u don't but i do... wonder why teleo wld systematically hide, choose not to disclose, his/her sources... are they embarrassing to him/her? and yes it does matter to me what sort of monkey is driving an "interview"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity ... talk about grasping at straws... Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. The originator of irreducible complexity as it applies to intelligent design, biochemistry professor Michael Behe, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"[1]. These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. The argument is used in a broader context to support the idea that an intelligent designer was involved, at some point, in the creation of life, against the theory of evolution which requires no designer. In a manner of speaking, the IC argument is a definition of the "designer", or at least "what was designed", a definition that has proven elusive in the past. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye, the blood clotting cascade, or the motor in a cell's flagellum. The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity.[2] For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[3] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[4] Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.[5] Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance. Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the majority of the scientific community;[2] it is often referred to as pseudoscience.[6] Despite being discredited in the Dover trial where the court found in its ruling that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large",[7] irreducible complexity has nevertheless remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design and other creationists. Contents [hide] 1 Definitions 2 History 2.1 Forerunners 2.2 Origins 3 Stated examples 3.1 Blood clotting cascade 3.2 Eye 3.3 Flagella 4 Response of the scientific community 4.1 Reducibility of "irreducible" systems 4.2 Gradual adaptation to new functions 4.3 Falsifiability and experimental evidence 4.4 Argument from ignorance 5 Irreducible complexity in the Dover trial 6 Notes and references 7 Additional references 8 External links
No, it really doesn't matter who is "driving" the interview in this case, if the interviewer is accurately representing what the person being interviewed said. You screwed up, just admit it, you are man enough for that, right? If you have evidence that "u" do, present it. Otherwise, "u" don't.
No, it really doesn't matter who is "driving" the interview in this case, if the interviewer is accurately representing what the person being interviewed said. You screwed up, just admit it, you are man enough for that, right? If you have evidence that "u" do, present it. Otherwise, a monkey like "u" don't.
"evidence"? what does that mean to u? your God told me... now, if someone or sthg is "driving" a process it always matters who "it" is my friend... and in this particular instance who or what tells you that the interviewer is accurately representing anything? has stuart burgess given u any assurances or is this reporter's reputation beyond doubt for u who don't even know who he/she is? plse enlighten us as for stuart burgess, he seems to be known as a staunch creationist: http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/StuartBurgess Burgess is also both a hard-line fundamentalist and a very active creationist. We judge that he is a leading member of the tiny hard-core group of activist creationists in British academia. He's a big fish in other words. And very opinionated as you will find out in this article about his science. Of all the creationists in the UK, Burgess is the one that actually frightens the author of this article most (and by a long margin). It's his personality that is so scary. If anything, it was seeing him being interviewed on BBC regional TV where he claimed that he told children they would go to hell if they believed the theory of evolution, that swung the verdict (heavily). He was using fear to try to force his extreme religious opinions and deep ignorance of much of science on to other people's children. It was deeply offensive seeing a man trying to control children by fear. Burgess' activism includes involvement in Truth in Science, signing the 2002 Estelle Morris letter, proselytising creationism in schools, frequent public lectures and speeches on creationism, writing books and articles on creationism and involvement in creationist organisations. Burgess was one of the speakers at Answers in Genesis' 2006 "Creation Without Compromise" conference at Swanwick in Derbyshire. Burgess is apparently a Baptist and, according to Answers in Genesis, is a member of Buckingham Chapel in Bristol. This is described as an Evangelical Baptist church. He also holds a diploma in Theology from the London Reformed Baptist Seminary (part of the Metropolitan Tabernacle). However, we have no idea what status this holds. The Metropolitan Tabernacle (Baptist) promotes creationism. At one stage in his career Burgess worked on the solar array panel deployment mechanism of the European Space Agency's earth observation satellite Envisat. His first degree and PhD are both from Brunel University. A summary bio of Burgess can be found at http://www.men.bris.ac.uk/contact/acstaff/scb.html (on the Bristol University web site). It lists a number of academic papers he has authored or co-authored but entirely fails to mention his religious publications. Certainly this looks very frightening to the author of this report. A lot of the creationist papers and books that Burgess has turned out are claimed to be scientific and published by organisations such as AiG who say that they use scientific peer review. Burgess is clearly going along with this, so why the double standards from the university between Burgess' mainstream engineering work and his creationist work? As a religious fundamentalist, Burgess is an outspoken critic of mainstream science (as taught by the university) but the site is utterly silent on the matter. Is the university so scared of the consequences of the actions of its leading academic staff that it resorts to systematic censorship on its web site? The author puts it to Bristol University that it is keeping references to Burgess' work off its web site because the work is so unutterably bad. why wouldn't teleo mention this i wonder?
Nope, just pointing your ad hominem fallacious attacks. It is irrelevant if a published scientist is religious or not. Scientists will attack the science, Down syndrome atheists attack the man.
not sure which article you are talking about... there was no science in Jackson's article, only opinions... "relevance", what is it to u my friend? sthg u find convenient for propaganda's sake? is it "relevant" that Burgess' background be disclosed to the reader? is it "relevant" that Nick Jackson's background be disclosed to the reader? is it "relevant" that the link to the original publication be disclosed to the readers? i apologize if i am using words that u do not (yet) understand ;-)