(M.H-35)"Standard" Argument for Irreducible Complexity

[Mocca]

How can you do that if there is no way to show if God created evolution or not?

Occam's Razor.

 

[Edx]

nor are mouse traps, so why does behe use them as examples?

Good question.

Now watch James dance.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Okay, that arch doesn't have parts. Then what about a Roman Arch? That has parts.

And those are built by men with intelligence.

 

[jamesrwright3]

I]Get this through your skull:[/I] we're not trying to "prove that ID is wrong" at all. We were trying to show that IC systems can arise without intelligence.

Show me an IC system that resembles a machine then you may have a valid point. Get that through your skull,.

 

[jamesrwright3]

nor are mouse traps, so why does behe use them as examples?

Not sure. Probably neither is a good example. I am not defending Behe's example, but just saying an arch is does not prove anything.

 

[Mocca]

Show me an IC system that resembles a machine then you may have a valid point. Get that through your skull,.

Why does it need to resemble a machine?

Behe's definition isn't: "a system where the removal of any components causes failure, oh yeah, and it needs to resemble a machine."

 

[Mocca]

We are attacking Behe's definition, not yours.

Therefore, as Behe uses the mousetrap example, it's valid.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Why does it need to resemble a machine?

Because if it doesn't, it has no relevance to the life debate. It's pretty obvious.

Behe's definition isn't: "a system where the removal of any components causes failure, oh yeah, and it needs to resemble a machine."[

It is clear he is talking in terms of a machine i.e. life.
No one is debating whether rocks are designed.

 

[Mocca]

Because if it doesn't, it has no relevance to the life debate. It's pretty obvious.

It is clear he is talking in terms of a machine i.e. life.
No one is debating whether rocks are designed.

If it is clear that Behe is talking about life when he refers to IC, then

why does he use mousetraps as examples of IC?

Again, we're attacking Behe's definition, and even if the mousetrap doesn't fit your definition, it fit's Behe's definition.

 

[Edx]

And those are built by men with intelligence.

Yes they are. Now does ID try and explain step by step how God intelligently designed the molecular structures IDists claim as IC?.

 

[Maxwell511]

Show me an IC system that resembles a machine then you may have a valid point. Get that through your skull,.

Show me a living organism that functions just like a machine i.e. it's only function is for the use by something other than itself (edit: and requires the proactive involvement of the same outside entity for it to function) and then you will have a valid point with the organism/machine comparsion.

 

[caravelair]

Show me an IC system that resembles a machine then you may have a valid point. Get that through your skull,.

loudmouth already mentioned the mammalian inner ear on the previous page of this thread:

What about the mammalian middle ear? The bones (incus, stapes, and malleus) are an IC system and the evolutionary steps towards this IC system are preserved in the fossil record. The pathway even involves a two hinged jaw as the dentary bones move into the middle ear.

also, we have directly observed the evolution of a molecular IC system:

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Parts-is-Parts.html

kind of ruins the idea that IC = unevolvable.

 

[michabo]

Why does it need to resemble a machine?

Because if it doesn't, it has no relevance to the life debate. It's pretty obvious.

Behe and all other IDists recognize something important that you seem to miss: we must examine general principles that can apply everywhere. If they tried to argue like you, everyone would know they were frauds.

The reason is simple. If they said that there were specific necessary and sufficient conditions to conclude intelligent design, but then say that these are not sufficient anywhere but in the human body, it would be transparently begging the question.

You say it has no relevance, but you are wrong. If IC can arise without intelligence or design, then it is a useless tool for investigating ID.

It is clear he is talking in terms of a machine i.e. life.
No one is debating whether rocks are designed.

If his argument (IC) allows us to conclude that rocks are designed, then his argument is obviously false. Reductio ad absurdum.

And this doesn't get much more absurd...

 

[jamesrwright3]

You say it has no relevance, but you are wrong. If IC can arise without intelligence or design, then it is a useless tool for investigating ID.

It has not relevance and you are wrong.
You are comparing a hunk of rock to a dynamic, organized, intelligent, and functional system such as life. The two are not equate. Proving a rock structure collapses if you hammer away at it and knock it apart (since it is one large piece of rock) proves nothing in regards to life systems.

If his argument (IC) allows us to conclude that rocks are designe, then his argument is obviously false. Reductio ad absurdum.

It doesn't allow us to prove rocks are designed.

 

[Tomk80]

And those are built by men with intelligence.

But arches and bridges need not be formed by intellgence. Natural bridges occur, natural arches occur. Sometimes those consist out of one part of rock, sometimes out of multiple parts. A bridge or arch need not be formed by intelligent beings, functional or not.

 

[BVZ]

Lets say the purpose of the arch as a system is to provide shade. (Clearly it can be used for this purpose.)

The arch is system, since removing any significant part causes the arch to collapse. (Cuasing it to fail as a shade providing system.)

The creation of the arch was not guided by intelligence every step of the way.

What does this mean?

We KNOW the arch is irreducibly complex.
We KNOW the arch was created naturally.

This means that we have AT LEAST ONE EXAMPLE of an irrreducibly complex system, that was created naturally.

It does not matter that more complex IC systems exist. (Like biological systems.)

It does not matter that more complex IC systems exist. (Like biological systems.)

It does not matter that more complex IC systems exist. (Like biological systems.)

It does not matter that more complex IC systems exist. (Like biological systems.)

(I repeated that 4 times, maybe it will help.)

ID is DESTROYED, since IC is DESTROYED.

 

[jamesrwright3]

It does not matter that more complex IC systems exist.

Yes it does if the systems if the systems are so far from being similar that a comparison is ridiculous.

ID is DESTROYED, since IC is DESTROYED

Not by using the arch example.

 

[michabo]

We give long, detailed arguments including quotes, references and explainations.

You say "nuh uh".

We elaborate, including more citations.

You say "nuh uh".


Whatever. Display some understanding. Come up with a cogent counter argument. Say something.

 

[caravelair]

Not by using the arch example.

but you agree that other arguments have put the nail in the coffin of ID/IC?

 

[jamesrwright3]

We give long, detailed arguments including quotes, references and explainations.

You say speak alot but don't say much

You say "nuh uh".

Well really it is a little more elaborate than that. But I am critiquing the ridiculous notion that a stone arch proves ID is wrong.

We elaborate, including more citations

.
You say speak alot but don't say much and certainly no matter how many citations you provide, you can turn a pig into a swan. The arch proves nothing

Whatever. Display some understanding.

I have. You obviously don't display understanding. You say the arch proves something regarding ID

Come up with a cogent counter argument.

I have