Replies

Behe argues that this tiny flagellar motor needs all of its parts to function—is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function.

This won't work. First of all the whole concept of "irreducibly complex" has to pass the BS test and Behe's claims don't. The short of it is that just because Behe and others can't figure out how the given supposedly irreducibly complex item or system came into being doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it just means that they can't figure it out or that they don't understand. Neither case negates evolution.

Also, evolution does not require functional systems at each transition along the way. Any and all of the steps between start and end can be non functional as long as they aren't detrimental to the species ability to have viable offspring. As an example, the bones of our ears were evolved from gills. At many points during that transition it is unlikely that the apparatus functioned as either hearing or breathing systems.

it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behe’s argument is testable.

No, Miller is showing that his argument is testable, not Behe’s. He may well be able to disprove some aspect of Behe’s assertion by doing so, but he is not testing specifically to do that.

Judge Jones is right that ID is a purely negative argument.

Hello again. I really am enjoying this. By the way, I appreciate your input and assessment of these articles. I hope that I'm not inconveniencing you by asking you to read these brief articles. I do have a very brief article that seems to refute the claim that ID is "purely negative". I'd like to post them here (instead of starting a whole new thread), because they seem relevant to specific objections raised here. Here is the link:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546

Please take a quick look (I'd enjoy your feedback).