nihilo"? The same was said for landing man on the moon.
My bad, when I said ex nihilo, I meant without a designer! How did those guys land on the moon without someone to build that rocket? I suppose the rocket showed up by random chance, eh?
"go ahead and check out this article. I know you guys love Miller, so maybe you won't mind seeing his argument on the same topic thoroughly refuted"
Just read Dembski's rebuttal and I am shocked by his lack of positive evidence for his point. He suggests that ID cannot be held to such a high standard as the impossibility of the ToE to explain certain structures, yet he gives no positive evidence to reach the conclusion of the designer. He simply states that it is improbable that the ToE was responsible for such systems (ICs). Of course, then, if he wants the level playing ground of empirical science that he asks for, his argument is shredded by the sharp blades of Occam's Razor. He is attempting to overthrow a known mechanism that even he asserts could have been responsible for IC systems with a completely unobserved and in fact onobservable mechanism (i.e. a designer). This is where Dembski and the entire ID movement fail and this is why they are making no real progress in scientific communities and must resort to speaking engagements at churches and the occasional philosophy seminar and books written specifically for laymen.
Until the IDists come up with some positive evidence to support their hypothesis, they are dead in the water scientifically.
Dembski also comments that mainstream science does not allow ID to be successful because there are unlimited "unknown" pathways that need to be investigated to rule out ID, so therefore, ID will never be confirmed under current mainstream science because science can always state that the answer lies with a currently unknown pathway. Of course the opposite is true and once a pathway is discovered for the flagellum or another of their "unexplainable complex" structures, they simple need to pick another one from the unlimited list of structures that scientists haven't spent the time on to determine the pathways. By his own assertion, ID does not allow evolution to be successufl in explanation until it determines every single pathway for every single organism and mechanism. He is working on a list that is based on "things evolution currently can't explain", not his own "inference" methodology or any repeatable process for determining "specificity". This is the slight of hand he uses to try to give validity to his math. We should be able to take any mechanism that has an unknown pathway and immediately determine if evolution could create it by using his methods. Everything should be in column A or column B. The inability of his methods to do this, shows their weakness.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. aclufightsforchristians com
NEWSFLASH: Today, 6,000,000 teachers in the US didn't do anything illegal
Linear Mode
