Not all "creationist" arguments are "old"
A lot of people express shock that evolution is still being debated "in this day and age." And a lot of people claim that current critics of evolution are just recycling "creationist" arguments that were "refuted a long time ago." But a lot of the information in the debate over the alleged irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum is of recent origin. An article in New Scientist magazine said,
.
The real "science-stoppers" are the anti-intellectuals who think that old ideas that have supposedly been "refuted" should not be reconsidered in the light of new information and/or new arguments.
Also, as I have pointed out before, a lot of people have the mistaken idea that intelligent design is the only scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticism of evolution theory. The problem of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms -- e.g., bees and flowering plants -- is an example of a non-ID weakness of evolution theory. In such co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.
.
.
“If you go back just six or seven years, the function of many of the components of the bacterial flagellum were unknown,” says Kenneth Miller, a biochemist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “It’s very difficult to work out the evolution of a complex system when you don’t understand how the system works.” In the absence of this knowledge, biologists all too often fell back on the assertion that “bacterial flagella evolved and that is that”, according to Mark Pallen, a microbiologist at the University of Birmingham in the UK.
The real "science-stoppers" are the anti-intellectuals who think that old ideas that have supposedly been "refuted" should not be reconsidered in the light of new information and/or new arguments.
Also, as I have pointed out before, a lot of people have the mistaken idea that intelligent design is the only scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticism of evolution theory. The problem of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms -- e.g., bees and flowering plants -- is an example of a non-ID weakness of evolution theory. In such co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.
.
Labels: Intelligent design
posted by Larry Fafarman | 2/25/2008 10:27:00 AM
12 Comments:
Well, I can see why the Intelligent Designer would place a priority on getting bacterial flagella working properly.
I think?
But wait -- Larry says that maybe there isn't such a Designer. So that accounts (?) for co-evolution.
Hmm. Amazing explanatory (and predictive) power. That's science for you!
Irreducible Complexity, of which both the flagellum and your own inane arguments are, is an old argument for creationism.
There is no new argument for creationism that hasn't been heard since Darwin was alive. If you were more well read, you'd realize this.
Irreducible Complexity, of which both the flagellum and your own inane arguments are, is an old argument for creationism.
There is no new argument for creationism that hasn't been heard since Darwin was alive. If you were more well read, you'd realize this.
If Larry can't be bothered with things that impede his preconceived notions like facts, how can we expect him read and consider the background history of the topic?
We have a new term for Larry's arguments: irreducible inanity.
Mmm, chocolate!
The idea of divine/metaphysical entities being responsible for creating life is as old as the bible itself. Since you most likely didn't actually read up on what irreducibly complex actually means and the context in which it is used by Behe, let's break it down for you:
Irreducible complexity: The argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.
Behe uses this argument to justify using ID as an explanation to how these systems were developed. This is just two parts of the same creationist argument: The first part being that evolution is wrong, and the second offering the "divine/metaphysical" alternative. xvvafg
Michael Behe's major argument in The Edge of Evolution is a new one, which has nothing to do with "irreducible complexity."
It's a biochemical argument based upon empirical studies of evolution, especially in certain microbes. But of course most believing Darwinists ignore Behe, and thus have no notion of what that argument might be?
But I think that they are going to find out, eventually.
Michael Behe's major argument in The Edge of Evolution is a new one, which has nothing to do with "irreducible complexity."
But nevertheless just as wrong...
Until Behe stops leaping to the conclusion that The Designer Formerly Known As God did it, he has little hope of getting it right, except by chance.
I wonder how all of the anonymous true-believers in Darwinism know that Behe is wrong, when they haven't read his book?
Richard Dawkins produced a clueless and incompetent review of The Edge of Evolution, in The New York Times: he either hadn't read the book, or was unable to understand Behe's argument.
Anyway, he didn't help either himself or old Darwin, thereby.
I wonder how Jim Sherwood knows that we haven't read Behe's book?
Yet another in a long line of leaps to conclusions and arguments from incredulity from their side.
In The Edge of Evolution, after arguing that certain complex cellular mechanisms are not possible due to the perceived limits on the effects of Darwinian evolution (Oh hey, sounds like irreducible complexity), Behe still tries to establish that a "divine presence" contributing to these changes is a valid possibility (Intelligent Design... again).
So, for the TL,DR crowd:
Same theories, half-assed attempt at a new angle (new example really), paid for by the good people of the Discovery Institute as always.
> My method requires no judgments as to what is notable and non-notable and what is crappy and non-crappy. <
Why not just throw in random words. That makes as much sense. It doesn't take a lot of judgement to see that this blog is non-notable and crappy.
> Fake Dave is making a nuisance of himself again. He must really be upset that I am making Wickedpedia look like crap. <
No fake Larry. Real Dave is upset that you are making the family look foolish. Come on Larry. It is one thing to depend on your parents at your age but blocking you mother from using her own phone is a little too much.
Post a Comment
<< Home