Replies

Joe, Joe, Joe...(sigh). You really are the poster-child for gainsaying and gratuitous assertion. It's like you think you appear logical by affecting a "Spock-like" demeanor.

Unfortunately for you, such qualifications are determined by those who know using indicators completely outside your realm of competence and/or experience.

You can't fool a frenchman by affecting a french accent.

But it was coined by CS Lewis, not Michael Behe.

While I freely admit the horrid grammar I used (after posting) to make this point, I think you get the point that neologisms are nothing new, and gain wide acceptance by those needing a term to descibe uncatagorized phenomena. (C.f. Jeff Cooper's term "hoplophobe.")

So your disparagment of the term "irreducable complexity" is rather petty and pedantic, as it describes a perfectly legitimate concept I've already elaborated on. If you have a problem with it, simply demonstrate it's self contradiction instead of pompously asserting the term has no validity, because those who don't like it don't use it.

And "bulverism" implies some kind of ad homenim disparagement, which I didn't do.

And there's the gainsaying. My post #57 demonstrates "ad hominem disparagement" is EXACTLY what you did. Your denial does not change the FACT of what you wrote.

And, it turns out that Michael Behe is an anti-evolutionist, by the way. Otherwise, nice try, FRiend.

It's not a "try." Behe says so himself in "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism." I can not provide a proper reference as I own the audiobook, and it's not worth 13 dollars to me to fully document your false assertion.

Nevertheless, that Behe is not a "Darwinist," has no bearing on his being an evolutionist; the fact of which I'm sure escapes you.

Further, "bulverism" or no, my argument in post #48 is exactly correct:

"Exactly correct?" Dear Joe, the assertion you refer to ISN'T EVEN AN ARGUMENT! It's a gratuitous assertion (which according to the rules of logic can be just as gratuitously be denied). You provide no premise justifying, let alone connecting, your conclusion, whatsoever. It is only by the variant definition of "disagreement" that your assertion can be called anything approaching an "argument" in the Aristotelean sense.

Both "irreducibly complex" and "intelligent design" are themselves "studied ignorance", indeed arguments from ignorance:
"because I can't figure this out naturally, and certainly don't want to, therefore it must be irreducibly complex intelligent design."

Not at all! Aside from your continued dependence on gratuitous assertions, forensics is a universally respected field of scientific inquiry, the sole exception being when it's applied to evolutionary theory. And while your side loves to hoodwink its novice devotees, such as yourself, by falsely claiming intelligent design is an "argument from ignorance," it fails to point out the inescapable truth that claiming evolution can do something they can't demonstrate is EXACTLY THE SAME ignorance as claiming evolution can't, except with forensics as a guide, there's far more reason to side with "can't" than there is with conjectural "can."

At this point, i think i have adequately DEMONSTRATED to any fair minded observer the vapid nature of your rhetorical complaints (i just can't bring myself to credit you for an "argument"), and so will forgo further point-by-point refutation of your prattle.

papertyger: "At this point, i think i have adequately DEMONSTRATED to any fair minded observer the vapid nature of your rhetorical complaints (i just can't bring myself to credit you for an "argument"), and so will forgo further point-by-point refutation of your prattle. "

But you've demonstrated nothing -- zero, zip, nada demonstrated -- all you've really done in gainsaid & bulverized whatever you dislike.

Typical.

Now that I have more time, let's look at your many gratuitous assertions, one by one, shall we?

papertyger: "Joe, Joe, Joe...(sigh)"

Paper, paper, paper {sigh}

papertyger: "You really are the poster-child for gainsaying and gratuitous assertion."

Says Ms. Gainsayer G. Assertion.

papertyger: "It's like you think you appear logical by affecting a 'Spock-like' demeanor. "

Nothing Spock-like about me, but I do have an exercise to test your ability to think logically, if any. See below.

papertyger: "Unfortunately for you, such qualifications are determined by those who know using indicators completely outside your realm of competence and/or experience."

So first you fantasize Dr. Spock, now you imagine rejecting him.
Makes me wonder which Spock is the real man of your dreams?

Will try this again, with my lap-top**:

papertyger: "It's like you think you appear logical by affecting a 'Spock-like' demeanor."

"Spock-like"?
Which Spock? Ben? or S'chn T'gai?

I plead innocence of both "demeanors", though way back in the day, we did use Ben's books to help raise our children (yeh, they turned out great, despite Spock!) and what about S'chn T'gai?
Well, I like the young S'chn T'gai but not as much as the original, Leonard Nimoy.

;-)

papertyger: "Unfortunately for you, such qualifications are determined by those who know using indicators completely outside your realm of competence and/or experience."

Now you are simply fantasizing both a "Spock-like demeanor" and your supposed rejection of my "qualifications".
That's not an argument, it's not even a put-down, it's just silly, FRiend.

papertyger: "While I freely admit the horrid grammar I used (after posting) to make this point, I think you get the point that neologisms are nothing new..."

Actually, you've admitted nothing, because that was not your mistake, or your point in post #53.

" 'Irreducible Complexity' is a perfectly valid, non self contradictory, concept.
The term (like 'Bulverism') was coined by Michael Behe (an evolutionist, by the way) of Lehigh University to describe a concept that was not previously acknowledged or catalogued"

Your mistake was not grammar, it was forgetting that the word "bulverism" was coined by CS Lewis, not Behe.
Your point was to define the term "irreducible complexity", not sing a paean to the value of neologisms in general.
Further, Behe is an anti-evolutionist, another mistake you won't own up to.
And I should note here you put a lot of store in your term: "non self contradictory"
Of course papertyger (or other anti-scientists) would be the sole judge & jury on what is, or is not, "non-self contradictory", right?

papertyger: "So your disparagment of the term "irreducable complexity" is rather petty and pedantic, as it describes a perfectly legitimate concept I've already elaborated on."

No, not "petty and pedantic" but concise & to the point because I think your definition is pure nonsense.
Why? Because it actually defines nothing, tells us nothing about anything except your (argument from ignorance) opinion that such-and-such seems "too complex" to have arisen naturally.
Then you assert, without any physical evidence whatever, that if it's "too complex" it must be "intelligent design".
That's simply ignorance supporting non sequitur.

Apparently you wish, with one term ("irreducible complexity") to require science to describe a natural process for it, which you will call "inadequate" (based on your ignorance) and then triumphally declare: "intelligent design", a non-sequitur.

papertyger: "...simply demonstrate it's self contradiction... "

Obviously, in this case "self contradiction" is in the eyes of the beholder, but I would ask:

Can you precisely define which exact DNA alleles are "irreducibly complex" and which are not? Of course not.
Do you even have decision rules which say: if xyz exists then "irreducibly complex", if anything else then not? Of course not.
Is there some quantifiable threshold for natural-explanations which can move some DNA allele from your "irreducibly complex" category to not? Of course not.

And that's because there's nothing scientific about "irreducible complexity", it's strictly a theological term, intended to point towards God's Creative actions, and discourage natural-science understandings.

papertyger: "And there's the gainsaying.
My post #57 demonstrates "ad hominem disparagement" is EXACTLY what you did.
Your denial does not change the FACT of what you wrote. "

But your gainsaid bulverism in post #57 is nothing more than a primal scream, conveying no actual information beyond: "I disagree and I dislike you."
You do the "ad hominem disparagement" you accuse me of.
But in fact, there's nothing "ad hominem" about my posts, whether disparaging or not, because I've never attacked personally you, or anybody else, in the way you routinely use against other posters on these threads.

papertyger: "that Behe is not a 'Darwinist,' has no bearing on his being an evolutionist; the fact of which I'm sure escapes you."

What escapes me is how you pseudo-science anti-scientists can fantasize a distinction between "evolutionist" and "Darwinist".

"In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box he called this irreducible complexity and said it made evolution through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5]"

Sorry, but by any reasonable definition, someone who claims that evolution is impossible cannot be an "evolutionist" or "Darwinist" or even a serious natural-scientist for that matter.

papertyger: "Dear Joe, the assertion you refer to ISN'T EVEN AN ARGUMENT!
It's a gratuitous assertion (which according to the rules of logic can be just as gratuitously be denied)."

It's also an observed fact: "irreducible complexity" is an argument from ignorance, equivalent to the media's "Russia, Russia, Russia" claims meaning: ill-defined and supported by no evidence whatever.
It amounts to claiming: "if you can't prove, to my satisfaction, that I'm wrong, then I'm right."

That makes "irreducible complexity" a theological opinion, not observed fact or even scientific hypothesis.

papertyger: "...forensics is a universally respected field of scientific inquiry, the sole exception being when it's applied to evolutionary theory."

A most curious claim, seemingly apropos of nothing, why is it even here?
Why would forensics be respected for solving crimes, but not for understanding fossils?

papertyger: "And while your side loves to hoodwink its novice devotees, such as yourself, by falsely claiming intelligent design is an "argument from ignorance," it fails to point out the inescapable truth that claiming evolution can do something they can't demonstrate is EXACTLY THE SAME ignorance as claiming evolution can't, except with forensics as a guide, there's far more reason to side with "can't" than there is with conjectural "can." "

So, let me see if I "get" this -- in your mind forensics used to solve crimes is good, forensics used to solve ancient fossils is bad?
Regardless, arguments for natural-evolution theory are far from ignorance.
And, as Behe himself admitted, under oath:

"...during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[111]"

Finally, just so we're clear on this point: I consider the entire Universe to be intelligently designed by God and, in a sense (i.e., "big bang"), irreducibly complex, but I see no evidence suggesting how much of its natural functioning is effected by Divine Interventions and how much is simply part of the Universe's "natural DNA" established at the moment of its "conception", the "big bang".

** tablets are inherently more difficult to use and much easier to make mistakes with.
As I said: better than nothing, but just barely.