<<Jim seems to prefer using rhetoric over reasoned argument.>>
I guess we share frustrations with each other on this score. The main
criticism I had of your original post had to do with this "magic wand" of
"selective advantage." That's what I've been hammering you on, asking for a
response, a justification. Why is that bad?
Now, instead of getting one, you accuse me of changing the issue, of
caricature, and so on. That's why I am frustrated on this end. I'm frustrated
because it was YOUR point I kept asking you about. And you brought it up more
than once. For example, you responded recently this way:
<<So, what do evolutionists say when presented with Behe's, admittedly
thought-provoking, point? Probably just what Jim claimed above. But why
shouldn't this be an appropriate response to Behe? He says that things are
too complicated to imagine a scenario such as evolution. Some people
undoubtedly believe this, and that is fine. However, others believe that an
evolutionary scenario enables them to imagine how the origin of complex
systems could be explained in terms of science. >>
"An evolutionary scenario" is exactly the same thing as your previous
"imagined selective advantage." I asked for the justification. How can this be
a caricature, or off the issue, when you kept offering it up yourself?
Now, in this latest post, you do seem to distance yourself from the point
with:
<<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. >>
That's fine with me. You don't have to defend the "selective advantage shell
game." But you were the one who first tossed it out. So it is not a
caricature; it is not a change of issue. At least we can, at this point, agree
to let it go.
On your next point:
<<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.>>
I've found two references to this in your posts, and to be frank I'm not sure
what you mean by it. Here is one statement:
<<There is no reason to assume, a priori, FUNCTIONAL irreducibility. The
thing that "one cannot definitively rule out" is called evolution.>>
I thought I had responded, because I found this to be tied up with the
imagination issue. Perhaps I'm wrong. But what you seem to be saying, in these
terms, is there is SOME SORT of functionality that might be assumed prior to
the systems Behe describes.
But, once again, I find that magic wand at work. What is the basis for this
assumption? Is there something in the scientific literature that gives us a
basis for such a conjecture? That's all I've been asking for.
My position is well stated by Russ Matmaan, who wrote recently:
<<Really, I am suggesting only two things: (1)
Show that Behe's examples are wrong--do this so that a refereed journal
will accept it, or, failing this, (2) admit that evolution-from-something
-simpler cannot be assumed in other cases unless a reasonable
gradualistic path has been presented. Is that so radical?>>
Russ is more judicious than I. I write a little more spiritedly. But Steve,
neither one of us is playing a rhetorical game. I do wish you wouldn't devolve
to accusing me of that. I don't think it is polite, and I don't think it
should be public. If you have something personal to say, please send it to me
privately.
Otherwise, let's work through our frustrations and try to communicate, OK?
Jim