Pim writes:
<<Only two problems with your argument 1) you conclude that if an author
makes an error that the rest of his work is not worth discussing>>
Jim: Wrong. I've only pointed out a standard matter of evidentiary
weight--if
someone tries to write a "expert" opinion on a matter, but makes a
fundamental
error on a basic point, one is virtually compelled to call into question
his
opinions on more technical matters. Sure, one can discuss it; but one
ought
not to rely on it as heavily as you have.
Such approach might have its usefulness in judicial circles but not in
scientific circles were evidence is addressed on its merrits not the
merrits of the author. Arguments from (lack of) authority one way or
another are just not very scientific.
<<2) Behe
claimed that irreducible complex systems could not have evolved. THis
author as well as others have pointed out that this is an erroneous
assumption. >>
Jim: Again, where is the testable detail in this position? Nowhere.
There is no need for testable detail. Behe's argument was that irreducibly
complex systems can not have evolved. Others have shown arguments that
this is incorrect. Whether or not this actually happened or whether or not
the details are known is irrelevant for Behe's argument. Unlesse Behe's
argument is that irreducibly complex systems can evolve but that in this
case there is evidence that it didn't.
<<If you can point out to me any such publications by Behe ? Perhaps we can
only then legitimately show his errors ?>>
Jim: A book trumps a journal. It is out there for all the peers to see,
with plenty of techinical material to chew upon. And, indeed, Behe has
been debating its various points. But the point I made to you, which you
have no answer for,
remains: no testable studies in the journals. I, and I'm sure Behe,
eagerly
await same. Until then, your opinion that Behe has been "shown" to be
deluded
is flat.
A book is not peer reviewed and does not trump a journal. I realize that
you have to believe such but this is incorrect. Behe has been debating his
points but not in a scientific manner through publication in peer reviewd
journals. And that is what you were asking for wasn't it ?
<<Since it
has been shown that Behe;s IC systems could very well have evolved
naturally, there is no foundation for his assertions.>>
Jim Wrong again. It has not been "shown." Perhaps you can detail the
experimental data you are relying on. That would help. Can you?
I have given you references in which people show that there could be
natural pathways to irreducible complex systems. It is irrelevant for the
argument if this actually happened since Behe's argument is, and correct
me if I am wrong, that no irreducibly complex system could have evolved in
a stepwise manner.
Since this assumption has been shown to be incorrect, there is a possible
pathway, Behe's argument has lost its foundation. If Behe argues that
indeed it could have happened but that for evolution it did not happen
then we should hold Behe to the scientific standard of providing proof
that this is indeed the case.
Jim: No? Then what's so scientific about your position?
It is as scientific as Behe's argument. That is all that is required to
destroy an argument. It is done at the same level of argument and in the
same arena of non-peer reviewed discussions.
Why are you suddenly holding one side to a standard the other side has yet
to adhere to ?
<<Behe's argument is based on the erroneous assumption that this supports
his assertion that IC systems could NOT have arisen naturally. >>
Jim: This is another part of the Behe argument, and a separate issue.
Stick to the only one I brought up, the lack of testable detail in the
journals. Where are they?
A strawman argument. Testable detail is not required for Behe's argument
to be shown wrong. If someone states A could not have happened and I show
a plausible way A could have happened then it is not required to actually
show the details of how it happened. If Behe's argument is that not all
the details are known then that is fine with me. Such is science. But that
is hardly an argument that there is no scientific pathway.