On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 23:56:46 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Here is an article from the Electronic Telegraph....which reports that
>the Bombardier Beetle is even more well-designed than previously
>thought...
[...]
>SJ>I would be interested to see an explanation from the scientific
>>literature of how: 1) Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and
>>natural selection could build up the evident design of the Bombardier
>>Beetle, and 2) the evidence that they actually did.
KB>That is not unreasonable, and hopefully someone can oblige Steve;
>while I know a great deal about the biochemistry and physiology of the
>defense mechanism, I know very little about the evolutionary history of
>the beetle.
No one has obliged me to date!
KB>Meanwhile, I would like to pose a couple of questions to Steve.
>Implied behind these questions is the critique that the beetle is too well
>designed to have evolved by "random mutation and natural selection".
Kevin tries to put words into my mouth. I did not say that "the
[Bombardier] beetle is too well designed to have evolved by `random
mutation and natural selection'".
What I said was "I would be interested to see an explanation from the
scientific literature of how: 1) Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation
and natural selection could build up the evident design of the Bombardier
Beetle, and 2) the evidence that they actually did."
For the record, I do *not* rule out that "the [Bombardier] beetle" *could*
have been "designed...by `random mutation and natural selection'. But I
would like to see the *evidence* that: 1) it could and 2) it did.
KB>For this to be a proper scientific critique it must have a theoretical
>basis, and for it to be valid that theoretical basis must itself be tested.
Kevin here is again trying his trick of reversing the burden of proof. In
effect, he wants me to prove that random mutation and natural selection
could not design the bombardier beetle. Then if I fail to convince Kevin,
then random mutation and natural selection win by default!
This is the pseudo-scientific method, which Darwinists routinely employ.
But it is the responsibility of the proponents of a scientific theory to prove
their point, not for critics of the theory to disprove it:
"Courtroom experience during my career at the bar taught me to attach
great weight to something that may seem trivial to persons not skilled in
argumentation-the burden of proof. The proponents of a theory, in science
or elsewhere, are obligated to support every link in the chain of reasoning,
whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of the theory, testing it
for flaws. He is not obligated to set up any theory of his own or to offer
any alternative explanations. He can be purely negative if he so desires..."
(Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried", 1971, p5)
Thus:
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:05:29 -0500, darren.coltman@zurichus.com wrote:
DC>I would be interested to see an explanation from the religious literature of
>how: 1) God could build up the evident design of the Bombardier Beetle, and 2)
>the evidence that He actually did.
The "religious literature" makes no claim AFAIK as to how "God could build up
the evident design of the Bombardier Beetle." It is the claim of *Darwinism* that
"the design of the Bombardier Beetle" was built up by "random mutation and
natural selection". I simply ask to see the *evidence* for that claim.
If I receive no plausible answers to my questions, then I will take it as a
evidence that "Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection
could" *not* "build up the evident design of the Bombardier Beetle".
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which
cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable
observation can be fitted into it. It is thus `outside of empirical science' but
not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas,
either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in
extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their
validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by
most of us as part of our training." (Birch L.C. & Ehrlich P.R.,
"Evolutionary History and Population Biology", Nature, Vol. 214, 22 April
1967, p352)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------