There's no reason one couldn't do both at the same time.
You can't say he's not doing X because he is also doing Y.
When someone raises a counterargument to address it the raising of the counterargument is not an inadvertent contradiction of their position. It's not, "He accidentally raised a point that contradicts his system!" Rather, it's, "He intentionally formulated a common counterargument in order to show that it is false." There is nothing inadvertent about it. He is well aware of the purpose of the counterargument.
When he says it's not the opposite, he means that building or discarding parts are both the same fundamental process: evolution. I don't see how this contradicts my point.
To quote him in more detail, "And that's interesting, and it's useful, but it just shows you that they do not
build new complex systems. Throwing away stuff is not the opposite of building stuff."
The first sentence is clear. "My irreducible complexity argument shows that certain complex systems are not 'built' by evolution. It does not show that degraded systems may not lead to irreducible complexity."
The second sentence is not so clear, apart from the fact that he clearly believes the counterargument to fail. Presumably what he means is that "throwing away stuff" and "building stuff" do not belong to the same genus, as opposites do, and therefore it is false to say that throwing away stuff is just a special kind of building, opposed but following the same principles.
I understand that's what his argument is.
If you understood his argument you would understand the problem with your "spoiler" in the OP.
Behe: Evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex systems, whether by a scaffolding or any other means.
Nihilist: Maybe irreducibly complex systems are produced by a scaffolding which is then disposed of once the system starts throwing things away. The reason we don't see a scaffolding is because it is thrown away before we get there.
Fictional Behe: No, you're not understanding my argument. The reason I believe they are not produced by a scaffolding is because it is logically impossible, not because I don't happen to see a scaffolding. If it's logically impossible it's logically impossible, before or after degradation.
So why, then, would he go about and say that organisms can, quite often, discard machinery?
Because he is addressing a counterargument to his view, which I noted in my first post.
Isn't that what you do with scaffolding when you're done with it?
To simply claim that irreducibly complex systems are "built" by a scaffolding is to beg the question against Behe's argument. It fails to address his argument and doesn't seem to comprehend the fact that if Behe's argument is sound, it is impossible that irreducibly complex systems come about by a scaffolding.
Right, it throws away what it doesn't need.
In my
first post I did three things: 1) I pointed out the confusion of inadvertent contradiction with the intentional addressing of a counterargument, 2) I addressed your "spoiler" argument, and 3) I addressed a stronger argument that was not given yet which I anticipated. You don't seem to understand the difference in part 2 and part 3 since your reply to part 3 is still in the context of part 2. I can address it anyway:
Suppose there is an organism with a part, P, that is necessary for function A. Additional parts form around this part over successive generations which forms a new machine that can perform function B, and, additionally, function A is obsolete with the emergence of function B. The original part, P, upon which newer parts were built, is not necessary for function B. Part P, then, is biological scaffolding that can be discarded without harming the organism - in fact, discarding part P would be beneficial since its existence requires nutrients, energy, and etc.
So now function B operates with irreducible complexity.
Let's try pointing out your error in a different way. Consider two necessary premises of your argument: function
B was 'built' by evolution, and function
B is irreducibly complex. Yet this is impossible if Behe's argument is sound. No irreducibly complex system can be built by evolution. You are begging the question: you are using premises that contradict Behe's argument to begin with. It's therefore no mystery why your conclusion contradicts Behe. (Incidentally, irreducible complexity has nothing to do with relation to other systems. If function
B is irreducibly complex, it must be so even before the degradation of part
P. On Behe's view the presence or absence of part
P can do nothing to influence the irreducible complexity of
B.)
I see nothing in this post that is even close to showing where I'm wrong.
That's because you're particularly bad at admitting your mistakes.
Furthermore, I am confused as to why a Catholic is interested in this topic because the Catholic Church approves of evolution.
Actually, I accidentally replied and then figured I would edit it and produce a real reply rather than just say, "Oops!"
Just a heads up: soon I'll be gone for about a week.
