evolution: 1 creationism: 0

A great post Arch.

It appears now that right-thinking right-wingers now feel they have to swallow utter nonsense to stay in line with their leading idealogues.

I consider myself well to the right of the middle, but when I see good conservatism getting hijacked by wackos, particularly of the religous variety, it makes me think the cause is in great danger.

Irma

 

slammajamma
02-13-04 04:53 PM

Read the WSJ, 2-13-04 p. B1 , for an interesting article that shows holes in the "irreducible complexity" argument.

Antievolutionists like to use the pickled example that a cell's liklihood of emerging without ID is similar to a tornado sweeping down on a complete set of parts of a 747 jet and assembling them into the functional airline. No doubt these calculations were based on dubious assumptions.

Parts of cells, cellular subcomponents appear and reappear in various species, evidencing evolution at work.
*******

From slowtrend:

I didn't see the WSJ article that is mentioned by slammajamma. But I do have a copy of Behe's response. Behe is author of Darwin's Black Box.

Here is Michael Behe's letter to WSJ. Will WSJ print it?

Please notice the first quote Behe includes. It is from an evolutionist, not a creationist or ID supporter. It is an honest admission of the controversy surrounding Darwinism.

**********
“We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of
intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we
must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” So lamented Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in “The Way of the Cell” (Oxford University Press, 2001).

Sharon Begley's recent column (Science Journal, “Evolution
Critics Come Under Fire for Flaws In 'Intelligent Design'”) reports the very latest "wishful speculations." The flagellum—an astonishingly complex biological outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim—has in recent years been found to be even more sophisticated. Not only does it have a rotary nanomotor that has been dubbed “the most efficient machine in the universe,” but we now know it also contains intricate protein pumps that allow it to construct itself—something no human-made
machine can do. With breathtaking chutzpah but bizarre logic, a few rather unreflective Darwinists are spinning the increased
complexity—which they neither predicted nor explained—as a public relations reprieve for their moribund theory. It’s like contending that, although wheels, chassis, and a steering column give a car the appearance of intelligent design, when the fuel pump is discovered then happenstance is a better explanation.

The Darwinian imagination is a marvel to behold. No wonder Darwinists try to rule out intelligent design “as a matter of principle.” It surely can’t be ruled out by the evidence.

Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
**********

 

"Behe:It surely can’t be ruled out by the evidence."

What a fricken joke. ******WHAT EVIDENCE***** ????????
There IS NO evidence for intelligent design.

These guys are committing the same error the theists commit here.
They think by taking pot shots at evolution, it somehow SUPPORTS
**THEIR*** position.

This is simply NOT true.

ID must stand on its own, APART from evolution.

Only problem is, there isnt a single shred of evidence which supports ID.
Nothing but MERE guesses which boil down to the caveman logic of:

Since I dont understand how this happened ----therefore---> fabricate a god to explain it.

What a joke. Behe's argument is nothing but another flawed watch maker argument.
It would be embarrassing for the WSJ to print such debunked nonsense.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

If Behe truly wants to people to take ID seriously, then he
better find the watches watch maker and show it to us.

peace

axeman

 

Another funny article on Behe and his silly claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Thats all he has... CLAIMS. He asserts, but never backs it up.

peace

axeman

 

Mr. Axeman,

Why don't you deal with the evolutionist that Behe quoted? Typical diversionary tactic.

“We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of
intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we
must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” So lamented Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in “The Way of the Cell” (Oxford University Press, 2001).

Let me try to understand this evolutionist's position. He dismisses ID outright. That is fine. Anyone is permitted to do that. I don't object to that. ID is wrong according to Franklin Harold.

But, and this is a big but, the evolutionists need to keep reading what this scientist has stated.

". . . but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Even a fourth grade debater like me can understand the above.

Let me interpret that for you:

WE MUST CONCEDE

THERE ARE PRESENTLY

NO DETAILED [how hard they have tried, and what about all that 'evidence' you referred to in an earlier post, where is it????]

DARWINIAN ACCOUNTS

OF THE EVOLUTION OF ANY [not even one!!!!!]

BIOCHEMICAL SYSTEMS

ONLY A VARIETY OF

WISHFUL SPECULATIONS.

I can understand that.

Why can't you Mr. Axeman?

This is someone from inside your camp criticizing the theory of evolution. This is one of your comrades. He is a traitor. He is telling the public there is a lot of speculating going on. He is a dangerous man. Better turn the public's attention to something else, or this could serious.

A VARIETY OF WISHFUL SPECULATIONS.

I didn't make that claim, Franklin Harold did.

Is that science? Yes, evolutionary science, according to Franklin Harold.

 

"I can understand that.

Why can't you Mr. Axeman?"


Obviously you DONT understand because I never argued against this point at all.
Do you have reading comprehension issues? Or do you just like
setting up strawman attacks?

I pointed out Behe's silly claims, and the seemingly underlying
belief that attacking evolution someone constitutes evidence for ID.

". . . but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Wishful speculation? I think he goes a little too far here, since
MOST things in evolution theory occur on time scales which
would prevent ANY "detailed darwinian accounts".

Following this flawed logic, we would have to assume that
he also believes that the grand canyon was NOT cut from a river
since we have no "detailed accounts of canyon cutting", due to
the very large timescales which make this unobservable.


peace

axeman

 

Axeman

Wishful speculation? I think he goes a little too far here, since
MOST things in evolution theory occur on time scales which
would prevent ANY "detailed darwinian accounts".

Following this flawed logic, we would have to assume that
he also believes that the grand canyon was NOT cut from a river
since we have no "detailed accounts of canyon cutting", due to
the very large timescales which make this unobservable.
*******

It doesn't matter what he believes about the Grand Canyon's formation. He is a biochemist.

Your equivocation is confusing me.

First, we were told evolution as a term is so easily understandable, no problem, either micro or macro, it is all the same, just a little change over time, oh so simple, even a fourth grader could understand it.

Is that right?

Now, we are being told, since there is just wishful speculation at the biochemical level, as asserted by one of the evolutionists, that MOST THINGS need VERY LARGE TIMESCALES and are unfortunately, UNOBSERVABLE.

I can just here the hush that comes over the audience, VERY LARGE TIMESCALES. Turn down the lights, VERY LARGE TIMESCALES.

UNOBSERVABLE?

I thought this was science. I thought we were dealing with facts, not metaphysical naturalism. MOST THINGS, UNOBSERVABLE, VERY LARGE TIMESCALES.

The Darwinian mechanism works very well with VERY LARGE TIMESCALES and UNOBSERVABLE events. Let me know when you find something a little more substantial.

 

I have a better idea. For those who feel the Darwinian paradigm is wrong, that macroevolution is suspect, please offer a compelling counter theory to evolution that explains the origin of the species and changes in life forms over time.

Evolution provides the one of the most comprehensive constructs for understanding life on earth.

For those here who are denying it, kindly put forward a comprehensive alternative that seeks to explain origins, speciation and niche habitation, competition, and behavior.

 

I thought science was about proving a theory, not presenting a theory and expecting someone else to disprove it?

Isn't the scientific responsibility on the Darwinians to prove their claims and theories, in the same way that the atheists say the burden of proof of the theists rests on their shoulders?

If I say you cannot prove God does not exist, does that prove God exists?

If I say you cannot prove the Darwinian theory wrong, does that make it right?

It is just a theory. That it "works" the best at this particular time has nothing to do with it being valid.

Many scientific theories of the past were the "best guess" available at the time and accepted as fact by many...yet proven to be wrong over the course of time and the development of new instrumentation.

Who is to say that we will not develop better instrumentation that dismisses the Darwinian theory as absurd?

If you are going to be a scientist, you have to play by the rules of science.

 

It doesn't matter what he believes about the Grand Canyon's formation. He is a biochemist.

Wow.... you cant grasp this simple analogy?
Being a biochemist is IRRELEVANT on this point.

Im simply pointing out the fact that what he said is OBVIOUS,
in that we cannot expect science to have directly observed
this occuring because of the large time scales involved.
(You DO know that evolution of this sort takes longer than
a human lifetime dont ya?? )


It is the equivalent of me saying:
but we must concede that there are presently no detailed accounts of star births, only a variety of wishful speculations.”


Well NO SHIT SHERLOCK. We will never have a "detail account"
of a star birth by a human.
But to reject all thoery on star formation as "wishful speculation" is simply being dishonest.

Again.... using this flawed logic, if this biochemist was consistent,
he would have to reject ALL SCIENCE that was not based
on "direct observation" and "detailed accounts". Simply ridiculous.

I thought this was science. I thought we were dealing with facts, not metaphysical naturalism. MOST THINGS, UNOBSERVABLE, VERY LARGE TIMESCALES.

This is science. Science does NOT require that everything be
directly observable or have "detailed accounts".
I thought this was obvious.

The Darwinian mechanism works very well with VERY LARGE TIMESCALES and UNOBSERVABLE events. Let me know when you find something a little more substantial.

This is YOUR statement not mine. Nice strawman.
Come back when you can attack MY arguement, instead of yours

peace

axeman