I. C., nut-job free

[Steady Eddie]

For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM

It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.

I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.

[jillery]

The video is 24.5 minutes long. The panel include Stephen Meyer as
well as Michael Behe and other members of the Discovery Institute.

As for your "preliminary remarks" on Youtube, it hardly qualifies.

Since you know there are several posters in T.O. who are resistant to
viewing videos, perhaps you could give a summary of what you believe
to be the highlights from it.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 21 January 2015 23:02:07 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:08:41 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
> >
> >It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
> >
> >I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>
>
> The video is 24.5 minutes long. The panel include Stephen Meyer as
> well as Michael Behe and other members of the Discovery Institute.
>
> As for your "preliminary remarks" on Youtube, it hardly qualifies.

Oh, sorry, I guess I didn't yet post the time where Behe summarizes his point. I thought I had...

>
> Since you know there are several posters in T.O. who are resistant to
> viewing videos, perhaps you could give a summary of what you believe
> to be the highlights from it.

Sorry to any of you who are resistant to viewing videos. I am posting the time where you can go to for Behe's argument.

[Ernest Major]

Videos are a time-consuming method of presenting information. You can
read the equivalent in a fraction of the time.

There are two widespread views to what Behe says about Irreducible
Complexity. Firstly that he claims Irreducibly Complex systems cannot
evolve (a falsehood, but one which could have been an honest mistake).
Secondly an argument from incredulity - that Irreducibly Complex Systems
are too improbable to have evolved. In the absence of a model from which
to calculate probabilities this is vacuous. Which of these do you think
he was then claiming? (If neither please give the 3rd alternative.)

Did he define Irreducibly Complexity in the video? If he did, what
definition did he offer?

Did he offer an objective means of identfying systems, parts and
functions? (One of the problems with Irreducible Complexity as an
anti-evolutionary argument is that whether a system is Irreducibly
Complex depends on how you divide it into parts.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[RonO]

Can you state very breifly what new was put forward that would counter
the utter failure of IC to amount to anything in the Dover Court case
that preceded this "debate."

Did Behe state a usable definition of "well matched" so that it could be
tested and identified to exist in enough quantity to make his systems
IC? Was he able to measure well matched in the flagellum or any other
Behe IC system and demonstrate that the parts were well matched enough
to make those systems IC? Was he able to count up the number of
unselected steps in his IC systems and determine that enough of them
existed to make his systems IC? Did he indicate that he had started the
falsification test of IC that he and Minnich put forward in their
testimony that would demonstrate if the flagellum could evolve or not.
Both claimed that if you could evolve a flagellum the ID ICness of the
flagellum would be falsified.

What Behe can't do and hasn't done is common knowledge, so what new
material got presented that would improve the dismal situation that IC
is in and remains in at this time around 9 years later? Around 5 years
before this conference Behe responded to his critics and made sure that
IC was untestable and worthless for inference of anything. This was
found to not have changed by the Dover court case in 2005, so what
changed between the court case and this 2006 conference?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Poor little guy, not enough time to watch the video.
Well, I'm afraid I don't have the time to entertain your questions.

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 22 January 2015 06:07:06 UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 1/21/2015 11:08 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
> >
> > It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
> >
> > I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
> >
>
> Can you state very breifly what new was put forward that would counter
> the utter failure of IC to amount to anything in the Dover Court case
> that preceded this "debate."
>
> Did Behe state a usable definition of "well matched" so that it could be
> tested and identified to exist in enough quantity to make his systems
> IC?

LOL, you don't even know what "well-matched" means in this context!
Behe chose small words so that even people like you could comprehend him.

Was he able to measure well matched in the flagellum or any other
> Behe IC system and demonstrate that the parts were well matched enough
> to make those systems IC? Was he able to count up the number of
> unselected steps in his IC systems and determine that enough of them
> existed to make his systems IC? Did he indicate that he had started the
> falsification test of IC that he and Minnich put forward in their
> testimony that would demonstrate if the flagellum could evolve or not.
> Both claimed that if you could evolve a flagellum the ID ICness of the
> flagellum would be falsified.
>
> What Behe can't do and hasn't done is common knowledge, so what new
> material got presented that would improve the dismal situation that IC
> is in and remains in at this time around 9 years later? Around 5 years
> before this conference Behe responded to his critics and made sure that
> IC was untestable and worthless for inference of anything. This was
> found to not have changed by the Dover court case in 2005, so what
> changed between the court case and this 2006 conference?
>
> Ron Okimoto

You know, when you leave all of the insulting language out of it, you appear to be a real asshole.
Unless you come back with a lot of cites and quotes to support your points, you are just blowing smoke, and worthy of ignoring even though you didn't use the term "IDiot" once in this post.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Behe must have discovered something new and revolutionary during the months
between his testimony at the Dover trial and producing this panel
discussion. Or not? Because if he had any proof of his Irreducible
Complexity actually being irreducible and not possible through evolutionary
processes, surely he would have included this in his testimony. Instead, he
stated under oath that he has not had time to read the stack (literally) of
papers from refereed journals, placed on the table in the courtroom, that
showed that there were plausible pathways to all the examples he has cited
in the past.

Might I ask whether Behe submitted any of this startling and revolutionary
evidence to the refereed literature during 2006? Or does he only publish
this stuff in journals and conference proceedings about religious
apologetics?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:32:06 AM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:

> Unless you come back with a lot of cites and quotes to support your points, you are just blowing smoke, <snip>

Why do you think "cites and quotes" matter? Whatever opinion you or anyone else has, it's highly likely that someone, somewhere has had the same opinion and written it down. So what?

The only purposes of "cites and quotes" is either to send someone to a source in which they can look at actual data and evaluate it themselves or at least to send someone to a more detailed version of whatever you were saying.

Simply finding "cites and quotes" as though they were proof texts doesn't strengthen anyone's argument. All it shows is that if they are wrong, someone else has already been wrong in the same way.

[Ymir]

In article <2011413f-371f-41e2...@googlegroups.com>,

Well, I'm one of those peoiple, but in this case I did make an
exception. But, in case the reasons escape you, I should point out *why*
many people are resistant to watching videos: Had you presented a
transcript of this discussion, along with relevant visual aids, It would
have taken me three minutes to go through this. Moreover, I would have
been able to easily skip back to previous sections without stumbling
around to find the correct position. In short, videos are an absolutely
terrible way to present information. They are appropriate for
entertainment, and conference presentations may be valuable if you are
actually in the audience and thus able to direct questions at the
speakers, but videos of such presentations are simply too time consuming
and inefficient to serve as actual sources of information.

Behe says nothing substantitvely new in this video. Rather than going
through this point by point let me instead point out the main flaw in
the entire IC argument (which is true for this video as well).

Behe's argument rests on 2 major premisses:

The first is that certain systems found in living organisms are
"irreducibly complex"

The second is that such systems cannot in principle be the result of
natural selection,

Although the definition of IC leaves much to be desired, I will conceded
that there do indeed exist many systems in nature which are irreducibly
complex by his definition.

The second premise is where he runs into serious problems. Others have
addressed many of those problems sufficiently that I won't go into
detail here. Instead, purely for sake of argument, I will imagine that
he has actually provided irrefutable evidence that natural selection
combined with other evolutionary mechanisms is unable *in principle* to
produce IC systems.

If this were in fact the case, there are only two conclusions which one
could draw from this. The first is that evolutionary theory is simply
wrong. The second is that evolutionary theory is incomplete and that
other mechanisms beyond those recognised by current theories must in
fact exist.

What *wouldn't* follow from this, though, is Intelligent Design. That
would require evidence in its own right; not merely evidence that
evolutionary theory is wrong.

The well-worn Conan Doyle "axiom" that "once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" is
simply wrong except where the cases under consideration are exhaustive
which generally isn't the case when it comes to accounts of real-world
phenomena.

Science does not proceed by poking holes in alternative views, but
rather by presenting *positive* evidence for your own view. Einstein did
not attempt to argue for relativity by simply pointing out flaws in
Newton's theories. He provided emprically verifiable (and subequently
verified) evidence in favour of his own model.

As far as I can tell, the ID crowd has never even *attempted* to find
evidence in favour of their designer, or to describe the design process,
or to make any predictions about what we expect to find in nature given
their position.

If they want to be taken seriously they need to stop focussing on what
they think is wrong about evolution and instead start focussing on what
is right with ID. To do that, of course, they need to make actual
specific claims about their putative designer and the design process.

Andre

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 22 January 2015 07:47:07 UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> Steady Eddie wrote:
> > For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is
> > an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on
> > ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
> >
> > It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had
> > the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on
> > utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and
> > me, and I suppose RDean.
> >
> > I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look
> > forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view
> > the video.
>
> Behe must have discovered something new and revolutionary during the months
> between his testimony at the Dover trial and producing this panel
> discussion. Or not? Because if he had any proof of his Irreducible
> Complexity actually being irreducible and not possible through evolutionary
> processes, surely he would have included this in his testimony. Instead, he
> stated under oath that he has not had time to read the stack (literally) of
> papers from refereed journals, placed on the table in the courtroom, that
> showed that there were plausible pathways to all the examples he has cited
> in the past.

How do you know what those papers said?

>
> Might I ask whether Behe submitted any of this startling and revolutionary
> evidence to the refereed literature during 2006? Or does he only publish
> this stuff in journals and conference proceedings about religious
> apologetics?
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Wow, you walked right into that one.
In another part of this panel, that idea is dispensed with.
If I get around to it, maybe I'll find that one for you. But for now, i'll point out:
That is a procedural issue, having no effect on the topic.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <752f696d-ad22-4df6...@googlegroups.com>

Poor little guy, doesn't understand his own hero's words well enough to
paraphrase them.

> Well, I'm afraid I don't have the time to entertain your questions.

So you don't have enough time to paraphrase your hero's words, but
everyone else is supposed to find enough time to hear them in person?

You're funny.

Deranged, but funny,

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:42:48 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 21 January 2015 23:02:07 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:08:41 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>> >
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>> >
>> >It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
>> >
>> >I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>>
>>
>> The video is 24.5 minutes long. The panel include Stephen Meyer as
>> well as Michael Behe and other members of the Discovery Institute.
>>
>> As for your "preliminary remarks" on Youtube, it hardly qualifies.
>
>Oh, sorry, I guess I didn't yet post the time where Behe summarizes his point. I thought I had...

Let me know when you start thinking. I can wait.

>>
>> Since you know there are several posters in T.O. who are resistant to
>> viewing videos, perhaps you could give a summary of what you believe
>> to be the highlights from it.
>
>Sorry to any of you who are resistant to viewing videos. I am posting the time where you can go to for Behe's argument.

So no summary of the highlights. Apparently that's beyond your
abilities.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:07:08 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 22/01/2015 05:08, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>>
>> It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
>>
>> I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>>
>
>Videos are a time-consuming method of presenting information. You can
>read the equivalent in a fraction of the time.
>
>There are two widespread views to what Behe says about Irreducible
>Complexity. Firstly that he claims Irreducibly Complex systems cannot
>evolve (a falsehood, but one which could have been an honest mistake).
>Secondly an argument from incredulity - that Irreducibly Complex Systems
>are too improbable to have evolved. In the absence of a model from which
>to calculate probabilities this is vacuous. Which of these do you think
>he was then claiming? (If neither please give the 3rd alternative.)
>
>Did he define Irreducibly Complexity in the video? If he did, what
>definition did he offer?

Behe offered the same definition as in DBB, including his IC
mousetrap. He seemed more interested in arguing against Ken Miller,
who was not present, than with the actual panel members.

>Did he offer an objective means of identfying systems, parts and
>functions? (One of the problems with Irreducible Complexity as an
>anti-evolutionary argument is that whether a system is Irreducibly
>Complex depends on how you divide it into parts.)

Apparently this was recorded in 2006, and so after the Dover trial.
Steadly's horse has been rendered to death.

[Steady Eddie]

That's why I gave appropriate time-stamps in the comments.

>
> Behe says nothing substantitvely new in this video. Rather than going
> through this point by point let me instead point out the main flaw in
> the entire IC argument (which is true for this video as well).
>
> Behe's argument rests on 2 major premisses:
>
> The first is that certain systems found in living organisms are
> "irreducibly complex"
>
> The second is that such systems cannot in principle be the result of
> natural selection,
>
> Although the definition of IC leaves much to be desired, I will conceded
> that there do indeed exist many systems in nature which are irreducibly
> complex by his definition.
>
> The second premise is where he runs into serious problems. Others have
> addressed many of those problems sufficiently that I won't go into
> detail here. Instead, purely for sake of argument, I will imagine that
> he has actually provided irrefutable evidence that natural selection
> combined with other evolutionary mechanisms is unable *in principle* to
> produce IC systems.

Okay, fine, so you ignored anything that Behe said in the video.
Yes, I agree, That IS a waste of time...

[Steady Eddie]

See the video and comments for the rudimentary highlights.

[Robert Camp]

[As it happens, I attended this event and wrote up my experience for the
NCSE. For anyone interested, that account can be found both here,

http://ncse.com/rncse/26/3/grill-id-guys-event-at-biola

and in unabridged form here,

http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007/01/grill-id-guys-event-at-biola.html]


You seem to be impressed with Behe's remarks in this clip, so here's an
excerpt from my piece dealing with that part of the talk,

----------
Q3 - Weber presented several slides which documented studies examining
exaptation as a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the evolution of
“irreducibly complexity” (IC). Eventually he came to his question.
Though research on exaptation is a work in progress, still it is making
progress. Where, he asked, is the ID research? And “why would a
scientist abandon the productive research program of the Darwinian
modern evolutionary synthesis for one informed by intelligent design?”
Behe responded with the rather opaque observation that what Weber had
shown is not really new or supportive research, it’s “just regular
biochemistry which is being spun in a Darwinian fashion.” He went on to
ignore the question and renew his battle with Ken Miller by way of
slides and retreads of previous arguments. Weber interrupted in an
attempt to get Behe back on track. Behe ignored Weber again and returned
to reinforcing IC. After Weber tried once more to get back to his
questions Behe attempted to refute recent research from Joe Thornton.
Soon thereafter Meyer jumped in and digressed into possible Type III
secretory system arguments, asserted that Behe hasn’t been proved wrong
and suggested that proposed naturalistic pathways don’t cut it.

(This is part of ID proponents’ continuing attempts to cover the
deficiencies of the IC argument by shifting the burden of proof. But the
response from biologists is to the in-principle argument that there
cannot be an evolutionary explanation, and as such does not call for
tested and replicated research, it simply requires empirically
defensible hypotheses.)
----------

While I stand by my comments from nine years ago, I'll just add that I
perhaps should have been even more critical of Behe's response than I
was at the time. His arguments, when he addressed the question, were
semantic and definitional, waving away research by saying, "That's not
Darwinism" and calling it all "spin."

Additionally, it seems even more obvious to me in retrospect that Meyer
interposed himself when he saw that Behe was foundering. One of the main
points of my article was that even though this event was billed as an
opportunity to ask ID "theorists" the hard questions, they dodged those
questions at almost every opportunity.

To Mr. Eddie I'll just reiterate the invitation posed by so many others
- if there's a particular point Behe made that you find insightful (or
devastating to evolutionary biology), please go ahead and paraphrase it
for us here and we can all discuss it.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 07:59:22 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 22 January 2015 08:52:06 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:42:48 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, 21 January 2015 23:02:07 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:08:41 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> >> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>> >> >
>> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>> >> >
>> >> >It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The video is 24.5 minutes long. The panel include Stephen Meyer as
>> >> well as Michael Behe and other members of the Discovery Institute.
>> >>
>> >> As for your "preliminary remarks" on Youtube, it hardly qualifies.
>> >
>> >Oh, sorry, I guess I didn't yet post the time where Behe summarizes his point. I thought I had...
>>
>>
>> Let me know when you start thinking. I can wait.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Since you know there are several posters in T.O. who are resistant to
>> >> viewing videos, perhaps you could give a summary of what you believe
>> >> to be the highlights from it.
>> >
>> >Sorry to any of you who are resistant to viewing videos. I am posting the time where you can go to for Behe's argument.
>>
>>
>> So no summary of the highlights. Apparently that's beyond your
>> abilities.
>>

>See the video and comments for the rudimentary highlights.

Apparently you're trolling to increase the number of views, which as
good as reason as any not to view it.

[deadrat]

Particularly for you. To reach an understanding of IDiocy, you need to
read the following paragraph over and over until you understand it.
Now, we know from your posting history that you are either unable or
unwilling to learn biology or biochemistry to a sufficient depth to
understand why Behe's wrong about IC systems, but the next paragraph
requires no great investment of time or effort. Even if we concede that
Behe is right and evolution cannot explain IC systems, that gives no
comfort to IDiocy. Read the next paragraph again (and again if necessary)

<read repeat="as necessary">

>> If this were in fact the case, there are only two conclusions which one
>> could draw from this. The first is that evolutionary theory is simply
>> wrong. The second is that evolutionary theory is incomplete and that
>> other mechanisms beyond those recognised by current theories must in
>> fact exist.

</read>

Didja get it? If Behe is correct, then what he's discovered is a
mystery, something the current science cannot explain What is then
required is a better scientific model that will explain things. There
is no guarantee that we can find one, but we've got a pretty good track
record in that regard. What is not allowed is to give up and invoke
another mystery, the intelligent designer, about whom nothing can be
said except "That's the way he did it."

<snip/>

[Steady Eddie]

And to the good Mr. Camp, I just reiterate my invitation to watch the video.

"But the criticism from biologists is of the in-principle argument that there cannot be an evolutionary explanation, and as such does not call for tested and replicated research; it simply requires empirically defensible hypotheses."
-What are you talking about?

[Steady Eddie]

Exactly.
Except, with all due respect, he's not waiting with his hand out for Darwinists to pronounce on a better scientific model; he's proposing one.

There
> is no guarantee that we can find one, but we've got a pretty good track
> record in that regard. What is not allowed is to give up and invoke
> another mystery, the intelligent designer, about whom nothing can be
> said except "That's the way he did it."

I don't know, why is it to invoke another mystery is not allowed?
And, exactly what is a design inference "giving up" in?
Why would you suppose, a priori, that there's 'nothing to be said' about the intelligent designer, until the pro's've researched it for a couple decades?
>
> <snip/>

[Robert Camp]

I was there. I've watched those proceedings in person and for review.
Please stop repeating that phrase as if it absolves you of any
responsibility to understand and support your position.

> "But the criticism from biologists is of the in-principle argument that there cannot be an evolutionary explanation, and as such does not call for tested and replicated research; it simply requires empirically defensible hypotheses."
> -What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that Behe's argument was (is) that IC is
something impossible for natural selection to produce. The appropriate,
and sufficient, response to that kind of argument is a biologically
legitimate hypothesis, i.e., "here's an example of how it might happen."

You might respond that Behe is actually being specific by asking about
the flagellum. But if all he and his cronies wanted was data
demonstrating the evolution of some particular structure or function
they would not hang a sweeping methodological assertion on that request,
they'd simply do the investigations and discover what they could.

But they decided on a public relations program in order to end run the
scientific process. That's because this is *not* just about the
flagellum, or the blood-clotting cascade, or whatever example they
choose. It's about their broad assertion that evolution cannot produce
IC. That is an "in principle" assertion, and all that is required to
rebut it is an evidentially sound and logically reasoned "in principle"
response - many of which have been presented.

[Robert Camp]

On 1/22/15, 10:20 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 January 2015 10:37:06 UTC-7, deadrat wrote:
>> On 1/22/15 9:54 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 22 January 2015 08:27:06 UTC-7, Ymir wrote:
>>>> In article <2011413f-371f-41e2...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, 21 January 2015 23:02:07 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:08:41 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>>>>>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an
>>>>>>> excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID
>>>>>>> where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the
>>>>>>> idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to
>>>>>>> be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I
>>>>>>> suppose RDean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward
>>>>>>> to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.

<snip>

>> <read repeat="as necessary">
>>>> If this were in fact the case, there are only two conclusions which one
>>>> could draw from this. The first is that evolutionary theory is simply
>>>> wrong. The second is that evolutionary theory is incomplete and that
>>>> other mechanisms beyond those recognised by current theories must in
>>>> fact exist.
>> </read>
>>
>> Didja get it? If Behe is correct, then what he's discovered is a
>> mystery, something the current science cannot explain What is then
>> required is a better scientific model that will explain things.
>
> Exactly.
> Except, with all due respect, he's not waiting with his hand out for Darwinists to pronounce on a better scientific model; he's proposing one.

Okay, finally we're getting somewhere. So, what is this model Behe is
proposing? What are the mechanisms and processes involved, where are his
cause-effect extrapolations, what time constraints is he proposing?

You do realize, I hope, that just saying "Intelligent Design" is not
offering a model.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/21/15 9:08 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:

My comments are addressed to an audience which can read.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Mark Isaak]

So it is your contention that ID is not a scientific proposition but an
entertainment genre. Thank you for making that clear.

[Ymir]

In article <8f8e16d7-1a53-420f...@googlegroups.com>,

You seem to have missed my point entirely. He's proposing one only in
the sense that he is giving a name ("intelligent design") to an as of
yet unspecified model.

Since apparently you prefer videos, let me direct your attention to a
video which I coincidentally am in the process of watching while
participating in this thread. Intelligent Design play a fairly major
role in this.

It's called "The Pillars of the Earth" (you can get it from "the iTunes"
just like I did -- it's around 7 hours long and I can't give specific
time stamps). One subplot involves the design and construction of the
Kingsbridge Cathedral in the 12th Century. While the author appears to
have no issue with the notion that Cathedrals are, in fact, designed, he
makes it rather clear that the whole process is a bit more complicated
than just saying 'it's designed'.

You can't call ID a proposal until it actually includes all those
annoying little details about the "hows" and "by whoms" and "with whats"
and so forth.

Andre

[Ymir]

In article <agisaak.spamblock-38DABD.11531022012015@shawnews>,

Ymir <agi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's called "The Pillars of the Earth" (you can get it from "the iTunes"
> just like I did -- it's around 7 hours long and I can't give specific
> time stamps). One subplot involves the design and construction of the
> Kingsbridge Cathedral in the 12th Century. While the author appears to
> have no issue with the notion that Cathedrals are, in fact, designed, he
> makes it rather clear that the whole process is a bit more complicated
> than just saying 'it's designed'.

A quick addendum: let me add that this video was a better deal -- it
cost me $14.99 for which I get 7 hours of enjoyable entertainment,
whereas Behe's cost me half an hour of my life for which I got
absolutely nothing in return.

Andre

[Ernest Major]

On 22/01/2015 18:20, Steady Eddie wrote:
> Except, with all due respect, he's not waiting with his hand out for Darwinists to pronounce on a better scientific model; he's proposing one.

It is widely believed that the existence of ID scientific models is a
myth. If you can provide evidence to the contrary please do so.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Steady Eddie]

"There is no magic point of irreducible complexity at which Darwinism is logically impossible"
-Darwin's Black Box, Ch, 9: INTELLIGENT DESIGN, p.355,ibooks.

The appropriate,
> and sufficient, response to that kind of argument is a biologically
> legitimate hypothesis, i.e., "here's an example of how it might happen."
>
> You might respond that Behe is actually being specific by asking about
> the flagellum. But if all he and his cronies wanted was data
> demonstrating the evolution of some particular structure or function
> they would not hang a sweeping methodological assertion on that request,
> they'd simply do the investigations and discover what they could.

Yeah, right.
And if Behe et al report that they couldn't find any plausible naturalistic pathways to the flagellum, who's going to believe them?
You?
I didn't think so.
No, it's the Darwinists that have to find a plausible naturalistic pathway to the flagellum.
And don't think for a moment that this had 'slipped their minds' until Behe brought it up :)

> But they decided on a public relations program in order to end run the
> scientific process. That's because this is *not* just about the
> flagellum, or the blood-clotting cascade, or whatever example they
> choose. It's about their broad assertion that evolution cannot produce
> IC. That is an "in principle" assertion, and all that is required to
> rebut it is an evidentially sound and logically reasoned "in principle"
> response - many of which have been presented.

So to sum up my response to your comment:
1. Behe specifically dispensed with your caricature of his position in DBB.
2. The burden is on Darwinism to give a plausible, detailed account of the naturalistic origin of any complex machine found in life, for example, the bacterial flagellum.
3. Don't worry, ID pro's don't use word games, they appeal to the evidence available on a case-by-case basis. Whether evolution CAN produce IC by definition or not, what matters is: DID it produce the particular phenomenon in question?

[Ernest Major]

On 22/01/2015 18:20, Steady Eddie wrote:

> I don't know, why is it to invoke another mystery is not allowed?
> And, exactly what is a design inference "giving up" in?
> Why would you suppose, a priori, that there's 'nothing to be said' about the intelligent designer, until the pro's've researched it for a couple decades?

You seem to be confused. It's the Intelligent Design community that
supposes, a priori, that there's nothing to be said about the
intelligent designer. It's because of their unwillingness to investigate
further that I consider the movement to be cargo cult science rather
than a (misdirected) research program.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/id-in-their-own-1.html

--
alias Ernest Major

[deadrat]

On 1/22/15 7:27 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 January 2015 06:07:06 UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 1/21/2015 11:08 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>>>
>>> It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
>>>
>>> I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>>>
>>
>> Can you state very breifly what new was put forward that would counter
>> the utter failure of IC to amount to anything in the Dover Court case
>> that preceded this "debate."
>>
>> Did Behe state a usable definition of "well matched" so that it could be
>> tested and identified to exist in enough quantity to make his systems
>> IC?
>
> LOL, you don't even know what "well-matched" means in this context!

I'll call this bluff. No, no one knows what "well-matched" means
because IDiots don't define their terms in operational ways so that
their ideas might be tested.

> Behe chose small words so that even people like you could comprehend him.

No matter how Behe chose his words, he still has to give us definitions
of his terms. That you think it laughable that anyone would demand such
a thing tells us about you and the pathetic state of your knowledge.

> Was he able to measure well matched in the flagellum or any other
>> Behe IC system and demonstrate that the parts were well matched enough
>> to make those systems IC? Was he able to count up the number of
>> unselected steps in his IC systems and determine that enough of them
>> existed to make his systems IC? Did he indicate that he had started the
>> falsification test of IC that he and Minnich put forward in their
>> testimony that would demonstrate if the flagellum could evolve or not.
>> Both claimed that if you could evolve a flagellum the ID ICness of the
>> flagellum would be falsified.
>>
>> What Behe can't do and hasn't done is common knowledge, so what new
>> material got presented that would improve the dismal situation that IC
>> is in and remains in at this time around 9 years later? Around 5 years
>> before this conference Behe responded to his critics and made sure that
>> IC was untestable and worthless for inference of anything. This was
>> found to not have changed by the Dover court case in 2005, so what
>> changed between the court case and this 2006 conference?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> You know, when you leave all of the insulting language out of it, you appear to be a real asshole.

There's no "insulting language" here. IDiocy is worthless as science,
and IC still isn't defined. But ignore the tone or the pejoratives, as
correct as they are, and answer the question.

> Unless you come back with a lot of cites and quotes to support your points,

No one has to deliver "a lot of cites and quotes." It's the IDiots who
have to back up their claims. Still don't get it, do you?

> you are just blowing smoke, and worthy of ignoring

It's always about the projection.

> even though you didn't use the term "IDiot" once in this post.

Assume it's implied.

[deadrat]

On 1/22/15 9:22 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 January 2015 07:47:07 UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is
>>> an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on
>>> ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>>>
>>> It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had
>>> the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on
>>> utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and
>>> me, and I suppose RDean.
>>>
>>> I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look
>>> forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view
>>> the video.
>>
>> Behe must have discovered something new and revolutionary during the months
>> between his testimony at the Dover trial and producing this panel
>> discussion. Or not? Because if he had any proof of his Irreducible
>> Complexity actually being irreducible and not possible through evolutionary
>> processes, surely he would have included this in his testimony. Instead, he
>> stated under oath that he has not had time to read the stack (literally) of
>> papers from refereed journals, placed on the table in the courtroom, that
>> showed that there were plausible pathways to all the examples he has cited
>> in the past.
>
> How do you know what those papers said?

I'll call this bluff. Are you suggesting that the attorneys for the
plaintiffs, as officers of the court, perpetrated a fraud upon the
court? Are you excusing Behe for not being acquainted enough with the
research in his own field of expertise?

Are you beginning to see the problem with a failure to acquaint yourself
with the science under discussion? If you bill yourself as an "expert"
witness, then you get humiliated in court. If you declare yourself a
defender of IDiocy, you get duped by IDiots.

Lie down with the ignorant and you get up stupid.

<snip/>

[deadrat]

No, he's not. And until you learn enough to understand why, you'll
continue to be a t.o. laughingstock. Behe is saying that he thinks he's
found things evolution can't explain. Biologists don't agree with him,
but even if he's right, he hasn't found evidence for design, just
evidence that evolutionary theory isn't adequate.

>
> There
>> is no guarantee that we can find one, but we've got a pretty good track
>> record in that regard. What is not allowed is to give up and invoke
>> another mystery, the intelligent designer, about whom nothing can be
>> said except "That's the way he did it."
>
> I don't know, why is it to invoke another mystery is not allowed?

Because mystery, practically by its definition, cannot explain anything.
It's OK for scientific models to give rise to new, as yet unanswered
questions, but the models must have some explanatory power to be useful.
Did you understand my example of General Relativity?

> And, exactly what is a design inference "giving up" in?

Any possibility of scientific confirmation of actual design.

> Why would you suppose, a priori, that there's 'nothing to be said' about the intelligent designer,
> until the pro's've researched it for a couple decades?

OK, you can't lie about the future. Let's go with that, and wait until
we know something about the intelligent designer before we decide to
give serious consideration to the idea as part of science.

>> <snip/>
>

[deadrat]

How would you know that?

> 2. The burden is on Darwinism to give a plausible, detailed account of the naturalistic origin of any complex machine found in life, for example,
> the bacterial flagellum.

The is the old IDiot dodge of "since evolution can't explain everything,
then it can't explain anything." And, of course, once evolution
explains something, IDiots demand a more "detailed" account. Some
things will be inaccessible because the evidence of the biochemistry is
long gone.

The bacterial flagellum, however, has plausible explanations as the
IDiots from Dover found out at trial.

> 3. Don't worry, ID pro's don't use word games,

In fact, that's all they've got.

> they appeal to the evidence available on a case-by-case basis.

No, they don't. And in any case, how would you know?

> Whether evolution CAN produce IC by definition or not, what matters is: DID it produce the particular phenomenon in question?

Even if it didn't, that's no help for IDiocy.

[Robert Camp]

If you think it makes the slightest difference to any of my arguments
that Behe may have hedged his bets in writing (he continued on to say,
"But the hurdles for gradualism become higher and higher as structures
are more complex, more interdependent") then you haven't thought this
through.

> The appropriate,
>> and sufficient, response to that kind of argument is a biologically
>> legitimate hypothesis, i.e., "here's an example of how it might happen."
>>
>> You might respond that Behe is actually being specific by asking about
>> the flagellum. But if all he and his cronies wanted was data
>> demonstrating the evolution of some particular structure or function
>> they would not hang a sweeping methodological assertion on that request,
>> they'd simply do the investigations and discover what they could.
>
> Yeah, right.
> And if Behe et al report that they couldn't find any plausible naturalistic pathways to the flagellum, who's going to believe them?
> You?
> I didn't think so.

I would, as would everyone else I suspect, believe that they found no
plausible naturalistic pathways. And like everyone else I'd realize that
such a finding doesn't mean that there are no naturalistic pathways,
just that they haven't been found.

This is how anyone thinking clearly files away that kind of result. But
someone who is so ideologically insecure that he/she needs to insert God
falls back on an argument from ignorance, suggesting that if science
cannot explain something a "designer" becomes a reasonable inference. It
isn't.

> No, it's the Darwinists that have to find a plausible naturalistic pathway to the flagellum.
> And don't think for a moment that this had 'slipped their minds' until Behe brought it up :)

I would never think that for a moment. It's an incredibly silly idea
that has no relevance to the actual history of this issue.

Why do you confidently make pronouncements on something you know so
little of?

>> But they decided on a public relations program in order to end run the
>> scientific process. That's because this is *not* just about the
>> flagellum, or the blood-clotting cascade, or whatever example they
>> choose. It's about their broad assertion that evolution cannot produce
>> IC. That is an "in principle" assertion, and all that is required to
>> rebut it is an evidentially sound and logically reasoned "in principle"
>> response - many of which have been presented.
>
> So to sum up my response to your comment:
> 1. Behe specifically dispensed with your caricature of his position in DBB.

Go ahead and outline Behe's position, then contrast it with my caricature.

> 2. The burden is on Darwinism to give a plausible, detailed account of the naturalistic origin of any complex machine found in life, for example, the bacterial flagellum.

If science is the relevant context then of course the burden is on
"Darwinism," if in fact "Darwinism" or evolutionary biology expects to
explain the naturalistic origins of complex biological machines.

However if the context is arguments about ID, then your assertion is
simply ridiculous. By that standard, any goofy "theory" that pops up
could say, "Hey, if you can't offer a detailed pathway for the evolution
of sexual reproduction then science should give equal time to the Great
Stork hypothesis."

> 3. Don't worry, ID pro's don't use word games,

You're really new to this stuff, aren't you?

> they appeal to the evidence available on a case-by-case basis. Whether evolution CAN produce IC by definition or not, what matters is: DID it produce the particular phenomenon in question?

Of course it "DID." There is no alternative explanation. How it "DID" is
another matter, and one that can only be determined by the scientific
process.

[Mike Dworetsky]

The papers were listed as exhibit documents for the trial and were described
in court in some detail. Behe made a devastatingly bad impression on the
court because he was the one "expert" witness for the defense who had
supposed credibility on this issue (irreducible complexity as supposed
evidence of intelligent design).

>
>>
>> Might I ask whether Behe submitted any of this startling and
>> revolutionary evidence to the refereed literature during 2006? Or
>> does he only publish this stuff in journals and conference
>> proceedings about religious apologetics?
>>
>> --
>> Mike Dworetsky
>>
>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>
> Wow, you walked right into that one.
> In another part of this panel, that idea is dispensed with.

Maybe to your way of thinking, but not to mine.

> If I get around to it, maybe I'll find that one for you. But for now,
> i'll point out: That is a procedural issue, having no effect on the
> topic.

Point of order, Your Honour!! And what the hell are you talking about?
Isn't it supposed to be about evidence? Not debating procedural points?

[RonO]

On 1/22/2015 7:27 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 January 2015 06:07:06 UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

>> On 1/21/2015 11:08 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>>>
>>> It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
>>>
>>> I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>>>
>>

>> Can you state very breifly what new was put forward that would counter
>> the utter failure of IC to amount to anything in the Dover Court case
>> that preceded this "debate."
>>
>> Did Behe state a usable definition of "well matched" so that it could be
>> tested and identified to exist in enough quantity to make his systems
>> IC?
>
> LOL, you don't even know what "well-matched" means in this context!

> Behe chose small words so that even people like you could comprehend him.

OK if you know, you would be the only one. So just define well matched
so that it can be quantified and tested and you would be way ahead of
Behe. Go for it. You can even use small or big words if that matters
to you.

>
> Was he able to measure well matched in the flagellum or any other
>> Behe IC system and demonstrate that the parts were well matched enough
>> to make those systems IC? Was he able to count up the number of
>> unselected steps in his IC systems and determine that enough of them
>> existed to make his systems IC? Did he indicate that he had started the
>> falsification test of IC that he and Minnich put forward in their
>> testimony that would demonstrate if the flagellum could evolve or not.
>> Both claimed that if you could evolve a flagellum the ID ICness of the
>> flagellum would be falsified.
>>
>> What Behe can't do and hasn't done is common knowledge, so what new
>> material got presented that would improve the dismal situation that IC
>> is in and remains in at this time around 9 years later? Around 5 years
>> before this conference Behe responded to his critics and made sure that
>> IC was untestable and worthless for inference of anything. This was
>> found to not have changed by the Dover court case in 2005, so what
>> changed between the court case and this 2006 conference?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> You know, when you leave all of the insulting language out of it, you appear to be a real asshole.

> Unless you come back with a lot of cites and quotes to support your points, you are just blowing smoke, and worthy of ignoring even though you didn't use the term "IDiot" once in this post.
>

The only reason that ID looks bad is because it is that bad. You should
know that for a fact at this time. The only IDiots left are like you,
ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest. If you had gone to the
material that I have been referencing and already given to you instead
of remaining willfully ignorant and running in denial you wouldn't have
to ask for any more. That is a fact that you can't deny. Just go back
to all the posts where you got the quotes and other links and try to
learn something. This isn't your first time around screwing up by the
numbers. Why would you even go back to evolution news for IDiot junk?
Just go back to the posts in your first foray in TO and try to actually
learn something.

You can access a lot of the old threads that you participated in here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!profile/talk.origins/APn2wQcFOOCmWvES0svhPGXUH9y8RqpuJpBjZo2_CSUxeH7P3tBsRAOnWRnK02MGU2yAUk45tWvq

You may have to cut and paste in the link. Google doesn't give you
access to all your posts, but if you access one post in a thread you can
use google groups to get the rest of the posts in that thread.

Ron Okimoto

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:28:48 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 22 January 2015 03:07:07 UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:

>> On 22/01/2015 05:08, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >
>> > For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is
>> > an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on
>> > ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>> >
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM

There are at two ways such a source is typically used here. One is to
start or further a discussion and the other is to avoid one. It
appears as though you are using this source/technique for the latter
purpose.

One way to avoid any substantive discussion is to just wave at the
given source and simply state that everything to be said can be found
there. This is little more than a hit and run tactic. It requires
little or no understanding of the actual issues in question and it
makes it difficult for your opponents to give an adequate response in
this particular arena as no specific points are actually being given
here.

>> > It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had
>> > the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on
>> > utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and
>> > me, and I suppose RDean.

If our interest is to hit and run or just talk past each other,
perhaps....

>> > I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look
>> > forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.

But if the discussion is to be had here why not post them here?

Youtube does not offer anywhere near the ability to parse and respond
point by point like we have here. Perhaps that is what you are
attempting to avoid.

>> Videos are a time-consuming method of presenting information. You can
>> read the equivalent in a fraction of the time.
>>
>> There are two widespread views to what Behe says about Irreducible
>> Complexity. Firstly that he claims Irreducibly Complex systems cannot
>> evolve (a falsehood, but one which could have been an honest mistake).
>> Secondly an argument from incredulity - that Irreducibly Complex Systems
>> are too improbable to have evolved. In the absence of a model from which
>> to calculate probabilities this is vacuous. Which of these do you think
>> he was then claiming? (If neither please give the 3rd alternative.)
>>
>> Did he define Irreducibly Complexity in the video? If he did, what
>> definition did he offer?
>>
>> Did he offer an objective means of identfying systems, parts and
>> functions? (One of the problems with Irreducible Complexity as an
>> anti-evolutionary argument is that whether a system is Irreducibly
>> Complex depends on how you divide it into parts.)
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>Poor little guy, not enough time to watch the video.
>Well, I'm afraid I don't have the time to entertain your questions.

In other words, it's perfectly reasonable for you to simply wave at a
source and then avoid any actual discussion about the material in
question here in this forum. How pathetic.

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:24:12 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 22 January 2015 11:27:05 UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:

<< Clip an actual on-point discussion of what was on the video by
someone who was actually there>>

>Yeah, right.

So someone gives you what you ask for and your initial response is
rhetorical hand waving. Actually that was your second response. Your
first one was to suggest to someone who was actually there, and
clearly stated such, to just watch the video ;)

>And if Behe et al report that they couldn't find any plausible
>naturalistic pathways to the flagellum, who's going to believe them?
>You?

Sure, why not? Not being able to find something should not
automatically be construed as being evidence that it doesn't exist.
The devil is in the details.

Not only does absence of proof not mean proof of absence others have
jumped into the fray and actually come up with 'plausible naturalistic
pathways'.

Even if any suggested pathway prove inadequate Behe and company still
don't have anything to crow about. The fact that they rely on such
lame logical fallacies is just one reason why they aren't being taken
seriously by the scientific community at large.

>I didn't think so.

WRONG!

>No, it's the Darwinists that have to find a plausible naturalistic pathway to the flagellum.
>And don't think for a moment that this had 'slipped their minds' until Behe brought it up :)

Can you say 'shifting the burden of proof'? Are you aware of what
that even means? Can you recognize it when you see it?

I can only trace my ancestry back so many generations, beyond which it
is anyone's guess what should be there. If I cannot prove in any way
who my ancestors were 20 generations ago and there is no plausible
means of doing so that is not evidence that I had no such ancestors.

>> But they decided on a public relations program in order to end run the
>> scientific process. That's because this is *not* just about the
>> flagellum, or the blood-clotting cascade, or whatever example they
>> choose. It's about their broad assertion that evolution cannot produce
>> IC. That is an "in principle" assertion, and all that is required to
>> rebut it is an evidentially sound and logically reasoned "in principle"
>> response - many of which have been presented.
>
>So to sum up my response to your comment:
>1. Behe specifically dispensed with your caricature of his position in DBB.

Yes, typical Creationist hand waving. Care to discuss specifics?

>2. The burden is on Darwinism to give a plausible, detailed account of
> the naturalistic origin of any complex machine found in life, for
> example, the bacterial flagellum.

False on it's face. And even if it were true it wouldn't advance the
case for ID or Creationism one damn bit!

Can you even give a plausible explanation beyond 'just because they
have to' as to why you think science MUST explain everything or, in
this case, this particular thing?

As others have stated, what we don't know does not negate what we do
know. With this in mind for your point to have any credence you must
explain either why we actually should know or, not knowing, why this
should be considered significant.

>3. Don't worry, ID pro's don't use word games, they appeal to the
>evidence available on a case-by-case basis.

The IDiots use widely recognized logical fallacies to try and distort
things and imply, falsely, that there is an actual scientific case for
their own pet preconceived beliefs.

The 'evidence' that they do put forward doesn't stand up to honest
scientific scrutiny and yet then still try and claim legitimacy.

>Whether evolution CAN produce IC by definition or not, what matters
>is: DID it produce the particular phenomenon in question?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or more to the point, do
you have a better explanation, one without the major gaping holes that
comes with ID?

[Mike Dworetsky]

Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 January 2015 07:47:07 UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote:

>> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here
>>> is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel
>>> discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on
>>> Irreducible Complexity:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>>>

>>> It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had
>>> the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on
>>> utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and
>>> me, and I suppose RDean.
>>>

>>> I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look
>>> forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view
>>> the video.
>>

>> Behe must have discovered something new and revolutionary during the
>> months between his testimony at the Dover trial and producing this
>> panel discussion. Or not? Because if he had any proof of his
>> Irreducible Complexity actually being irreducible and not possible
>> through evolutionary processes, surely he would have included this
>> in his testimony. Instead, he stated under oath that he has not had
>> time to read the stack (literally) of papers from refereed journals,
>> placed on the table in the courtroom, that showed that there were
>> plausible pathways to all the examples he has cited in the past.
>
> How do you know what those papers said?
>
>>

>> Might I ask whether Behe submitted any of this startling and
>> revolutionary evidence to the refereed literature during 2006? Or
>> does he only publish this stuff in journals and conference
>> proceedings about religious apologetics?
>>
>> --
>> Mike Dworetsky
>>
>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>
> Wow, you walked right into that one.
> In another part of this panel, that idea is dispensed with.

> If I get around to it, maybe I'll find that one for you. But for now,
> i'll point out: That is a procedural issue, having no effect on the
> topic.

Not sure which part is something I "walked right into", but if it is about
publishing only in religious apologetics conferences, could you confirm that
the panel discussion was part of a conference held at Biola University? And
are you aware that the name "Biola" is an acronym for its former name,
"Bible Institute of Los Angeles"? Without casting aspersions, is this not a
bit odd if you want to claim that such a conference had nothing to do with
religion, no sirree Bob?

[Steady Eddie]

Dr. Paul Nelson addresses that very question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-OGNpItwo
-go to 24:45

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 22 January 2015 10:32:05 UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 1/21/15 9:08 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
> >
> > It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
> >
> > I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>
> [As it happens, I attended this event and wrote up my experience for the
> NCSE. For anyone interested, that account can be found both here,
>
> http://ncse.com/rncse/26/3/grill-id-guys-event-at-biola
>
> and in unabridged form here,
>
> http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007/01/grill-id-guys-event-at-biola.html]
>
>
> You seem to be impressed with Behe's remarks in this clip, so here's an
> excerpt from my piece dealing with that part of the talk,
>
> ----------
> Q3 -

00:00 -> 3:15 completely ignored.
Ahh, excuse me:
What were the first 2 slides presented by Weber?
Why did you leave out the opening 3:15 of Weber's statement?

The part you left out was Weber trotting out Ken Miller's argument against IC, complete with little cartoon boxes, which is used by Miller here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgXPmanb9rU
(-see 1:30 in the video and compare to the opening slide of Weber.)

>Weber presented several slides which documented studies examining
> exaptation as a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the evolution of
> "irreducibly complexity" (IC). Eventually he came to his question.
> Though research on exaptation is a work in progress, still it is making
> progress. Where, he asked, is the ID research? And "why would a
> scientist abandon the productive research program of the Darwinian
> modern evolutionary synthesis for one informed by intelligent design?"
> Behe responded with the rather opaque observation that what Weber had
> shown is not really new or supportive research, it's "just regular
> biochemistry which is being spun in a Darwinian fashion."
He went on to
> ignore the question and renew his battle with Ken Miller by way of
> slides and retreads of previous arguments.

LOL, you saw an opportunity to ridicule Behe for 'ignoring the question' by bringing up Ken Miller's argument, when what he was in fact doing was going back to Weber's first point, or premise.
You thought you could get away with it AS LONG AS NOBODY WATCHES THE VIDEO and sees Weber using Miller's arguments and, even, slides to try to explain exaptation in the first 3:15.
Or, you just forgot about that part ... OOPS!

You're busted.
CHARLATAN ALERT
Mr. Camp, your intent is not to inform, but to ridicule. And you're not above using concealment deceptively.
Good thing all we have to do is WATCH THE VIDEO FOR OURSELVES and see how lame and dishonest your pathetic excuse for a review is:

On with the review!
So, what time are we at in the video now?

Weber interrupted in an
> attempt to get Behe back on track. Behe ignored Weber again and returned
> to reinforcing IC. After Weber tried once more to get back to his
> questions Behe attempted to refute recent research from Joe Thornton.

uhh, attempted to refute? Actually he used Thornton's paper to support his point. He seemed to disagree with none of the empirical results of the paper. That was his point - 'this is just good, hard research in biochemistry. The particular results at hand, however, are not particularly supportive of Darwinism.'

Okay, I'm stopping for now.
I'm adding more time-stamped summations on the youtube page; I suggest you go there for the play-by-play, and come back here for the analysis.

[jillery]

Rhetorical question: WIll you say how Paul Nelson addresses that very
question?

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 22 January 2015 22:02:04 UTC-7, A.Carlson wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:24:12 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 22 January 2015 11:27:05 UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> << Clip an actual on-point discussion of what was on the video by
> someone who was actually there>>

Who you talking to? I didn't clip anything.

>
> >Yeah, right.
>
> So someone gives you what you ask for and your initial response is
> rhetorical hand waving. Actually that was your second response. Your
> first one was to suggest to someone who was actually there, and
> clearly stated such, to just watch the video ;)

Yes. I read what he wrote, and there was so much wrong with it that I suggested he actually watch the video again.
I trust that if you read my comments above you'll come to the same conclusion.

>
> >And if Behe et al report that they couldn't find any plausible
> >naturalistic pathways to the flagellum, who's going to believe them?
> >You?
>
> Sure, why not? Not being able to find something should not
> automatically be construed as being evidence that it doesn't exist.
> The devil is in the details.
>
> Not only does absence of proof not mean proof of absence others have
> jumped into the fray and actually come up with 'plausible naturalistic
> pathways'.
> Even if any suggested pathway prove inadequate Behe and company still
> don't have anything to crow about. The fact that they rely on such
> lame logical fallacies is just one reason why they aren't being taken
> seriously by the scientific community at large.

Would you just restate the fallacy for me please?

>
> >I didn't think so.
>
> WRONG!
>
> >No, it's the Darwinists that have to find a plausible naturalistic pathway to the flagellum.
> >And don't think for a moment that this had 'slipped their minds' until Behe brought it up :)
>
> Can you say 'shifting the burden of proof'? Are you aware of what
> that even means? Can you recognize it when you see it?

No, sorry, the burden's on you guys to find at least one of the myriad pathways you claim. To do so is to try to prove a positive, which is much easier than trying to prove a negative. Besides, Charly loaded you with the responsibility to rise to any challenge to the existence of Darwinian pathways.

>
> I can only trace my ancestry back so many generations, beyond which it
> is anyone's guess what should be there. If I cannot prove in any way
> who my ancestors were 20 generations ago and there is no plausible
> means of doing so that is not evidence that I had no such ancestors.

It's evidence that you don't know who your ancestors are.

>
> >> But they decided on a public relations program in order to end run the
> >> scientific process. That's because this is *not* just about the
> >> flagellum, or the blood-clotting cascade, or whatever example they
> >> choose. It's about their broad assertion that evolution cannot produce
> >> IC. That is an "in principle" assertion, and all that is required to
> >> rebut it is an evidentially sound and logically reasoned "in principle"
> >> response - many of which have been presented.
> >
> >So to sum up my response to your comment:
> >1. Behe specifically dispensed with your caricature of his position in DBB.
>
> Yes, typical Creationist hand waving. Care to discuss specifics?
>
> >2. The burden is on Darwinism to give a plausible, detailed account of
> > the naturalistic origin of any complex machine found in life, for
> > example, the bacterial flagellum.
>
> False on it's face. And even if it were true it wouldn't advance the
> case for ID or Creationism one damn bit!
>
> Can you even give a plausible explanation beyond 'just because they
> have to' as to why you think science MUST explain everything or, in
> this case, this particular thing?

-see above

>
> As others have stated, what we don't know does not negate what we do
> know. With this in mind for your point to have any credence you must
> explain either why we actually should know or, not knowing, why this
> should be considered significant.
>
> >3. Don't worry, ID pro's don't use word games, they appeal to the
> >evidence available on a case-by-case basis.
>
> The IDiots use widely recognized logical fallacies to try and distort
> things and imply, falsely, that there is an actual scientific case for
> their own pet preconceived beliefs.
>
> The 'evidence' that they do put forward doesn't stand up to honest
> scientific scrutiny and yet then still try and claim legitimacy.
>
> >Whether evolution CAN produce IC by definition or not, what matters
> >is: DID it produce the particular phenomenon in question?
>
> Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or more to the point, do
> you have a better explanation, one without the major gaping holes that
> comes with ID?

That's what this panel discussion is about. Really, it is a fascinating opportunity to get answers on almost all the topics within and surrounding ID. (that is, all the parts together)

I don't much like the title this guy gave his post, though...

[deadrat]

It's called false dichotomy. In this case, you, Behe, and the other
idiots assume there are two choice -- Evolution has an explanation for
everything or there's an intelligent designer.

>>> I didn't think so.
>>
>> WRONG!
>>
>>> No, it's the Darwinists that have to find a plausible naturalistic pathway to the flagellum.
>>> And don't think for a moment that this had 'slipped their minds' until Behe brought it up :)
>>
>> Can you say 'shifting the burden of proof'? Are you aware of what
>> that even means? Can you recognize it when you see it?
>
> No, sorry, the burden's on you guys to find at least one of the myriad pathways you claim.

No, the claim of IDiots (see above) is that evolution is inherently
insufficient to explain things we find in the biosphere. That's the
first step in exercising the false dichotomy, so the burden is on the
IDiots. There will always be things that biology can't explain in
detail because the evidence is missing. That's different from having an
intrinsically faulty model.

> To do so is to try to prove a positive, which is much easier than trying to prove a negative.

That's true, which is why IDiots try to shift the burden. They have to
show that evolution can't work.

> Besides, Charly loaded you with the responsibility to rise to any challenge to the existence of Darwinian pathways.



>>
>> I can only trace my ancestry back so many generations, beyond which it
>> is anyone's guess what should be there. If I cannot prove in any way
>> who my ancestors were 20 generations ago and there is no plausible
>> means of doing so that is not evidence that I had no such ancestors.
>
> It's evidence that you don't know who your ancestors are.
>

Which, of course, is irrelevant.

Then I suggest you get going and understand those answers enough to
defend your claims.

LOL just won't cut it.

[Steady Eddie]

lol ok, it's a tag-team between Nelson and Meyer. Nelson demonstrated that ID is already being discussed in the mainstream peer reviewed scientific literature - just not by its proponents. He begins waxing poetic and ends up with a Manifesto on his hands. Then Meyer brought it back on-topic by pointing out that the argument about where something is discussed is not a substantive argument; it's a procedural argument. It's simply irrelevant.

[Ernest Major]

That's more than just a false dichotomy. It is selective epistemological
nihilism.

There are also elements of argumentum ad ignorantiam and argument from
incredulity.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 11:00:59 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 22 January 2015 10:32:05 UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 1/21/15 9:08 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> > For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>> >
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>> >
>> > It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
>> >
>> > I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>>
>> [As it happens, I attended this event and wrote up my experience for the
>> NCSE. For anyone interested, that account can be found both here,
>>
>> http://ncse.com/rncse/26/3/grill-id-guys-event-at-biola
>>
>> and in unabridged form here,
>>
>> http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007/01/grill-id-guys-event-at-biola.html]
>>
>>
>> You seem to be impressed with Behe's remarks in this clip, so here's an
>> excerpt from my piece dealing with that part of the talk,
>>
>> ----------
>> Q3 -
>00:00 -> 3:15 completely ignored.
>Ahh, excuse me:
>What were the first 2 slides presented by Weber?
>Why did you leave out the opening 3:15 of Weber's statement?
>
>The part you left out was Weber trotting out Ken Miller's argument against IC, complete with little cartoon boxes, which is used by Miller here:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgXPmanb9rU
>(-see 1:30 in the video and compare to the opening slide of Weber.)

These are separate videos and events. Both Weber and Miller describe
exaptation because that's the scientific explanation to Behe's IC
challenge. Weber didn't mention Miller. There was no reason for Behe
to argue Miller in absentia. Behe should have dealt with Weber's
comments directly.

>>Weber presented several slides which documented studies examining
>> exaptation as a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the evolution of
>> "irreducibly complexity" (IC). Eventually he came to his question.
>> Though research on exaptation is a work in progress, still it is making
>> progress. Where, he asked, is the ID research? And "why would a
>> scientist abandon the productive research program of the Darwinian
>> modern evolutionary synthesis for one informed by intelligent design?"
>> Behe responded with the rather opaque observation that what Weber had
>> shown is not really new or supportive research, it's "just regular
>> biochemistry which is being spun in a Darwinian fashion."
> He went on to
>> ignore the question and renew his battle with Ken Miller by way of
>> slides and retreads of previous arguments.
>
>LOL, you saw an opportunity to ridicule Behe for 'ignoring the question' by bringing up Ken Miller's argument, when what he was in fact doing was going back to Weber's first point, or premise.

If so, then he should have dealt with Weber directly.

>You thought you could get away with it AS LONG AS NOBODY WATCHES THE VIDEO and sees Weber using Miller's arguments and, even, slides to try to explain exaptation in the first 3:15.
>Or, you just forgot about that part ... OOPS!

Of course, you just forgot that someone has watched the video... OOPS!

>You're busted.
>CHARLATAN ALERT

Apparently you're admiring yourself in the mirror again.

>Mr. Camp, your intent is not to inform, but to ridicule. And you're not above using concealment deceptively.
>Good thing all we have to do is WATCH THE VIDEO FOR OURSELVES and see how lame and dishonest your pathetic excuse for a review is:
>
>On with the review!
>So, what time are we at in the video now?
>
>
>> Weber interrupted in an
>> attempt to get Behe back on track. Behe ignored Weber again and returned
>> to reinforcing IC. After Weber tried once more to get back to his
>> questions Behe attempted to refute recent research from Joe Thornton.
>
>uhh, attempted to refute? Actually he used Thornton's paper to support his point. He seemed to disagree with none of the empirical results of the paper. That was his point - 'this is just good, hard research in biochemistry. The particular results at hand, however, are not particularly supportive of Darwinism.'
>
>Okay, I'm stopping for now.
>I'm adding more time-stamped summations on the youtube page; I suggest you go there for the play-by-play, and come back here for the analysis.

You can't stop what you never started. Are you ever going to address
what Mr. Camp actually wrote, or are you content to follow Behe's
example and evade altogether the argument put in front of you?

>> Soon thereafter Meyer jumped in and digressed into possible Type III
>> secretory system arguments, asserted that Behe hasn't been proved wrong
>> and suggested that proposed naturalistic pathways don't cut it.
>>
>> (This is part of ID proponents' continuing attempts to cover the
>> deficiencies of the IC argument by shifting the burden of proof. But the
>> response from biologists is to the in-principle argument that there
>> cannot be an evolutionary explanation, and as such does not call for
>> tested and replicated research, it simply requires empirically
>> defensible hypotheses.)
>> ----------
>>
>> While I stand by my comments from nine years ago, I'll just add that I
>> perhaps should have been even more critical of Behe's response than I
>> was at the time. His arguments, when he addressed the question, were
>> semantic and definitional, waving away research by saying, "That's not
>> Darwinism" and calling it all "spin."
>>
>> Additionally, it seems even more obvious to me in retrospect that Meyer
>> interposed himself when he saw that Behe was foundering. One of the main
>> points of my article was that even though this event was billed as an
>> opportunity to ask ID "theorists" the hard questions, they dodged those
>> questions at almost every opportunity.
>>
>> To Mr. Eddie I'll just reiterate the invitation posed by so many others
>> - if there's a particular point Behe made that you find insightful (or
>> devastating to evolutionary biology), please go ahead and paraphrase it
>> for us here and we can all discuss it.

[Steady Eddie]

True, there's not technically a dichotomy between certain definitions of evolution and ID.

But a true dichotomy can be drawn between naturalistic and intelligent causes. It's just a matter of tidying up your rhetoric.

>
> >>> I didn't think so.
> >>
> >> WRONG!
> >>
> >>> No, it's the Darwinists that have to find a plausible naturalistic pathway to the flagellum.
> >>> And don't think for a moment that this had 'slipped their minds' until Behe brought it up :)
> >>
> >> Can you say 'shifting the burden of proof'? Are you aware of what
> >> that even means? Can you recognize it when you see it?
> >
> > No, sorry, the burden's on you guys to find at least one of the myriad pathways you claim.
>

> No, the claim of Idiots

Hey, would you mind cutting out the insults in future?

(see above) is that evolution is inherently
> insufficient to explain things we find in the biosphere.

No, that's not the claim I made. I merely claim that there is another plausible explanation besides evolution for the terraforming of the earth.

That's the
> first step in exercising the false dichotomy, so the burden is on the
> IDiots. There will always be things that biology can't explain in
> detail because the evidence is missing.

Agreed.

[deadrat]

Them's fightin' words around these parts.

>
> There are also elements of argumentum ad ignorantiam and argument from
> incredulity.

Of course you're right. It takes these mechanisms to posit the false
choice: either evolution explains everything in every detail or we must
choose the intelligent designer.

But, again of course, we have many choices. Perhaps the evidence for
the detail explanation is gone, but if it were available, the current
theory would account for things just fine. Perhaps there's another,
better scientific theory. Perhaps the old one needs some tweaking.

What Steadly doesn't get is that poking holes in current scientific
theories is part of the enterprise of science. And no matter how
successful the poking, turning to religion will never be an acceptable
part of science.

<snip/>

[Steady Eddie]

-except for the fact that Weber was arguing Miller in absentia.
And besides, Behe is within his rights to give a full preamble to his response, referring to the work of others where salient. After all, Weber took almost 6 minutes to preamble his question and Behe was merely trying to straighten out the misconceptions inherent in Miller's/Weber's argument thus far.

Behe should have dealt with Weber's
> comments directly.

Yes, and thoroughly, which I think he did.

>
>
> >>Weber presented several slides which documented studies examining
> >> exaptation as a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the evolution of
> >> "irreducibly complexity" (IC). Eventually he came to his question.
> >> Though research on exaptation is a work in progress, still it is making
> >> progress. Where, he asked, is the ID research? And "why would a
> >> scientist abandon the productive research program of the Darwinian
> >> modern evolutionary synthesis for one informed by intelligent design?"
> >> Behe responded with the rather opaque observation that what Weber had
> >> shown is not really new or supportive research, it's "just regular
> >> biochemistry which is being spun in a Darwinian fashion."
> > He went on to
> >> ignore the question and renew his battle with Ken Miller by way of
> >> slides and retreads of previous arguments.
> >
> >LOL, you saw an opportunity to ridicule Behe for 'ignoring the question' by bringing up Ken Miller's argument, when what he was in fact doing was going back to Weber's first point, or premise.
>
>
> If so, then he should have dealt with Weber directly.

He did. And, he dealt with Miller in the process.

[deadrat]

On 1/23/15 2:43 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:> On Friday, 23 January 2015

I don't know what you mean by "technically" or "certain definitions."
The dichotomy here is positing only two choices -- evolution has perfect
explanations or IDiocy.

>
> But a true dichotomy can be drawn between naturalistic and
intelligent causes. It's just a matter of tidying up your rhetoric.

Again, the problem is not the choice between causes. It's that the
choices are exactly two -- between god and a scientific model that must
be rejected if it lacks perfection. If that's your axiom, a problem
that evolution can't explain to your satisfaction requires that you
choose god as your explanation.

>>>>> I didn't think so.
>>>>
>>>> WRONG!
>>>>
>>>>> No, it's the Darwinists that have to find a plausible
naturalistic pathway to the flagellum.
>>>>> And don't think for a moment that this had 'slipped their minds'
until Behe brought it up :)
>>>>
>>>> Can you say 'shifting the burden of proof'? Are you aware of what
>>>> that even means? Can you recognize it when you see it?
>>>
>>> No, sorry, the burden's on you guys to find at least one of the
myriad pathways you claim.
>>
>> No, the claim of Idiots
>
> Hey, would you mind cutting out the insults in future?

I apologize. That should read "IDiots." Better?

> (see above) is that evolution is inherently
>> insufficient to explain things we find in the biosphere.
>
> No, that's not the claim I made. I merely claim that there is another
plausible explanation besides evolution for the terraforming of the earth.

There's no scientifically plausible explanation that involves a
designer. That you find a designer plausible means nothing, given your
state of knowledge.

>
> That's the
>> first step in exercising the false dichotomy, so the burden is on the
>> IDiots. There will always be things that biology can't explain in
>> detail because the evidence is missing.
>
> Agreed.
>
> That's different from having an intrinsically faulty model.

And do you agree with the above sentence as well?

<snip/>

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 12:27:52 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

The video of your OP doesn't include Meyer's comments, but ends with
Nelson. So I can't tell if you think Meyer's comments are relevant
here or not.

Nelson's concern is that Behe specifically, and ID generally, are
functionally shut out of mainstream science journals, even though
those same journals publish anti-ID articles, and ENV publishes
pro-evolution articles.

If the editors of mainstream science journals rejected articles just
because they were by IDist authors, I would agree that Nelson had a
legitimate complaint. What Nelson didn't mention is whether pro-ID
articles have met the peer-review standards of mainstream science
journals. I have read several articles in ENV and my impression is
those articles do not meet those standards. If the pro-ID articles
Behe submitted to those mainstream science journals were of similar
quality, I submit that's the actual explanation for Nelson's alleged
disparity.

What Nelson's comments have to do with Mike Dworetsky's comments, or
your reply to Mike, isn't obvious to me.

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:02:56 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

Once again, exaptation is a scientific argument. It's Miller's and
Weber's argument because they both base their argument on science.
Neither one of them discovered exaptation. Weber never mentioned
Miller. None of Weber's points were relevant to anything unique or
distinctive that Miller said or wrote. Behe had no valid reason to
mention Miller.

To allow Behe to refer to the work of all others on exaptation would
have taken the entire evening. Perhaps that was Behe's intent.

[Steady Eddie]

Sorry bout that. There are two uploads of the same conference, and I got them confused with each other. I'll provide a link every time I cite the discussion from now on.

>
> Nelson's concern is that Behe specifically, and ID generally, are
> functionally shut out of mainstream science journals, even though
> those same journals publish anti-ID articles, and ENV publishes
> pro-evolution articles.
>
> If the editors of mainstream science journals rejected articles just
> because they were by IDist authors, I would agree that Nelson had a
> legitimate complaint. What Nelson didn't mention is whether pro-ID
> articles have met the peer-review standards of mainstream science
> journals. I have read several articles in ENV and my impression is
> those articles do not meet those standards. If the pro-ID articles
> Behe submitted to those mainstream science journals were of similar
> quality, I submit that's the actual explanation for Nelson's alleged
> disparity.

That would be a good question to ask one of them: do you even bother submitting articles to mainstream peer reviewed magazines?

>
> What Nelson's comments have to do with Mike Dworetsky's comments, or
> your reply to Mike, isn't obvious to me.

No, Nelson got off track onto a related point. It was Meyer's point that applied more to Mike.

[Steady Eddie]

But he didn't, did he?

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:28:53 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

BTW, in one of your many youtube comments, you misattribute Nelson's
comments to Paul Davies.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Is Meyer the "Galileo of ID" who had to withdraw a paper because it was not
actually peer-reviewed although they tried to claim it was?

>>
>> The video of your OP doesn't include Meyer's comments, but ends with
>> Nelson. So I can't tell if you think Meyer's comments are relevant
>> here or not.
>
> Sorry bout that. There are two uploads of the same conference, and I
> got them confused with each other. I'll provide a link every time I
> cite the discussion from now on.
>
>>
>> Nelson's concern is that Behe specifically, and ID generally, are
>> functionally shut out of mainstream science journals, even though
>> those same journals publish anti-ID articles, and ENV publishes
>> pro-evolution articles.
>>
>> If the editors of mainstream science journals rejected articles just
>> because they were by IDist authors, I would agree that Nelson had a
>> legitimate complaint. What Nelson didn't mention is whether pro-ID
>> articles have met the peer-review standards of mainstream science
>> journals. I have read several articles in ENV and my impression is
>> those articles do not meet those standards. If the pro-ID articles
>> Behe submitted to those mainstream science journals were of similar
>> quality, I submit that's the actual explanation for Nelson's alleged
>> disparity.
>
> That would be a good question to ask one of them: do you even bother
> submitting articles to mainstream peer reviewed magazines?
>

I once suggested that, if ID proponents claim that they can't get published
in mainstream journals if they write a paper supporting ID, they could set
up a web equivalent of arxiv for their views so that people could read their
rejected papers and comment on the science they present. None of them have
actually taken up that suggestion as far as I am aware.

>>
>> What Nelson's comments have to do with Mike Dworetsky's comments, or
>> your reply to Mike, isn't obvious to me.
>
> No, Nelson got off track onto a related point. It was Meyer's point
> that applied more to Mike.
>>
>> --
>> Intelligence is never insulting.

[Steady Eddie]

Thanks.

[Robert Camp]

On 1/23/15, 11:00 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 January 2015 10:32:05 UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 1/21/15 9:08 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>>>
>>> It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
>>>
>>> I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>>
>> [As it happens, I attended this event and wrote up my experience for the
>> NCSE. For anyone interested, that account can be found both here,
>>
>> http://ncse.com/rncse/26/3/grill-id-guys-event-at-biola
>>
>> and in unabridged form here,
>>
>> http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2007/01/grill-id-guys-event-at-biola.html]
>>
>>
>> You seem to be impressed with Behe's remarks in this clip, so here's an
>> excerpt from my piece dealing with that part of the talk,
>>
>> ----------
>> Q3 -
> 00:00 -> 3:15 completely ignored.
> Ahh, excuse me:
> What were the first 2 slides presented by Weber?
> Why did you leave out the opening 3:15 of Weber's statement?
>
> The part you left out was Weber trotting out Ken Miller's argument against IC, complete with little cartoon boxes, which is used by Miller here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgXPmanb9rU
> (-see 1:30 in the video and compare to the opening slide of Weber.)

I know it's your fervent desire to find dishonesty and conspiracy in any
contrary opinions, but you need to take a deep breath once in a while
and think a little bit.

I made clear that I was excerpting a bit from an article I wrote over
eight years go, a section that dealt mostly with the content in your
clip. I never claimed I was responding directly to your clip.

Do you understand this?

>> Weber presented several slides which documented studies examining
>> exaptation as a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the evolution of
>> "irreducibly complexity" (IC). Eventually he came to his question.
>> Though research on exaptation is a work in progress, still it is making
>> progress. Where, he asked, is the ID research? And "why would a
>> scientist abandon the productive research program of the Darwinian
>> modern evolutionary synthesis for one informed by intelligent design?"
>> Behe responded with the rather opaque observation that what Weber had
>> shown is not really new or supportive research, it's "just regular
>> biochemistry which is being spun in a Darwinian fashion."
> He went on to
>> ignore the question and renew his battle with Ken Miller by way of
>> slides and retreads of previous arguments.
>
> LOL, you saw an opportunity to ridicule Behe for 'ignoring the question' by bringing up Ken Miller's argument, when what he was in fact doing was going back to Weber's first point, or premise.
> You thought you could get away with it AS LONG AS NOBODY WATCHES THE VIDEO and sees Weber using Miller's arguments and, even, slides to try to explain exaptation in the first 3:15.
> Or, you just forgot about that part ... OOPS!

First of all, you need to calm down and realize that nobody here took
your skateboard, and no one is trying to steal your date for the junior
prom. (By the way, does she know you're really just a freshman?)

Second, the very minimal content I was able to draw from your childish
rant appears to suggest I was somehow covering up the relevance of
Behe's digression into responding to Miller. You appear to be basing
this on Weber's exaptation remarks. My response to that is, (a)
exaptation is not a concept that was originated by, or unique to, Ken
Miller, and (b) you'll notice that Weber expends a decent amount of
effort attempting to steer Behe back to answering his question.

<snip more immaturity>

[Steady Eddie]

Actually, they have their own peer-reviewed paper, "Bio-complexity":
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:53:04 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

>> >> >Dr. Paul Nelson addresses that very question:
>> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-OGNpItwo
>> >> >-go to 24:45
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Rhetorical question: WIll you say how Paul Nelson addresses that very
>> >> question?
>> >
>> >lol ok, it's a tag-team between Nelson and Meyer. Nelson demonstrated that ID is already being discussed in the mainstream peer reviewed scientific literature - just not by its proponents. He begins waxing poetic and ends up with a Manifesto on his hands. Then Meyer brought it back on-topic by pointing out that the argument about where something is discussed is not a substantive argument; it's a procedural argument. It's simply irrelevant.
>>
>>
>> The video of your OP doesn't include Meyer's comments, but ends with
>> Nelson. So I can't tell if you think Meyer's comments are relevant
>> here or not.
>
>Sorry bout that. There are two uploads of the same conference, and I got them confused with each other. I'll provide a link every time I cite the discussion from now on.
>
>>
>> Nelson's concern is that Behe specifically, and ID generally, are
>> functionally shut out of mainstream science journals, even though
>> those same journals publish anti-ID articles, and ENV publishes
>> pro-evolution articles.
>>
>> If the editors of mainstream science journals rejected articles just
>> because they were by IDist authors, I would agree that Nelson had a
>> legitimate complaint. What Nelson didn't mention is whether pro-ID
>> articles have met the peer-review standards of mainstream science
>> journals. I have read several articles in ENV and my impression is
>> those articles do not meet those standards. If the pro-ID articles
>> Behe submitted to those mainstream science journals were of similar
>> quality, I submit that's the actual explanation for Nelson's alleged
>> disparity.
>
>That would be a good question to ask one of them: do you even bother submitting articles to mainstream peer reviewed magazines?

How would it matter whether I did or didn't?

>> What Nelson's comments have to do with Mike Dworetsky's comments, or
>> your reply to Mike, isn't obvious to me.
>
>No, Nelson got off track onto a related point. It was Meyer's point that applied more to Mike.

So Paul Nelson didn't address that very question after all. Will you
explain how Meyer addresses that very question?

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:58:10 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

Not for lack of trying, but because he wasn't allowed.

[Steady Eddie]

How would it matter whether you think it matters whether I think you did or didn't matters?

>
>
> >> What Nelson's comments have to do with Mike Dworetsky's comments, or
> >> your reply to Mike, isn't obvious to me.
> >
> >No, Nelson got off track onto a related point. It was Meyer's point that applied more to Mike.
>
>
> So Paul Nelson didn't address that very question after all. Will you
> explain how Meyer addresses that very question?

I already did - here it is:

"Then Meyer brought it back on-topic by pointing out that the argument about where something is discussed is not a substantive argument; it's a procedural argument. It's simply irrelevant. "


>

[Steady Eddie]

His first slide is taken directly from Miller's apparently famous slide show that he gave in Dover. It's the exact same slide (that's why you can hear a little laugh from Behe when Weber brings it up), followed by a diagram of the bacterial flagellum, again exactly the same slide that Miller brought up next on his demonstration.
Besides, remember that the Dover Trial, where these exact same slides were used, was only months in the past at this point, and Miller was apparently doing some public speaking on his role in Dover, popularizing his 'debunking' of "Irreducible Complexity":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4

Behe had no valid reason to
> mention Miller.

I disagree, I think it was common knowledge at the time that Miller was the foremost popularizer of the "debunking" of Irreducible Complexity.
I would agree with you, though, that he is too long-winded and could have easily dispensed with the mousetrap portion.

>
> To allow Behe to refer to the work of all others on exaptation would
> have taken the entire evening. Perhaps that was Behe's intent.

No, I think he was just gunning for Miller over-reacted a little to seeing Miller's slides from the Dover trial being used against him in a different setting.

[deadrat]

I don't understand. Could you explain the difference between the
interpretations of the argument as substantive and procedural?

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:51:30 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

Why did you even bother to ask your question in the first place?

>> >> What Nelson's comments have to do with Mike Dworetsky's comments, or
>> >> your reply to Mike, isn't obvious to me.
>> >
>> >No, Nelson got off track onto a related point. It was Meyer's point that applied more to Mike.
>>
>>
>> So Paul Nelson didn't address that very question after all. Will you
>> explain how Meyer addresses that very question?
>
>I already did - here it is:
>"Then Meyer brought it back on-topic by pointing out that the argument about where something is discussed is not a substantive argument; it's a procedural argument. It's simply irrelevant. "

I realize that's what you think is an answer, but it doesn't explain
how it applies to Mike Dworetsky's comments. Or do you think that's
irrelevant too?

[Steady Eddie]

That's what happened to Meyer and whatsisname that accepted his article, as he testifies in the panel discussion.

[Steady Eddie]

I don't know, but have you stopped beating your wife?

[RonO]

On 1/22/2015 7:27 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 January 2015 06:07:06 UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

>> On 1/21/2015 11:08 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> For those of you who want it straight from the horse's mouth, here is an excerpt from a 2006 conference/debate/panel discussion/whatever on ID where Behe replies to his critics on Irreducible Complexity:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGjMgPOGeM
>>>
>>> It is a fresh re-post, so the comments section is uncluttered. I had the idea that perhaps some of you would put your comments right on utube, to be heard by a larger audience than, well, each other, and me, and I suppose RDean.
>>>
>>> I have posted a few preliminary remarks as Ed Reynolds, and look forward to anyone's thoughtful comments as you have leisure to view the video.
>>>
>>

>> Can you state very breifly what new was put forward that would counter
>> the utter failure of IC to amount to anything in the Dover Court case
>> that preceded this "debate."
>>
>> Did Behe state a usable definition of "well matched" so that it could be
>> tested and identified to exist in enough quantity to make his systems
>> IC?
>
> LOL, you don't even know what "well-matched" means in this context!
> Behe chose small words so that even people like you could comprehend him.
>
> Was he able to measure well matched in the flagellum or any other
>> Behe IC system and demonstrate that the parts were well matched enough
>> to make those systems IC? Was he able to count up the number of
>> unselected steps in his IC systems and determine that enough of them
>> existed to make his systems IC? Did he indicate that he had started the
>> falsification test of IC that he and Minnich put forward in their
>> testimony that would demonstrate if the flagellum could evolve or not.
>> Both claimed that if you could evolve a flagellum the ID ICness of the
>> flagellum would be falsified.
>>
>> What Behe can't do and hasn't done is common knowledge, so what new
>> material got presented that would improve the dismal situation that IC
>> is in and remains in at this time around 9 years later? Around 5 years
>> before this conference Behe responded to his critics and made sure that
>> IC was untestable and worthless for inference of anything. This was
>> found to not have changed by the Dover court case in 2005, so what
>> changed between the court case and this 2006 conference?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> You know, when you leave all of the insulting language out of it, you appear to be a real asshole.
> Unless you come back with a lot of cites and quotes to support your points, you are just blowing smoke, and worthy of ignoring even though you didn't use the term "IDiot" once in this post.
>

I'll make it easier for you. This is a post that you ran from in denial
with links and quotes back in May when you were first starting.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/jaDOC-FZiqQ/_zQJGLM0ZtkJ

Here is my response to your running in denial:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/jaDOC-FZiqQ/imEAZRTs5C4J

You should have done what I advised back in May instead of running in
denial. Reality isn't going to change. So how bogus is your response
above? Cites and quotes don't seem to register when denial is all you
can muster.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Thank you for the link back to my first topic; that was very useful. I read some links that I hadn't read at the time due to your abusive language.
I really enjoyed the interview with Philip Johnson after Dover, for example.

As long as you can leave the abusive language and accusatory interpretations out of it for a while, you may now proceed to substantiate your claims with specific points.

Why not start by citing your source for this statement:

[RonO]

If you really understand the Johnson interview why are you still an IDiot?

>
> As long as you can leave the abusive language and accusatory interpretations out of it for a while, you may now proceed to substantiate your claims with specific points.

Points that you assiduously ignore and go into denial over.

>
> Why not start by citing your source for this statement:
> "Around 5 years before this conference Behe responded to his critics and made sure that IC was untestable and worthless for inference of anything."
>

Papers such as this from 2000:
http://philpapers.org/rec/BEHSAI

QUOTE:
Abstract
Some biochemical systems require multiple, well-matched parts in order
to function, and the removal of any of the parts eliminates the
function. I have previously labeled such systems "irreducibly complex,"
and argued that they are stumbling blocks for Darwinian theory. Instead
I proposed that they are best explained as the result of deliberate
intelligent design. In a recent article Shanks and Joplin analyze and
find wanting the use of irreducible complexity as a marker for
intelligent design. Their primary counterexample is the
Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, a self-organizing system in which
competing reaction pathways result in a chemical oscillator. In place of
irreducible complexity they offer the idea of "redundant complexity,"
meaning that biochemical pathways overlap so that a loss of one or even
several components can be accommodated without complete loss of
function. Here I note that complexity is a quantitative property, so
that conclusions we draw will be affected by how well-matched the
components of a system are. I also show that not all biochemical systems
are redundant. The origin of non-redundant systems requires a different
explanation than redundant ones
END QUOTE:

In the above paper Behe is claiming that since interacting parts can no
longer be used as a simple case of irreducible complexity he claims that
there are additional quantitative elements to IC that his model
requires. In this abstract he specifically states that "well-matched"
is one of those quantitative properties. It may have not been this
paper, but another (Behe wrote several responses to critics of Black Box
during this time period, around 2000) where he also goes into the
quantitative property of the number of unselected steps required to make
something his type of IC. Behe was unable to define well-matched or
determine the number of unselected steps for any of his proposed IC
systems. Without a quantitative testable definition of well-matched
Behe made his type of IC scientifically untestable. That is just a
simple fact.

In the Dover judge's decision that you have been given (probably
multiple times) these quantitative aspects of IC were said to have been
falsified by Judge Jones, but what he meant was that they had been
deemed irrelevant (making IC a nonsense claim) because they were
untestable and could not be quantified at this time and so useless to
any determination of what is IC in nature.

During Dover Behe again acknowledged that just simple interacting parts
was not enough to make a system his type of IC. Behe's own bogus
falsification test for IC told the whole story. Behe simply needs some
system that could not evolve. Interacting parts had been shown to be
evolvable. He needed something more. His problem is that anyone just
has to come up with the lamest possible scenario for the evolution of
the system and Behe can't make any counter claims because he has no way
to determine if any system is his type of IC or not.

Why can't you understand that, that is what Johnson was admitting to?
If the ID perps had anything worth putting forward why didn't they give
it to Philip Johnson? Why did Johnson have to admit that there was no
comparable ID science and retire from the ID scam? Philip Johnson was
credited by the other ID perps as being instrumental in getting the ID
scam rolling. So why are you still an IDiot?

Where is the wonderful ID science? Why does the bait and switch still
go down whenever anyone needs the ID science? You have to admit that
when they have to put up or shut up all the ID perps give rubes like
yourself is a bunch of junk that doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed, so how can you claim that any ID science even exists?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Looks good to me.
Of course, I read the entire paper (it's not long and inaccessible) and am satisfied with Behe's explanations.

>
> In the above paper Behe is claiming that since interacting parts can no
> longer be used as a simple case of irreducible complexity he claims that
> there are additional quantitative elements to IC that his model
> requires. In this abstract he specifically states that "well-matched"
> is one of those quantitative properties. It may have not been this
> paper, but another (Behe wrote several responses to critics of Black Box
> during this time period, around 2000) where he also goes into the
> quantitative property of the number of unselected steps required to make
> something his type of IC.

Nope, not in this paper...

Behe was unable to define well-matched or
> determine the number of unselected steps for any of his proposed IC
> systems. Without a quantitative testable definition of well-matched
> Behe made his type of IC scientifically untestable. That is just a
> simple fact.

Behe explains himself just fine. Considering you didn't read the paper (recently), how would you know otherwise?

>
> In the Dover judge's decision that you have been given (probably
> multiple times) these quantitative aspects of IC were said to have been
> falsified by Judge Jones, but what he meant was that they had been
> deemed irrelevant (making IC a nonsense claim) because they were
> untestable and could not be quantified at this time and so useless to
> any determination of what is IC in nature.

-Quote?

>
> During Dover Behe again acknowledged that just simple interacting parts
> was not enough to make a system his type of IC. Behe's own bogus
> falsification test for IC told the whole story. Behe simply needs some
> system that could not evolve. Interacting parts had been shown to be
> evolvable. He needed something more. His problem is that anyone just
> has to come up with the lamest possible scenario for the evolution of
> the system and Behe can't make any counter claims because he has no way
> to determine if any system is his type of IC or not.

Would you care to provide an example to support your assertion?

>
> Why can't you understand that, that is what Johnson was admitting to?
> If the ID perps had anything worth putting forward why didn't they give
> it to Philip Johnson? Why did Johnson have to admit that there was no
> comparable ID science and retire from the ID scam? Philip Johnson was
> credited by the other ID perps as being instrumental in getting the ID
> scam rolling. So why are you still an IDiot?
>
> Where is the wonderful ID science? Why does the bait and switch still
> go down whenever anyone needs the ID science? You have to admit that
> when they have to put up or shut up all the ID perps give rubes like
> yourself is a bunch of junk that doesn't even mention that ID ever
> existed, so how can you claim that any ID science even exists?
>

useless rambling...

> Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/23/15 12:43 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 23 January 2015 13:12:02 UTC-7, deadrat wrote:

> [...]

>> It's called false dichotomy. In this case, you, Behe, and the other
>> idiots assume there are two choice -- Evolution has an explanation for
>> everything or there's an intelligent designer.
>
> True, there's not technically a dichotomy between certain
> definitions of evolution and ID.
>
> But a true dichotomy can be drawn between naturalistic and
> intelligent causes. It's just a matter of tidying up your
> rhetoric.

Not true. The pattern of electrons I am sending your way is both
naturalistic and intelligently designed. The dichotomy is between
natural and supernatural, and even that is problematic because
"supernatural" is not defined well enough so that anyone can say for
sure what it means.

Rule of thumb: When anyone gives you a pair of choices in which
evolution figures prominently in only one of them, that person is using
faulty logic to try to hoodwink you. That is probably not always true,
but I cannot think of a case where it fails in normal discourse.

>> [...]

>> No, the claim of Idiots

>> (see above) is that evolution is inherently
>> insufficient to explain things we find in the biosphere.
>
> No, that's not the claim I made. I merely claim that there is
> another plausible explanation besides evolution for the
> terraforming of the earth.

I'll do one better: There are an infinite number of plausible
explanations besides evolution for the terraforming of the earth.
However, I cannot think of even one, and neither can you.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[RonO]

This is exactly what you wanted and demonstrated exactly what I claimed.
So in this paper did Behe define well matched so that it could be
tested? No. What does that mean? It means exactly what I claimed.
Behe made IC untestable. Even Behe can't tell anyone what an IC system
is. If you think that this is not true how do you explain what Johnson
said? Is Johnson lying? Johnson was a true believer who followed the
court proceedings and knew what he had been told by the other ID perps
for years, and what were his conclusions after he had to deal with the
judge's decision?

Just like I said denialism is stupid when you know that reality is just
what I claim. You demonstrate otherwise. Really, you put up a
definition of well-matched that can be tested. Since you can't do this
using anything that any ID perp has ever written what does that mean? I
put up something that you can't deny, so you put up something. Don't
just run and pretend that you have an argument. Put the argument up for
evaluation. Citations and quotes would be nice, but I'd like your
interpretation of the citations and quotes since that is the only way to
determine if you are being fooled or going along with the scam. Go for it.

Just think about what good understanding Behe's chloroquine argument did
you. Not much isn't anything to write home about.

Ron Okimoto
>
>> Ron Okimoto
>

[rmat...@macomb.com]

Ron, I like the way you have pinned unSteady Eddies ears to the IC meme. Particularly to the "well matched" assertion for which Behe clearly fails to provide a scientifically useful empirical measure. This failure to provide a way to empirically support "well matched" is comparable to the perennial "looks designed" assertions of IDers. Empirical assessing "design" and "well matched" is of course the "sine qua non" of a science of design - intelligent or otherwise. You have made it clear that unSteady Eddie buys the assertions of IDers faux science without the necessary scientific skepticism lock stock and barrel.

The evidence mounts in thread after thread UnSteady Eddie is nothing more than the religious/ideological promoter of IDism for the IDists.

RAM

Awaiting the snide rejoinder and failure to respond to the scientific substance of Ron's critique.

Now to my snideness; I warrant it will be either: it's in the video, I have already answer it, or looks "designed and well matched" is good enough for ID science - just look how far we've come with it so far!

[Steady Eddie]

GIYF

[deadrat]

Not for this. I don't have to do your homework. You've claimed
something about an argument from a video you've watched. If you don't
really understand what you heard, then say so. Don't pretend that I'm
the one who's lazy.

[Steady Eddie]

You're the one that doesn't understand the difference between a procedural and a substantive argument.
Fix that.

[Mark Isaak]

> [...]

There are at least two fatal flaws with Behe's use of irreducible
complexity. The first is the fact that there are several easy ways for
IC to evolve naturally. Behe addresses part of that problem in the
paper above, but only a small part. There are still several easy ways,
which Behe does not address, by which IC can evolve.

The second flaw is defining what IC is. What, EXACTLY, are "part",
"system", and "function"? These terms *can* be defined, but Behe's use
of them is so nebulous that they could mean practically anything. In
the above paper, Behe only makes this gaping wound worse by adding the
purely subjective "well-matched" to the list of criteria.

Note also that Behe again makes explicit that he is pushing the false
dichotomy you earlier denied he made: Darwinian evolution and
intelligent design are the only options he allows, but not the only
options possible.

Finally, he is explicitly claiming credit for "irreducible complexity".
It is not his to claim; the idea was expressed earlier by Muller and
others. Behe is a thief who denies credit where it is due. Why do you
revere thieves?

I look on Behe as a litmus test for for ID. His ideas are so obviously
flawed in so many ways, that anyone who approves of them either is very
new on the scene or is willfully blinding himself to the flaws and will
probably never have the courage to face reality.

[deadrat]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't intend to take seriously a
lecture on understanding from someone so ignorant.

I do understand the difference between a procedural and a substantive
argument, and I'll even have the courtesy to demonstrate that to you. A
substantive argument is one based on the propositions of the argument; a
procedural argument is one based on the rules that govern the forum in
which the argument is made. These terms make sense when applied to the
operation of a deliberative body, like say, a legislature. There a
substantive argument about raising taxes would concern things like the
need for more revenue. A procedural argument would be be one that
suggested the lack of a quorum.

Now, my question wasn't about the difference between the two types of
arguments at all. It was about this particular argument. It's possible
that these terms have some importance in the discussion of a scientific
issue, but I doubt it. I also doubted that you could explain the issue,
and my question was intended to allow you to make that point for me.

Thank you.

[Steady Eddie]

No, thank YOU, for inviting me to share a little bit of evolutionary scholarship that uses this mystery term "well-matched", or "well matched" (which is a vicious bastardization of the original term, which was done intentionally to further confuse the meaning-LOL):

https://books.google.ca/books?id=TfpefXitEmMC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=well-matched+evolution&source=bl&ots=75lQjdl__N&sig=ir-ornHLSh5cudLMZwx58iUS3RE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QvFVJuhE4KkgwSUmoO4Cw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=well-matched%20evolution&f=false


https://books.google.ca/books?id=_uJ4BJ77bZAC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=well-matched+evolution&source=bl&ots=1cNSvxfeNG&sig=9tp60fa4r-GvFUZa4wMGLUY2LOk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QvFVJuhE4KkgwSUmoO4Cw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=well-matched%20evolution&f=false

http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/paper/ev/behe/

https://books.google.ca/books?id=zYYt2qvKtg4C&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=well-matched+evolution&source=bl&ots=G9JipqZZe4&sig=7XSi_aKShIVIkDzewKuCSkE3Gpw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QvFVJuhE4KkgwSUmoO4Cw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=well-matched%20evolution&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=zmt_Qurmi0AC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=well-matched+evolution&source=bl&ots=yw0W3HhIhH&sig=x0K2n4eLpDy73dyfKHoAq1eTq9U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yw7FVLn2E8KqNrjHgxA&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=well-matched%20evolution&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=51UG5GyT_xMC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=well-matched+evolution&source=bl&ots=ds16tQpowP&sig=YN-2WuLcJ2e_e5cAxqM3ZyElDp0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yw7FVLn2E8KqNrjHgxA&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=well-matched%20evolution&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=HPw0C2i8QXkC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=well-matched+evolution&source=bl&ots=ucTU1AZeTE&sig=HjxQHoz4a0rEmD_gIIqicMrsXV0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yw7FVLn2E8KqNrjHgxA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=well-matched%20evolution&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=h9ofsaHY3KcC&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=well-matched+evolution&source=bl&ots=AAHmdNGJQg&sig=8rWpzZZAFZBM5y1h2UWvAn0HkKE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yw7FVLn2E8KqNrjHgxA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=well-matched%20evolution&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=yXhHCt8Ml7YC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=well-matched+evolution&source=bl&ots=3i2jHtRXr1&sig=P1ly9fovoAAnRhNCF6FsjRCDook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yw7FVLn2E8KqNrjHgxA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=well-matched%20evolution&f=false

What were all these people doing, using the term "well matched" in an evolutionary context without a full explanation of the term?
:):):):):):):):):):)

[deadrat]

You may pile on the emoticons to your heart's delight. I'm too old to
understand them. You may also pile up the cites. Your posting history
here says you've haven't read them or don't understand them. If you
have an argument to prosecute, post it.

But you don't. And you won't.

[Steady Eddie]

And you won't justify why any one of the above works contains the mystery phrase "well matched" without an immediate footnote to a complete definition and explanation of this slippery phrase.

[Steady Eddie]

So what are you waiting for, a red carpet? Give us one example.

>
> The second flaw is defining what IC is. What, EXACTLY, are "part",
> "system", and "function"? These terms *can* be defined, but Behe's use
> of them is so nebulous that they could mean practically anything. In
> the above paper, Behe only makes this gaping wound worse by adding the
> purely subjective "well-matched" to the list of criteria.

-handled.

>
> Note also that Behe again makes explicit that he is pushing the false
> dichotomy you earlier denied he made: Darwinian evolution and
> intelligent design are the only options he allows, but not the only
> options possible.

He didn't say they were the only option possible, unless I missed a spot?

>
> Finally, he is explicitly claiming credit for "irreducible complexity".
> It is not his to claim; the idea was expressed earlier by Muller and
> others. Behe is a thief who denies credit where it is due. Why do you
> revere thieves?

There we go, the compulsory logical fallacy

>
> I look on Behe as a litmus test for for ID. His ideas are so obviously
> flawed in so many ways, that anyone who approves of them either is very
> new on the scene or is willfully blinding himself to the flaws and will
> probably never have the courage to face reality.

-boy, there you go making another sweeping 'truth' statement.
Vaclav Havel would be very disappointed again.

[Ymir]

In article <b1adc1f9-cb9d-47af...@googlegroups.com>,

What you've demonstrated above is essentially 2 things.

First, that you're able to do a google search for "well-matched
evolution"

Second, that you're able to post a list of links which you clearly
haven't actually bothered to read. Probably the most amusing of the
above links is the one pointing to a volume called "the Evolution of
Mid-Atlantic Ridges" which clearly has nothing whatsover to do with
biological evolution, which you would have noticed if you'd actually
read it.

Of the remaining articles, the only ones which appear to use the term
"well-matched" in a way even remotely resembling Behe's usage are links
to articles by or about Behe's proposal. One talks of fossil specimens
being well-matched to specimens in a museum collection (in the sense of
probably belonging to the same species). Another talks about
"well-matched" mating pairs (and even includes a definition of what is
meant by that within the very text), and so forth.

So here's a lesson for you: DON'T CITE STUFF UNLESS YOU"VE ACTUALLY READ
IT. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest in the extreme unless
you actually indicate explicitly that you are unfamiliar with the
content (e.g. I've been told that Smith 1999 addresses this point but
haven't actually looked at the article in question).

Andre

[Ymir]

In article <2a425f51-2c29-4b0e...@googlegroups.com>,
Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

[List of irrelevant links snipped]

First off, one of them does (not in a footnote, but inline), and that's
the only one which appears to be using it in a technical sense, though
not one remotely related to Behe's usage. You'd know that of course if
you'd bothered to read your own links.

That being said, one needn't define every term. One must, however,
define those terms which appear to be being used in a technical sense
and upon which an argument rests. Behe not only fails to do this; he
even offers some waffling to suggest that he doesn't *want* to be pinned
down to a specific definition and starts putting scare quotes around the
term.

From the horse's mouth: "The line dividing SI and IC systems [i.e. those
that do not involve "well-matched" parts and those which do = my
addition] is not sharp, because assignment to one or the other category
is based on probabilistic factors which often are hard to calculate and
generally have to be intuitively estimated based on always-incomplete
background knowledge"

Put another way: He can treat something as "well-matched" when it is
convenient to his argument and as not "well-matched" when it is not.
Something for which he is unaware of an evolutionary explanation is
well-matched until such an explanation is drawn to his attention in
which case it can magically become "not-so-well-matched".

Andre

[deadrat]

Why should I bother? If there's an operational definition of "well
matched," then let's have it. If there isn't, then its users aren't
doing science.

[deadrat]

Where? When? How?

>> Note also that Behe again makes explicit that he is pushing the false
>> dichotomy you earlier denied he made: Darwinian evolution and
>> intelligent design are the only options he allows, but not the only
>> options possible.
>
> He didn't say they were the only option possible, unless I missed a spot?

It's his only argument except for the appearance of design. How did you
miss it?

>> Finally, he is explicitly claiming credit for "irreducible complexity".
>> It is not his to claim; the idea was expressed earlier by Muller and
>> others. Behe is a thief who denies credit where it is due. Why do you
>> revere thieves?
>
> There we go, the compulsory logical fallacy
>>
>> I look on Behe as a litmus test for for ID. His ideas are so obviously
>> flawed in so many ways, that anyone who approves of them either is very
>> new on the scene or is willfully blinding himself to the flaws and will
>> probably never have the courage to face reality.
>
> -boy, there you go making another sweeping 'truth' statement.

Bet you can't falsify it.

[Mark Isaak]

>>> [...]
>>
>> There are at least two fatal flaws with Behe's use of irreducible
>> complexity. The first is the fact that there are several easy ways for
>> IC to evolve naturally. Behe addresses part of that problem in the
>> paper above, but only a small part. There are still several easy ways,
>> which Behe does not address, by which IC can evolve.
>
> So what are you waiting for, a red carpet? Give us one example.

Start with the two I already gave you.

>> The second flaw is defining what IC is. What, EXACTLY, are "part",
>> "system", and "function"? These terms *can* be defined, but Behe's use
>> of them is so nebulous that they could mean practically anything. In
>> the above paper, Behe only makes this gaping wound worse by adding the
>> purely subjective "well-matched" to the list of criteria.
>
> -handled.

For someone who considers denial the only way to handle anything.

>> Note also that Behe again makes explicit that he is pushing the false
>> dichotomy you earlier denied he made: Darwinian evolution and
>> intelligent design are the only options he allows, but not the only
>> options possible.
>
> He didn't say they were the only option possible, unless I missed a spot?

You missed everything, apparently.

>> Finally, he is explicitly claiming credit for "irreducible complexity".
>> It is not his to claim; the idea was expressed earlier by Muller and
>> others. Behe is a thief who denies credit where it is due. Why do you
>> revere thieves?
>
> There we go, the compulsory logical fallacy

I note the fact that Behe has acted immorally and unprofessionally. I
note the evidence that you like that sort of stuff.

>> I look on Behe as a litmus test for for ID. His ideas are so obviously
>> flawed in so many ways, that anyone who approves of them either is very
>> new on the scene or is willfully blinding himself to the flaws and will
>> probably never have the courage to face reality.
>
> -boy, there you go making another sweeping 'truth' statement.
> Vaclav Havel would be very disappointed again.

So you are back to Egypt again.

[Steady Eddie]

So, are you going to support this claim?

Behe addresses part of that problem in the
> >> paper above, but only a small part. There are still several easy ways,
> >> which Behe does not address, by which IC can evolve.
> >
> > So what are you waiting for, a red carpet? Give us one example.
>
> Start with the two I already gave you.
>
> >> The second flaw is defining what IC is. What, EXACTLY, are "part",
> >> "system", and "function"? These terms *can* be defined, but Behe's use
> >> of them is so nebulous that they could mean practically anything.

-Cite?

In
> >> the above paper, Behe only makes this gaping wound worse by adding the
> >> purely subjective "well-matched" to the list of criteria.
> >
> > -handled.
>
> For someone who considers denial the only way to handle anything.
>
> >> Note also that Behe again makes explicit that he is pushing the false
> >> dichotomy you earlier denied he made: Darwinian evolution and
> >> intelligent design are the only options he allows, but not the only
> >> options possible.
> >
> > He didn't say they were the only option possible, unless I missed a spot?
>
> You missed everything, apparently.

The challenge remains:
-Cite?

> >> Finally, he is explicitly claiming credit for "irreducible complexity".
> >> It is not his to claim; the idea was expressed earlier by Muller and
> >> others. Behe is a thief who denies credit where it is due. Why do you
> >> revere thieves?
> >
> > There we go, the compulsory logical fallacy
>
> I note the fact that Behe has acted immorally and unprofessionally. I
> note the evidence that you like that sort of stuff.
>
> >> I look on Behe as a litmus test for for ID. His ideas are so obviously
> >> flawed in so many ways, that anyone who approves of them either is very
> >> new on the scene or is willfully blinding himself to the flaws and will
> >> probably never have the courage to face reality.
> >
> > -boy, there you go making another sweeping 'truth' statement.
> > Vaclav Havel would be very disappointed again.
>
> So you are back to Egypt again.

What do you mean?

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 24 January 2015 12:26:59 UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 1/23/15 12:43 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Friday, 23 January 2015 13:12:02 UTC-7, deadrat wrote:
> > [...]
> >> It's called false dichotomy. In this case, you, Behe, and the other
> >> idiots assume there are two choice -- Evolution has an explanation for
> >> everything or there's an intelligent designer.
> >
> > True, there's not technically a dichotomy between certain
> > definitions of evolution and ID.
> >
> > But a true dichotomy can be drawn between naturalistic and
> > intelligent causes. It's just a matter of tidying up your
> > rhetoric.
>
> Not true. The pattern of electrons I am sending your way is both
> naturalistic and intelligently designed.

Hmmm...no, there's nothing naturalistic about the actual pattern; the PATTERN encoded in the string of electrons you're sending me is actually intelligently designed. We know this because it is complex, specified information:
Complex - obviously, in the improbability inherent in a string of electrons of n length.
Specified - obviously, because that string's contents is specified to result in words on my screen.

-See Signature In The Cell, by Stephen Meyer, Ch.16 - "Another Road to Rome"

>The dichotomy is between
> natural and supernatural, and even that is problematic because
> "supernatural" is not defined well enough so that anyone can say for
> sure what it means.

I agree with you; that is problematic. It's what I like o say: wrong.
A dichotomy can reasonably be made between designed and undesigned. That's the dichotomy Behe uses.

>
> Rule of thumb: When anyone gives you a pair of choices in which
> evolution figures prominently in only one of them, that person is using
> faulty logic to try to hoodwink you. That is probably not always true,
> but I cannot think of a case where it fails in normal discourse.

Well, there you go, you just saw a case.

>
> >> [...]
> >> No, the claim of Idiots
> >> (see above) is that evolution is inherently
> >> insufficient to explain things we find in the biosphere.
> >
> > No, that's not the claim I made. I merely claim that there is
> > another plausible explanation besides evolution for the
> > terraforming of the earth.
>
> I'll do one better: There are an infinite number of plausible
> explanations besides evolution for the terraforming of the earth.
> However, I cannot think of even one, and neither can you.

Sure I can think of an explanation for the terraforming of the earth.
In fact, I'm doing it right now.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 8:01:55 PM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:

> Hmmm...no, there's nothing naturalistic about the actual pattern; the PATTERN encoded in the string of electrons you're sending me is actually intelligently designed. We know this because it is complex, specified information:
> Complex - obviously, in the improbability inherent in a string of electrons of n length.

It's not at all clear what you think you mean by a string of n electrons. Perhaps you mean a string of n bits. In that case, you should know that all strings of bits of length n have the same probability (1/2^n), regardless of whether they have meaning to you or not. The string encoding his message only seems particularly improbable to you because you are comparing the probability of its occurring to the sum of the probabilities of all possible strings in which you do not recognize a meaning. So the special "improbability" inherent in the string encoding his message is something you recognize only because you know what sorts of strings humans make when they make messages.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <agisaak.spamblock-2CE18D.13470825012015@shawnews>

Steadly being intellectually dishonest? Surely not, shock horror.

And in other breaking news, water is wet.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Mark Isaak]

I already did. IC discredits evolution only if evolution consists only
of addition of single parts. It doesn't. Evolution also gradually
modifies single parts and/or adds multiple parts at a time. See how
many more things you can think of that evolution does that Behe does not
account for. If you come up with fewer than two, you fail, but if you
come up with even one, your failure will not be as bad as Behe's.

> Behe addresses part of that problem in the
>>>> paper above, but only a small part. There are still several easy ways,
>>>> which Behe does not address, by which IC can evolve.
>>>
>>> So what are you waiting for, a red carpet? Give us one example.
>>
>> Start with the two I already gave you.
>>
>>>> The second flaw is defining what IC is. What, EXACTLY, are "part",
>>>> "system", and "function"? These terms *can* be defined, but Behe's use
>>>> of them is so nebulous that they could mean practically anything.
>
> -Cite?

Yes, please provide a cite to where Behe makes his definitions explicit.

> In
>>>> the above paper, Behe only makes this gaping wound worse by adding the
>>>> purely subjective "well-matched" to the list of criteria.
>>>
>>> -handled.
>>
>> For someone who considers denial the only way to handle anything.
>>
>>>> Note also that Behe again makes explicit that he is pushing the false
>>>> dichotomy you earlier denied he made: Darwinian evolution and
>>>> intelligent design are the only options he allows, but not the only
>>>> options possible.
>>>
>>> He didn't say they were the only option possible, unless I missed a spot?
>>
>> You missed everything, apparently.
>
> The challenge remains:
> -Cite?

Good grief! You gave it yourself!

>>>> Finally, he is explicitly claiming credit for "irreducible complexity".
>>>> It is not his to claim; the idea was expressed earlier by Muller and
>>>> others. Behe is a thief who denies credit where it is due. Why do you
>>>> revere thieves?
>>>
>>> There we go, the compulsory logical fallacy
>>
>> I note the fact that Behe has acted immorally and unprofessionally. I
>> note the evidence that you like that sort of stuff.
>>
>>>> I look on Behe as a litmus test for for ID. His ideas are so obviously
>>>> flawed in so many ways, that anyone who approves of them either is very
>>>> new on the scene or is willfully blinding himself to the flaws and will
>>>> probably never have the courage to face reality.
>>>
>>> -boy, there you go making another sweeping 'truth' statement.
>>> Vaclav Havel would be very disappointed again.
>>
>> So you are back to Egypt again.
>
> What do you mean?

You live in a state of de Nile.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/25/15 4:57 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 January 2015 12:26:59 UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 1/23/15 12:43 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Friday, 23 January 2015 13:12:02 UTC-7, deadrat wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> It's called false dichotomy. In this case, you, Behe, and the other
>>>> idiots assume there are two choice -- Evolution has an explanation for
>>>> everything or there's an intelligent designer.
>>>
>>> True, there's not technically a dichotomy between certain
>>> definitions of evolution and ID.
>>>
>>> But a true dichotomy can be drawn between naturalistic and
>>> intelligent causes. It's just a matter of tidying up your
>>> rhetoric.
>>
>> Not true. The pattern of electrons I am sending your way is both
>> naturalistic and intelligently designed.
>
> Hmmm...no, there's nothing naturalistic about the actual pattern;

The pattern now exists in nature, or rather it did at the time.
Therefore it was naturalistic. Its cause is not relevant to what it *is*.

> the PATTERN encoded in the string of electrons you're sending me
> is actually intelligently designed. We know this because it is
> complex, specified information:

Bullshit. We know this because we know I created it.

The pattern "7vj^Ov8dqla soT;T" is NOT complex specified information,
but it too is intelligently designed.

>>The dichotomy is between
>> natural and supernatural, and even that is problematic because
>> "supernatural" is not defined well enough so that anyone can say for
>> sure what it means.
>
> I agree with you; that is problematic. It's what I like o say: wrong.
> A dichotomy can reasonably be made between designed and undesigned.
> That's the dichotomy Behe uses.

That is the dichotomy Behe would like to use but does not. How could
he? He has no idea what "designed" and "undesigned" look like. No, the
dichotomy which Behe actually uses is "known undesigned" and "unknown",
and then everything in the latter category he *calls* design.

>>> [...]

>>> No, that's not the claim I made. I merely claim that there is
>>> another plausible explanation besides evolution for the
>>> terraforming of the earth.
>>
>> I'll do one better: There are an infinite number of plausible
>> explanations besides evolution for the terraforming of the earth.
>> However, I cannot think of even one, and neither can you.
>
> Sure I can think of an explanation for the terraforming of the earth.
> In fact, I'm doing it right now.

No, you cannot think of a *plausible* explanation. You can think of a
word for an explanation, but you cannot suggest a mechanism, and you
have no evidence.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 6:06:52 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:

> >> You missed everything, apparently.
> >
> > The challenge remains:
> > -Cite?
>
> Good grief! You gave it yourself!
>

This is not the first time he's demanded a citation for a point made by the original article he's linked to.

[Steady Eddie]

Okay, you're right; I was thinking about bits, not electrons.

But the improbability (complexity) of your message is not dependent on the content of the message, it is only dependent on the length of the string.

It's the SPECIFICITY of the string of bits that is demonstrated by the fact that it produces a specified result, i.e. your words appearing on my screen.

For someone to know that your string of bits was intelligently designed rather than random, it has to have both complexity and specificity.
If it was only 2 bits long, it wouldn't be complex enough to tell whether it's random.
If we could not identify a specific purpose or function that the pattern accomplishes, if it didn't cause an english message to appear on my screen, then we likewise wouldn't know whether it is intelligently designed.
What Darwinists tend to forget is the second requirement - specificity to a recognized function or purpose. That's what most often sets sets a designed entity apart from one not designed.

[Steady Eddie]

Say what you want; I don't have time for your crap.

[Steady Eddie]

That's your Darwinian indoctrination talking. You don't know that evolution adds or modifies parts such as appear in the flagellum. It's never been observed, or demonstrated in any way. That's your belief, evidence-free.

See how
> many more things you can think of that evolution does that Behe does not
> account for. If you come up with fewer than two, you fail, but if you
> come up with even one, your failure will not be as bad as Behe's.
>
> > Behe addresses part of that problem in the
> >>>> paper above, but only a small part. There are still several easy ways,
> >>>> which Behe does not address, by which IC can evolve.
> >>>
> >>> So what are you waiting for, a red carpet? Give us one example.
> >>
> >> Start with the two I already gave you.
> >>
> >>>> The second flaw is defining what IC is. What, EXACTLY, are "part",
> >>>> "system", and "function"? These terms *can* be defined, but Behe's use
> >>>> of them is so nebulous that they could mean practically anything.
> >
> > -Cite?
>
> Yes, please provide a cite to where Behe makes his definitions explicit.

fail.

>
> > In
> >>>> the above paper, Behe only makes this gaping wound worse by adding the
> >>>> purely subjective "well-matched" to the list of criteria.
> >>>
> >>> -handled.
> >>
> >> For someone who considers denial the only way to handle anything.
> >>
> >>>> Note also that Behe again makes explicit that he is pushing the false
> >>>> dichotomy you earlier denied he made: Darwinian evolution and
> >>>> intelligent design are the only options he allows, but not the only
> >>>> options possible.
> >>>
> >>> He didn't say they were the only option possible, unless I missed a spot?
> >>
> >> You missed everything, apparently.
> >
> > The challenge remains:
> > -Cite?
>
> Good grief! You gave it yourself!

fail.

>
> >>>> Finally, he is explicitly claiming credit for "irreducible complexity".
> >>>> It is not his to claim; the idea was expressed earlier by Muller and
> >>>> others. Behe is a thief who denies credit where it is due. Why do you
> >>>> revere thieves?
> >>>
> >>> There we go, the compulsory logical fallacy
> >>
> >> I note the fact that Behe has acted immorally and unprofessionally. I
> >> note the evidence that you like that sort of stuff.
> >>
> >>>> I look on Behe as a litmus test for for ID. His ideas are so obviously
> >>>> flawed in so many ways, that anyone who approves of them either is very
> >>>> new on the scene or is willfully blinding himself to the flaws and will
> >>>> probably never have the courage to face reality.
> >>>
> >>> -boy, there you go making another sweeping 'truth' statement.
> >>> Vaclav Havel would be very disappointed again.
> >>
> >> So you are back to Egypt again.
> >
> > What do you mean?
>
> You live in a state of de Nile.

LOL good one.