What has been done is shown that irreducibly complex systems need NOT be
evidence of design. Behe has therefor reached a conclusion without
considering the other alternatives.
Jim: Agreed. We are not looking for postulations, which amount to an old
evolutionary ploy, what I call the "one-can-imagine" spin. We hear that
all
the time. Imagination is not what we're asking for here, but proof. Behe
has
documented the lack thereof.
Behe has shown that in certain areas our understanding is incomplete and
has come to the conclusion that irreducible complex systems are evidence
of design when in fact neither argument is an argument against evolution.
Certainly no argument can be made in a scientific manner for supernatural
design. But that is another issue.
Behe has 'postulated' but not proven his assertion that irreducibly
complex is evidence of design, a typical creationist ploy (to use your own
words)
Jim: We can see this very thing in Keith Robison's piece, which is what
Pim is
relying on, viz.:
Jim: "[I]t is possible to posit such an evolutionary process."
Jim: Same old song and dance.
Perhaps but it does put significant doubt on Behe's unfounded assertions
that you have to refer to it as a ploy or as not-objective/credible. TO
repeat your own thinking on this matter, what do you think the meaning is
of that.
Pim