info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Pro Plyd Fails Miserably to Justify the Claim that Behe's Theory is Unscientific with his Dover Transcript Quote Mine
50 views
Skip to first unread message
T Pagano
Mar 22, 2018, 8:30:04 AM3/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:08:03 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:25 -0500, RonO wrote:
[NOTE: Employing top quoting. Pro Plyd's quote mine can be found below
my comments.]
********************PRO PLYD FAILS MISERABLY*******************
1. Pro Plyd fails miserably to demonstrate that Behe's definition of
"scientific theory" is defective or that it taints his theory of
"irreducible complexity" as unscientific.
2. Pro Plyd apparently failed to read the almost 300 pages of Behe's Day
10 testimony which explains---in detail----how the NAS's definition is
not used by secular scientists in practice and how "his" definition is
more broadly accurate as the definition used in practice by secular
scientists. How NAS's definition has not only admitted to science,
theories that are not well-substantiated, but also ones which are frauds,
false and unfalsifiable.
2. Pro Plyd demonstrates why quote mining (out of context quotes) ends
up making the user look like a fool
3. Pro Plyd's attempt will be added to the failed attempts to find a
flaw in ID theory.
**********************WHAT ARE THE DEFINITIONS?*****************
1. NAS Definition of Theory (from Behe's Dover transcript): "a well
substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can
incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
2. Behe's Broader Definition (from Behe's Dover transcript): "a
scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to
physical, observable data and
logical inferences."
3. Other than "well-substantiated" the definitions are, for all practical
purposes the same.
***********NAS DEFINITION IS RARELY USED IN PRACTICE*******************
3. Behe makes clear in his Day 10 PM testimony that the NAS definition
is overly restrictive and is almost always deviated from by the
scientific community and in the scientific literature. The label
"theory" often refers to ideas, explanations and concepts which may or
may not be well-substantiated.
4. During Astrology's heyday (up until the mid-1500s) it would have
easily met both definitions.
****THEORIES ARE ADMITTED TO SCIENCE AS TENTATIVE NOT CERTIFIED TRUE****
5. Behe clearly implies in his testimony given below by Pro Plyd (and
during his Day 10 testimony) that the test of a theory is not in its
admission to science but whether it survives testing "after" being
admitted. This is because all theories admitted to science are tentative
and not certified as true.
(a) In this respect he follows the well-respected Philosopher of
Science Sir Karl Popper (and others).
(b) Behe implies in his testimony (given below by Pro Plyd) that
a false theory is removed from science and on his Day 10 AM testimony
that an unfalsifiable theory should be removed.
(c) Behe's point is that while a wide variety of explanations
might be admitted with his broader definition this is no defect because
(1) theories are always tentative,
(2) theories which prove to be false are removed,
(3) theories which are unfalsifiable are removed.
(4) the conclusion from Behe's testimony: Astrology is
unfalsifiable and hence unscientific and removed from
science.
NAS'S DEFINITION IMPLIES THAT ONLY CERTIFIED THEORIES MAKE IT INTO SCIENCE
6. Behe points out in his Day 10 PM testimony that the NAS uses its
definition of "scientific theory" as an entrance requirement that
"certifies" theories before they are admitted to science. Behe points
out that Haekel's biogenic law, for example, was admitted to science and
appeared in science textbooks up until about 1990 until it was discovered
to be a fraud. Apparently the biogenic law was not "well-substantiated"
but was nonetheless admitted to science. In his Day 10 testimony Behe
makes crystal clear with several examples that the NAS definition was no
guarantee in history and is no guarantee in the future of a theory's
"scientific" standing, its truthlikeness, quality or longevity.
7. Behe also points out in his Day 10 AM testimony that Darwin's theory
of Natural Selection which has been admitted to science has virtually no
confirmations concerning the purported creation of novelty----its
PRINCIPLE PURPOSE. Darwin stated in the introduction to his magnum opus
that Natural Selection was SPECIFICALLY offered to explain the creation
of design. There is no physical evidence that this is true. That is,
the theory of "natural selection" is NOT well-substantiated yet it is
nonetheless admitted to science. Behe also pointed out in his Day 10 AM
testimony that (in this instance) Natural Selection was also
unfalsifiable. Evolutionists claim we simply haven't waited long enough
for confirmations----natural selection has been shielded from
falsification.
8. NAS's use of its definition of "scientific theory" as an admission
requirement to science which (purportedly) certifies a theory as "worthy"
rarely results in a theory that stands the test of time. The history of
science has shown that in practice this "certification" is worthless. It
has admitted into science frauds, false theories and unfalsifiable ones.
****************************************************************************
>>>
>>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-
>> theory-courtroom-told/
>>>
>>> Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
>>> same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to
>>> justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on
>>> Tuesday.
>>
>> Here Pro Plyd doesn't produce the criteria. What criteria was used by
>> Behe to establish the scientific nature of his theory? And how was
>> that criteria used to justify Astrology as scientific?
>>
>> Accusations are easy to make, but less easy to sustain. Especially
>> since Pro Plyd might not be able to explain what makes a theory
>> scientific himself.
>
> Day 11 afternoon:
>
> https://www.aclupa.org/files/8713/1404/6696/Day11PMSession.pdf
>
> Scroll down to page 34, line 5, where it begins:
>
> 5 Q Now, you claim that intelligent design is a 6 scientific theory.
> 7 A Yes.
> 8 Q But when you call it a scientific theory, you re 9 not defining that
> term the same way that the National 10 Academy of Sciences does.
> 11 A Yes, that s correct.
>
>
> and continue to at least page 42.
>
> Of note:
>
> Page 37 5 Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your 6 testimony
> over the last two days, you used a looser 7 definition of "theory,"
> correct?
> 8 A I think I used a broader definition, which is more 9 reflective of
> how the word is actually used in the 10 scientific community.
>
>
> and page 38 18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a 19 scientific
> theory under your definition, correct?
> 20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a 21 proposed
> explanation which focuses or points to physical, 22 observable data and
> logical inferences.
> 23 things throughout the history of science which we now think 24 to be
> incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which 25 would fit that
> definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
>
>
> and page 39 6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the 7
> definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is 8 also a
> scientific theory, correct?
> 9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my 10 definition of
> the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the 11 word "theory" does not
> include the theory being true, it 12 means a proposition based on
> physical evidence to explain 13 some facts by logical inferences. There
> have been many 14 theories throughout the history of science which
> looked good 15 at the time which further progress has shown to be 16
> incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that 17 because they
> were incorrect they were not theories. So many 18 many things that we
> now realized to be incorrect, incorrect 19 theories, are nonetheless
> theories.
> T Pagano wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:25 -0500, RonO wrote:
[NOTE: Employing top quoting. Pro Plyd's quote mine can be found below
my comments.]
********************PRO PLYD FAILS MISERABLY*******************
1. Pro Plyd fails miserably to demonstrate that Behe's definition of
"scientific theory" is defective or that it taints his theory of
"irreducible complexity" as unscientific.
2. Pro Plyd apparently failed to read the almost 300 pages of Behe's Day
10 testimony which explains---in detail----how the NAS's definition is
not used by secular scientists in practice and how "his" definition is
more broadly accurate as the definition used in practice by secular
scientists. How NAS's definition has not only admitted to science,
theories that are not well-substantiated, but also ones which are frauds,
false and unfalsifiable.
2. Pro Plyd demonstrates why quote mining (out of context quotes) ends
up making the user look like a fool
3. Pro Plyd's attempt will be added to the failed attempts to find a
flaw in ID theory.
**********************WHAT ARE THE DEFINITIONS?*****************
1. NAS Definition of Theory (from Behe's Dover transcript): "a well
substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can
incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
2. Behe's Broader Definition (from Behe's Dover transcript): "a
scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to
physical, observable data and
logical inferences."
3. Other than "well-substantiated" the definitions are, for all practical
purposes the same.
***********NAS DEFINITION IS RARELY USED IN PRACTICE*******************
3. Behe makes clear in his Day 10 PM testimony that the NAS definition
is overly restrictive and is almost always deviated from by the
scientific community and in the scientific literature. The label
"theory" often refers to ideas, explanations and concepts which may or
may not be well-substantiated.
4. During Astrology's heyday (up until the mid-1500s) it would have
easily met both definitions.
****THEORIES ARE ADMITTED TO SCIENCE AS TENTATIVE NOT CERTIFIED TRUE****
5. Behe clearly implies in his testimony given below by Pro Plyd (and
during his Day 10 testimony) that the test of a theory is not in its
admission to science but whether it survives testing "after" being
admitted. This is because all theories admitted to science are tentative
and not certified as true.
(a) In this respect he follows the well-respected Philosopher of
Science Sir Karl Popper (and others).
(b) Behe implies in his testimony (given below by Pro Plyd) that
a false theory is removed from science and on his Day 10 AM testimony
that an unfalsifiable theory should be removed.
(c) Behe's point is that while a wide variety of explanations
might be admitted with his broader definition this is no defect because
(1) theories are always tentative,
(2) theories which prove to be false are removed,
(3) theories which are unfalsifiable are removed.
(4) the conclusion from Behe's testimony: Astrology is
unfalsifiable and hence unscientific and removed from
science.
NAS'S DEFINITION IMPLIES THAT ONLY CERTIFIED THEORIES MAKE IT INTO SCIENCE
6. Behe points out in his Day 10 PM testimony that the NAS uses its
definition of "scientific theory" as an entrance requirement that
"certifies" theories before they are admitted to science. Behe points
out that Haekel's biogenic law, for example, was admitted to science and
appeared in science textbooks up until about 1990 until it was discovered
to be a fraud. Apparently the biogenic law was not "well-substantiated"
but was nonetheless admitted to science. In his Day 10 testimony Behe
makes crystal clear with several examples that the NAS definition was no
guarantee in history and is no guarantee in the future of a theory's
"scientific" standing, its truthlikeness, quality or longevity.
7. Behe also points out in his Day 10 AM testimony that Darwin's theory
of Natural Selection which has been admitted to science has virtually no
confirmations concerning the purported creation of novelty----its
PRINCIPLE PURPOSE. Darwin stated in the introduction to his magnum opus
that Natural Selection was SPECIFICALLY offered to explain the creation
of design. There is no physical evidence that this is true. That is,
the theory of "natural selection" is NOT well-substantiated yet it is
nonetheless admitted to science. Behe also pointed out in his Day 10 AM
testimony that (in this instance) Natural Selection was also
unfalsifiable. Evolutionists claim we simply haven't waited long enough
for confirmations----natural selection has been shielded from
falsification.
8. NAS's use of its definition of "scientific theory" as an admission
requirement to science which (purportedly) certifies a theory as "worthy"
rarely results in a theory that stands the test of time. The history of
science has shown that in practice this "certification" is worthless. It
has admitted into science frauds, false theories and unfalsifiable ones.
****************************************************************************
>>>
>>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-
>> theory-courtroom-told/
>>>
>>> Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
>>> same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to
>>> justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on
>>> Tuesday.
>>
>> Here Pro Plyd doesn't produce the criteria. What criteria was used by
>> Behe to establish the scientific nature of his theory? And how was
>> that criteria used to justify Astrology as scientific?
>>
>> Accusations are easy to make, but less easy to sustain. Especially
>> since Pro Plyd might not be able to explain what makes a theory
>> scientific himself.
>
> Day 11 afternoon:
>
> https://www.aclupa.org/files/8713/1404/6696/Day11PMSession.pdf
>
> Scroll down to page 34, line 5, where it begins:
>
> 5 Q Now, you claim that intelligent design is a 6 scientific theory.
> 7 A Yes.
> 8 Q But when you call it a scientific theory, you re 9 not defining that
> term the same way that the National 10 Academy of Sciences does.
> 11 A Yes, that s correct.
>
>
> and continue to at least page 42.
>
> Of note:
>
> Page 37 5 Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your 6 testimony
> over the last two days, you used a looser 7 definition of "theory,"
> correct?
> 8 A I think I used a broader definition, which is more 9 reflective of
> how the word is actually used in the 10 scientific community.
>
>
> and page 38 18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a 19 scientific
> theory under your definition, correct?
> 20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a 21 proposed
> explanation which focuses or points to physical, 22 observable data and
> logical inferences.
> 23 things throughout the history of science which we now think 24 to be
> incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which 25 would fit that
> definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
>
>
> and page 39 6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the 7
> definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is 8 also a
> scientific theory, correct?
> 9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my 10 definition of
> the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the 11 word "theory" does not
> include the theory being true, it 12 means a proposition based on
> physical evidence to explain 13 some facts by logical inferences. There
> have been many 14 theories throughout the history of science which
> looked good 15 at the time which further progress has shown to be 16
> incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that 17 because they
> were incorrect they were not theories. So many 18 many things that we
> now realized to be incorrect, incorrect 19 theories, are nonetheless
> theories.
Mark Isaak
Mar 22, 2018, 1:00:03 PM3/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/22/18 5:25 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> [180 lines of blather defending Behe]
You're making the case needlessly complicated.
1. Fact: Behe's work on irreducible complexity (IC) as it applies to
intelligent design rests entirely on the point that IC cannot evolve via
gradual small steps, at least not nearly fast enough to account for
evolutionary change. Without that point, Behe has nothing.
2. Fact: Several molecular and genetic mechanisms exist, such as
deletion of molecular parts, duplication of large parts of molecular
systems, and gradual modification of parts, which allow IC to evolve via
gradual small steps.
3. Neither of the above two facts are seriously in dispute.
Conclusion: Behe's work on IC, and all subsequent work by others, is
entirely, utterly, absolutely worthless. Behe has nothing.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin
> [180 lines of blather defending Behe]
You're making the case needlessly complicated.
1. Fact: Behe's work on irreducible complexity (IC) as it applies to
intelligent design rests entirely on the point that IC cannot evolve via
gradual small steps, at least not nearly fast enough to account for
evolutionary change. Without that point, Behe has nothing.
2. Fact: Several molecular and genetic mechanisms exist, such as
deletion of molecular parts, duplication of large parts of molecular
systems, and gradual modification of parts, which allow IC to evolve via
gradual small steps.
3. Neither of the above two facts are seriously in dispute.
Conclusion: Behe's work on IC, and all subsequent work by others, is
entirely, utterly, absolutely worthless. Behe has nothing.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin
T Pagano
Mar 22, 2018, 2:50:04 PM3/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:57:15 -0700, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/22/18 5:25 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> [180 lines of blather defending Behe]
>
> You're making the case needlessly complicated.
1. You obviously didn't read Pro Plyd's contention. It had nothing to
> On 3/22/18 5:25 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> [180 lines of blather defending Behe]
>
> You're making the case needlessly complicated.
do with the specifics of Behe's theory and neither did my reply. Pro
Plyd attacked Behe's definition of "theory" (from the Dover Court
transcript) which differed from that of the National Academy of
Sciences. As a result everything below is irrelevant to that discussion.
***********************************************************************
> 1. Fact: Behe's work on irreducible complexity (IC) as it applies to
> intelligent design rests entirely on the point that IC cannot evolve via
> gradual small steps, at least not nearly fast enough to account for
> evolutionary change. Without that point, Behe has nothing.
(a) It was Darwin, in his magnum opus, who reported that similar
kinds systems, if found in nature, would cause problems for his theory.
Behe produced three such observable systems: cellular transport
mechanism, clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum.
(b) Behe's theory says unequivocally that Darwin's "natural
selection" can never attain an IC system; the time available is
irrelevant.
(c) Natural selection is an anthropomorphism for differential
survival and differential reproduction. Since IC systems have NO
function until the IC system is complete there is nothing for
differential survival or differential reproduction to act upon during
some building process.
>
> 2. Fact: Several molecular and genetic mechanisms exist, such as
> deletion of molecular parts, duplication of large parts of molecular
> systems, and gradual modification of parts, which allow IC to evolve via
> gradual small steps.
up with solutions. However all of the solutions to date have no
connection to realistic biological processes.
2. Regardless of how many sources of change might exist it is
differential survival and differential selection that purportedly decides
what gets selected. IC systems have NO function until they are complete
and so there is nothing for differential survival/differential
reproduction to act upon.
>
> 3. Neither of the above two facts are seriously in dispute.
until the system is complete and hence nothing for natural selection to
act upon during any putative building process.
>
> Conclusion: Behe's work on IC, and all subsequent work by others, is
> entirely, utterly, absolutely worthless. Behe has nothing.
don't have a solution. They realize that the systems Behe has identified
are problems for darwin's mechanism. Perhaps a solution will materialize
in the future but no biologically realistic process has been found to
explain IC systems in 22 years.
riskys...@gmail.com
Mar 22, 2018, 10:20:02 PM3/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 2:50:04 PM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
>
> 2. Regardless of how many sources of change might exist it is
> differential survival and differential selection that purportedly decides
> what gets selected. IC systems have NO function until they are complete
> and so there is nothing for differential survival/differential
> reproduction to act upon.
Tell us why IC systems have no function before they are "complete". Can you do it in your own words? I bet you can't. Or won't.
>
> 2. Regardless of how many sources of change might exist it is
> differential survival and differential selection that purportedly decides
> what gets selected. IC systems have NO function until they are complete
> and so there is nothing for differential survival/differential
> reproduction to act upon.
If I remember correctly, Behe's claims are based on "knockout" experiments (done by others). Take a feature that has 17 components, remove one of them entirely, see if the function remains. Repeat with each of the components. If none can be removed without eliminating the function, the feature is IC. Right?
Now what does that tell us?
I say it tells us that the configuration that immediately preceded the current one is very unlikely to have been "16 of the current components, with the 17th entirely missing".
Now, tell us, why is that a problem? No biologists think that's how evolution typically proceeds, by the sequential addition of the current parts, without any of the parts changing. A more expected path would be a configuration of altered parts that perform some version of the function, probably poorly. As evolution refines the performance, altering and removing parts, it is to be expected that a more effective and more efficient configuration would be produced, sometimes one that requires all of its parts.
A function that ceases to work when we entirely remove any one of its current parts is no trouble for evolution.
Mark Isaak
Mar 23, 2018, 2:40:03 AM3/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/22/18 11:48 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:57:15 -0700, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/18 5:25 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> [180 lines of blather defending Behe]
>>
>> You're making the case needlessly complicated.
>
> 1. You obviously didn't read Pro Plyd's contention. It had nothing to
> do with the specifics of Behe's theory and neither did my reply.
Behe was called as witness because of his worthless IC work. It is and
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:57:15 -0700, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/18 5:25 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> [180 lines of blather defending Behe]
>>
>> You're making the case needlessly complicated.
>
> 1. You obviously didn't read Pro Plyd's contention. It had nothing to
> do with the specifics of Behe's theory and neither did my reply.
always has been at the center of your discussion.
> Pro Plyd attacked Behe's definition of "theory" (from the Dover Court
> transcript) which differed from that of the National Academy of
> Sciences.
> As a result everything below is irrelevant to that discussion.
nothing. On the subject of intelligent design, there is exactly zero
reason *ever* to bring up Behe except to show the stupidity of the ID
movement.
> ***********************************************************************
>
>> 1. Fact: Behe's work on irreducible complexity (IC) as it applies to
>> intelligent design rests entirely on the point that IC cannot evolve via
>> gradual small steps, at least not nearly fast enough to account for
>> evolutionary change. Without that point, Behe has nothing.
>
> 1. This glosses over some indispensable details:
> (a) It was Darwin, in his magnum opus, who reported that similar
> kinds systems, if found in nature, would cause problems for his theory.
> Behe produced three such observable systems: cellular transport
> mechanism, clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum.
> (b) Behe's theory says unequivocally that Darwin's "natural
> selection" can never attain an IC system; the time available is
> irrelevant.
> (c) Natural selection is an anthropomorphism for differential
> survival and differential reproduction. Since IC systems have NO
> function until the IC system is complete there is nothing for
> differential survival or differential reproduction to act upon during
> some building process.
IC can easily evolve from already functioning systems. Easily. Very
easily, in a number of different ways.
I am glad, at least, that you agree with my first point without exception.
>> 2. Fact: Several molecular and genetic mechanisms exist, such as
>> deletion of molecular parts, duplication of large parts of molecular
>> systems, and gradual modification of parts, which allow IC to evolve via
>> gradual small steps.
>
> 1. I've never argued that evolutionists lack an imagination for coming
> up with solutions. However all of the solutions to date have no
> connection to realistic biological processes.
that, you are blind as well as stupid. There is nothing hypothetical
about gene duplication, deletion, or point mutations.
>> 3. Neither of the above two facts are seriously in dispute.
>
> 1. But they ignore the nature of an IC System which provides no function
> until the system is complete and hence nothing for natural selection to
> act upon during any putative building process.
conclusions require that IC cannot evolve. IC can easily evolve in a
number of different ways. Case closed. Behe has nothing. Nothing.
RonO
Mar 23, 2018, 7:10:03 AM3/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/22/2018 1:48 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:57:15 -0700, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/18 5:25 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> [180 lines of blather defending Behe]
>>
>> You're making the case needlessly complicated.
>
> 1. You obviously didn't read Pro Plyd's contention. It had nothing to
> do with the specifics of Behe's theory and neither did my reply. Pro
> Plyd attacked Behe's definition of "theory" (from the Dover Court
> transcript) which differed from that of the National Academy of
> Sciences. As a result everything below is irrelevant to that discussion.
You obviously do not understand that this does not detract from Mark's
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:57:15 -0700, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/18 5:25 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> [180 lines of blather defending Behe]
>>
>> You're making the case needlessly complicated.
>
> 1. You obviously didn't read Pro Plyd's contention. It had nothing to
> do with the specifics of Behe's theory and neither did my reply. Pro
> Plyd attacked Behe's definition of "theory" (from the Dover Court
> transcript) which differed from that of the National Academy of
> Sciences. As a result everything below is irrelevant to that discussion.
point. It doesn't matter that IC isn't any type of theory worth calling
a scientific theory. All IC was, was the claim, and IC was just an
untestable hypothesis. Behe claimed that just making the untestable
claim was scientific. Behe's claims about his scientific theory had
about squat to do with what an actual scientific theory like biological
evolution or the theory of gravitation are.
Behe had nothing. He tried to claim that his nothing was still
scientific based on his definition of "theory" that included
unsubstantiated claims that he couldn't back up.
What is considered to be a scientific theory and compare that to Behe's
IC junk.
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
>> 1. Fact: Behe's work on irreducible complexity (IC) as it applies to
>> intelligent design rests entirely on the point that IC cannot evolve via
>> gradual small steps, at least not nearly fast enough to account for
>> evolutionary change. Without that point, Behe has nothing.
>
> 1. This glosses over some indispensable details:
> (a) It was Darwin, in his magnum opus, who reported that similar
> kinds systems, if found in nature, would cause problems for his theory.
> Behe produced three such observable systems: cellular transport
> mechanism, clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum.
> (b) Behe's theory says unequivocally that Darwin's "natural
> selection" can never attain an IC system; the time available is
> irrelevant.
> (c) Natural selection is an anthropomorphism for differential
> survival and differential reproduction. Since IC systems have NO
> function until the IC system is complete there is nothing for
> differential survival or differential reproduction to act upon during
> some building process.
be done to test IC? Both made the claim under oath, but neither ever
attempted to do the testing before (they admitted that they hadn't done
it) and since (no one has claimed to have done it). The test was a
simple concept. If you could evolve a flagellum in a Lenski type
experiment over a period of time IC would be falsified. They were
admitting that all an IC system was, was a system that could not evolve.
If it could evolve it wasn't IC. It was a bogus test because what
starting materials are you going to use? It looks like flagellum have
only evolved twice in the history of life. Not only that, but Minnich
had already looked at the flagellar tail and came up with evidence that
the parts of the tail (an IC part of the system that could not work
without a tail) had evolved by gene duplication in a logical order based
on how they understood the tail to be made by the bacteria. The
phylogeny (yes, Minnich created a phylogeny of the tail proteins that
demonstrated how they had evolved from each other) indicated that the
tail had evolved over a period of millions of years. So how long was
Minnich going to wait for the flagellum to evolve in the lab? We are
talking about something that probably evolved around a billion and a
half years ago.
http://jb.asm.org/content/182/17/5001.long
Figure 1 has the phylogeny of how the parts of the tail are related to
each other. Yes, this is the Minnich of Dover fame, and he published
this work 5 years before Dover. He likely identified the tail proteins
as parts that when you took them away the IC system stopped its normal
function. No tail, no motile function. He described that knock out
gene research during the Dover trial, but he stopped work on the
evolution of the flagellum after publishing this paper. You can look at
all of his research papers and he never again looks at how the parts
were designed. In his testimony Minnich just left out the part about
what he found out when he looked at the IC flagellar parts.
IC was never anything worth discussing as a scientific topic.
Untestable hypotheses are not scientific theories.
Ron Okimoto
Pro Plyd
Apr 10, 2018, 12:25:02 AM4/10/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:08:03 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:25 -0500, RonO wrote:
>
>
Do you need help with the big words?
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:08:03 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:25 -0500, RonO wrote:
>
>
T Pagano
Apr 10, 2018, 8:00:03 AM4/10/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:22:40 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:08:03 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>
>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:25 -0500, RonO wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:08:03 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>
>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:25 -0500, RonO wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:24:25 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:03:04 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
NOTE: Top Posting Being Used.
*****************PRO PLYD RUNS HARD**************************************
1. Pro Plyd ignores the fact that while Behe's definition of Science is
more broad and might admit Astrology it would sweep Astrology out of
science in the next instant due to its inability to be falsified.
2. Pro Plyd also ignores the fact that the NAS's definition of science
attempts to certify theories as unimpeachable "before" entry into
science. But it has failed miserably, repeatedly admitting frauds
(Haekel's Biogenic Law, Piltdown Man, cold fusion), false theories (take
your pick) and theories which are unfalsifiable (natural selection
causing design, dark matter/dark energy, contraction of matter in
motion and others)
******************BEHE CRUSHES PRO PLYD'S CLAIM ***********************
4. Behe clearly implies in his Dover testimony that the test of a theory
is not in its admission to science but whether it survives testing/
criticism "after" being admitted. Why is this so according to Behe:
(a) theories are always tentative,
(b) theories which prove to be false are removed from science,
(c) theories which are unfalsifiable are removed science.
(d) the conclusion from Behe's testimony: Astrology is
unfalsifiable and hence unscientific and removed from
science.
****THE NAS DEFINITION AND IT'S USE OF "THEORY" IS DEFECTIVE***
science.
5. Behe points out in his Dover Testimony where the NAS goes wrong in
its definition and the purported use of it's definition:
(a) In practice, the secular scientific community (and in its
journals) RARELY use the word "theory" to mean "well-substantiated."
(b) The NAS uses its definition of "scientific theory" as an
entrance requirement to science believing that "well-substantiated"
certifies theories as bullet-proof, true or worthy.
(c) Unfortunately the NAS's definition has certified theories
which turned out to be frauds (Haekel's Biogenic Law, Piltdown Man, cold
fusion), false (take your pick) and unfalsifiable (Darwin's theory of
"natural selection").
(c) Since the NAS definition has admitted theories which are NOT
well-substantiated (for example, Darwin's natural selection) those that
stand by the NAS definition are, at best, hypocritical and, at worst,
disingenuous.
(d) And so the NAS's definition is practically worthless as a
guarantor of a theory's "scientific" standing, its truthlikeness, quality
or longevity.
>>
>>
>>
Pro Plyd
Apr 15, 2018, 12:10:04 AM4/15/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:22:40 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:08:03 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>
>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:25 -0500, RonO wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:24:25 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:03:04 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>
"astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?"
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:22:40 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:08:03 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>
>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:25 -0500, RonO wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:24:25 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:03:04 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>
"Yes, that's correct..."
If Behe wants to redefine science, he needs to do that from
the start and get the world to switch to it.
0 new messages