Search results

How do you define irreducibly complex? While these articles are fascinating to read, none provide provide a step by step process showing how photoreceptive cells are produced. The fact varying levels of complexity exist doesn't disprove IC. As Behe pointed out in Darwin's Black Box, the...

Obviously you don't understand the difference between a theory and the implication of a theory. Is information theory an argument? Is germ theory an argument? Is the theory of evolution an argument? Is big bang theory an argument? Of course, the answer is no, none of those are arguments...

Courts have ruled black people are property, corporations are people, and ID theory is creationism. Seems to me courts weigh in on legal matters and aren't a good source of truth. Considering: Black people aren't actually property, they are humans Corporations aren't actually people, they're a...

Well, ID creationism isn't actually a thing so any discussion whether it's science or a tomato is moot. ID creationism is a mash up of two separate concepts. If conflation isn't a concern then married bachelors, square circles, and ID creationism exist. Not much point in discussing a married...

Special creationism has as much to do with ID theory as aliens. Both can be seen as implications of the theory, but so what? The implications of a theory have no bearing on the validity of a theory.

Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time. It's how science works.

I get you don't agree with the flagellum being irreducibly complex. But Behe pointed out: "To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and...

This was a response to "the whole point of ID is to show that nature and people are created by God." While that implication is certainly part of it, this quote from Behe sums up the whole point of ID theory: "I don t want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the...

Behe was talking about the plausibility of an argument of design, not ID theory itself. In context, Behe is talking about the inferences that are drawn from ID theory. Whether those inference's are plausible. Here's what Behe says about the plausibility of ID theory itself: "The conclusion of...

Pointing out the difference between concepts is all I'm doing. Conflating The Wedge strategy, creationism, and ID theory is a losing proposition. As is a nominal fallacy.

Miller's challenge was based on the idea the T3SS was the predecessor to the flagellum: "We suggest that the flagellar apparatus was the evolutionary precursor of Type III protein secretion systems." So Miller's challenge failed. Next is Millers challenge to irreducible complexity. Miller...

This is such a bad faith argument as well as quote mining. Behe did not make the case "the plausibility of ID creationism is dependent on one's belief in gods." Here's the rest of Behe's testimony: "...people make decisions even about a scientific theory, based not only on the science itself...

Well, the two sources I cited explained how it evolved. But since this sounds like its going to be good, let's see how the type III apparatus evolved. That study is a non sequitur because synechocystis already have photorecptive cells. Again, Behe's challenge was showing the machinery inside...

You'll find just about every objection you've raised is answered here. ID theory qualifies as a scientific theory. It explains the coded information found in the cells of every living thing. Meyer points out based on experience, on what we know, codes are the result of intelligence. If you'll...

At a loss for words here. The source you cited describes the type III secretion system but makes no mention of where it came from. While the two sources I cited explained it came from the flagellum. Which makes a lot of sense. Because in your scenario bacteria would be floating around without a...

Continued... ID theory at it's core is about identifying causes, as is all science. Identifying the intelligent agent is beyond the scope of ID theory or any theory for that matter. Identifying a cause is sufficient. Allowing you to define the terms creates the false dichotomy. I stated earlier...

We need to define some terms then because it seems you object to creationism but keep saying ID. Intelligent design theory states: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected...

Since you have no quote I can only assume it's made up. The source you cited was only explaining what the T3SS is, not it's origin. Millers argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of irreducible-complexity. There are numerous articles explaining how it makes more sense the T3SS came...

We've discussed the Wedge Strategy before on this forum. There's an important distinction to make here since you're saying ID theory is a legal strategy. Legal strategies are one thing scientific theories are another. Nobody would argue climate science is a legal strategy. Since, obviously it...

Can you provide the quote? "to some degree" is vague. The subtitle of Behe's first book makes clear what he set out to do, provide a biochemical challenge to evolution. In his book he quoted Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been...