Replies

I think we happen to be talking past each other -- this remark wasn't addressed to you, but to your disputant, who was mocking Christians by claiming that they accepted the forensic standard for putting someone to death, but not for establishing the details of the clotting cascade or for agreeing that details of evolution are sufficiently established.

All I was doing was pointing out was that different disciplines have (by necessity) different evidentiary standards. I was echoing the apologist C.S. Lewis .

Cheers!

Sorry Grey- I thought you were infering ID had two goals for forensics that only fit when we want htem to- I misread the intent of your post I’m afraid. You speak poetically, and it was a bit hard to decifer what you were alluding to.

Just so others are know htough, ID is a strict forensic sceince- it follows the evidence, and infers both that nature in a darwinistic RM+NS process is incapable of the ID and IC seen in life, and that an intelligence is needed- but strict ID doesn’t posit who or what the intelligence might be- Some ID’ists even htink that nature is still capable of the intelligence, but they are welcome to hteir mistaken belief beyond hte forensic science :)

I was thinking about Miller’s argument that blood clotting macroevolved, and his whole arguement is akin to looking at a ceuarberator in a car, and a fuel injection system in another vehicle, and claiming that the fuel injection system isn’t irreducibly complex because a ‘simpler version’ of gasoline injection is known to exist in the form of earlier carbeurators, and htey lack key components that fuel injeciton systems have, and these simpler carbeurators ‘work just fine without those key components’, and that, given enough time, and hte forces of nature, and IF certain circumstances happened just right, and in certain sequences, until the ‘modified carbeurator parts’ were all realigned just so, then the more complex fuel injection system ‘could have evolved’, and htereofre, the fuel injection system can’t be concidered irreducibly complex.

Of course is obvious htough that it would take a mechanic/machinist to remodel all the parts of hte carbeurator, Reshaping them, transforming them into parts necessary for fuel injection, and assemble them and fit htem all together, tweak them until the newly fomed fuel injection system works as it’s supposed to, and Miller’s ‘explanation’ for how more complex blood clotting ‘could evovle’ is nothign short of what a mechanic would have to do in order to create a fuel injeciton system out of hte raw materials used in a carbeurator.

Basically, Miller discovered the process by which God created the IC in blood clotting, and using God’s model, he deconstructed the model, then basically made nature bow to his criteria for shaping, transforming, and modeling cells in a directed, controlled, protected, and disciplined manner in his examples, and hten states “See? It ‘could happen’, therefore complex blood clotting can’t be irreducibly complex because ismpelr versions exist without key components in complex clottign systems. (The problem is that nature would have to act according to Miller in an intelligently designed manner for everythign to happen ‘just so’ so as higher complexity blood clotting coudl take place, in a supposedly ‘purely natural fashion’)

God was not above using the laws of nature to create- however, a close forensic examination of hte methods used during creation show that He made nature conform to His will in very specificly directed manner in order to accomplish the end goal- Irreducible complexities. Poinying to simpler homologicly similar systems and claiming that these simpler version ‘could evolve’ IF certian natural laws are controlled in a directed manner is an absurd argument that only goes to defeat the argument by showing that ID was behind the manipulation of nature to create both systems- including IC in vertebrate clotting systems which is unique and different than jawles fish clotting system altogether.

this remark wasn't addressed to you, but to your disputant, who was mocking Christians

Didn't your momma teach you that lying is a sin?

If you think that by mocking hypocrites I am mocking Christians, you must have a pretty low opinion of Christians.

Here's the offending passage:

I find it odd that conservatives find the methods of forensic science adequately trustworthy to convict and execute criminals, but doubt it when "the glove don't fit" their religious beliefs.

I should have said "some conservatives."

I am mocking those who accept forensic science when it is convenient and deny it when it is inconvenient.

There is no virtue in accepting DNA evidence when a person's life is on the line and saying it's all a matter of interpretation when the debate is academic.