Jim:It's not an argument from (lack of) authority. It's an argument from
the
author not knowing what he's talking about on a very crucial point.
Then please explain where the author went wrong in showing a plausible
pathway leading to a irreducibly complex system in small steps and we can
discuss the issue. You appear to be stating that the author was wrong on a
related issue and that therefor his comments have less or no value.
Jim:I mean, if someone was holding himself out as an expert on baseball,
and
wrote, "The all-time home run leader, Mickey Mantle, is an example to us
all,"
wouldn't you question his bona fides? Wouldn't you think twice about
accepting
his opinions on other parts of the game? Of course you would.
I would think twice but not dismiss it beforehand. Which is imho what you
are doing.
<<Jim: Again, where is the testable detail in this position? Nowhere.
There is no need for testable detail.>>
Jim: Sure, let's throw out the scientific method. No problem there.
Especially when the claims of evolution are held to account.
I am using the same 'scientific method' used by Behe. Behe could not
imagine a pathway, others can. So as far as the argument of Behe goes that
irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved has been shown wrong by
showing a possible (not actual) pathway.
<< 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.>>
Jim: That's even better. So there is no way to test the validity of this
"plausible" position. This is great. Let me give it a go. One can imagine
a
The validity is not in question, the argument used by Behe is. If Behe
claims that irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved (without
evidence btw) and other show plausible pathways then Behe's argument has
been shown wrong. If Behe or you want to shift the argument to 'now that
it has been shown that I was wrong perhaps we should focus on examples of
actual pathways to determine if evolution was responsible.
Jim: pathway leading from week-old cheese to mice. Please don't ask me for
the
details, you don't need them. I've imagined the path. So here is a
"plausible"
conclusion: Rodents come from ricotta.
It is as consistent as Behe's imagination that such a path is not possible.
And that is all that matters for showing Behe incorrect.
It's quite simple.