Wow, its been a long time since I've seen so much hot air compressed
into such a small space. Don't you realize that every criticism you
have raised against evolution applies to ID multiplied by a factor
of (at least) 10?
>Steve Clark writes:
>
><< Test by
>rereading my criticism while ignoring the illustrations. They are not
>needed to state my point that the problem with Behe's construction of
>irreducible complexity is the requirement for functional irreducibility.>>
>
>Yes, this will work as a one stage critique. Proceeding to offer imagined
>"selective advantages" is the second stage with which I took issue. I see this
>all too often in evolutionary arguments.
>
>It is, BTW, untestable.
>
How do you propose to test ID?
><< However, others believe that an
>evolutionary scenario enables them to imagine how the origin of complex
>systems could be explained in terms of science. And this is fine. If Behe
>says he can't imagine it, why can't someone else say they can?>>
>
>First, those who imagine are forever insulated from testing the conjecture.
Where did you get such an idea? I believe it was Steve who made the
comment in another post that imagination plays an integral role in
science. I whole heartedly agree with that.
>This type of imagination becomes, as I explained before, something of a "magic
>wand" to make the sort of problems Behe brings up go away. Second, Behe has
>searched, in vain, for more than imaginings in the scientific literature.
>
ID is the biggest magic wand of all. How did this irreducible complexity
originate? Poof? What evidence do you have that an intelligent designer
would be able to design and build something like a cilia? Do you have
the blueprints? A description of the manufacturing procedure? A patent
perhaps? Where is the design mechanism which ties the designed object
to the designer? Anything other than poof?
><<The real realist, Jim, would say to both, go for it>>
>
>How would your propose that you, Steve, "go for it"? You wrote earlier:
>
><< I agree with Behe that it is hard to imagine
> cilia evolving by fine-tuning of proto-cilia. Once you remove any of the
> components of a cilia it ceases to have any cilia-like function. But is it
>necessary to think that cilia must evolve in this way? Cilia are complex
>cellular appendages with molecular motors that allow them
>to wave and move cells through liquid, or move liquid past cells.
>But, rather than evolving from something with similar function, why can't we
>consider that cilia evolved from something that did not have cilia-like
>function? Suppose a primordial structure provided an early selective advantage
>because it increased the surface area of the cell and facilitated nutrient
>uptake?>>
>
>We can suppose until Judgement Day. But what research will enable you to move
>beyond supposition to science? What "selective advantage" are you imagining,
>and how will you reconstruct the conditions of the past to test this? What
>current, published data allow you to make such a suppostion?
>
>Not to put you on the spot, but this is just the sort of thing that causes
>Darwinian skeptics such as myself to label so much of evolutionism a "shell
>game." Perhaps I'm harsh in my assessment. Help me out here.
>
And your response is of the type that originally put me off ID and continues
to put me off of it. You make demands of others to provide evidence. They have
to do all the hard work. And then you sit back thinking that their failure
some how supports your case. It doesn't.
Poof!, I'm outa here 8--(o).