Jim, you seem to want to focus on a tangential issue here rather than
address the central point I have tried to make. Unfortunately, this is a
recurring pattern in your debating style. In past debates, you have
attempted to redefine my opinion as if you knew better than I, what my
opinion is; you have insisted on using a narrow definition of the word
"gradual", and even tried to assign unintended meaning to my terms of logic
when I argued that evolution science could not philosophically support
racism. I really wish you would try to respond to what I say rather than
repackaging my thoughts and opinions into some caricature you have of
evolutionists. This is the lazy way to debate since all you have to do is
make a stock response to some caricature you have created rather than debate
the specific points I raise.
I recently commented that I believe that a weakness of the irreducible
complexity argument is its reliance on FUNCTIONAL irreducibility. You have
yet to comment on this point even though I have restated several times here.
Instead, you attempt to redefine the debate by writing:
>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 supposition?
Notice how this has nothing to do with the philosophical problem I raised
with irreducible complexity or with anything else I have written. It is
nonresponsive.
>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 with this challenge, the topic of the debate has changed from one of
discussing the philosophical underpinning of irreducible complexity to a
focus on a generic argument against evolution. Jims challenge has nothing
to do with my question about irreducible complexity.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. I am not an expert in the
scientific claims of evolution and I have stayed away from discussions on
this level. Similarly, I know little about geology and theology and have
not ventured into those discussions either. On occasion, I have contributed
what I know about molecular genetics and immunology, areas in which I have
expertise. But mostly my participation has been in the area of philosophy
of science, a "hobby" of mine. Therefore, I offered a comment on an
underlying philosophical presupposition of the irreducible complexity
argument against evolution.
My point is simple. The argument claims that the evolution of complex
structures cannot have happened since any precursor structure could not
have functioned at all like the modern irreducibly complex structure.
Therefore, natural selection would have nothing to work on in order to
derive something irreducibly complex like a cilia. However, I know of no
such a priori limitation in evolutionary theory. In fact,it seems to me
that this model represents a misunderstanding of the role of natural
selection in evolutionary theory.
Now, if you want to continue the debate, Jim, please focus on the preceding
paragraph. If you don't want to continue on this topic, that's fine.
However, I have no interest in debating with you about your caricature of
evolutionists.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Steve
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
_____________________________________________________________