Posted on 02/18/2004 3:41:01 PM PST by Heartlander
Seems many Evo-Reactionaries are also "reading-challenged"
Does the word God appear anywhere in the article that is the topic of this thread? NO!
Does the author say or imply "God knows", "science is wrong", or "Man can know nothing"? NO! (not even close)
You Evo-Reactionaries seem to have one answer to any challenge made to your beloved theory and you use it even when it is totally inapplicable.
Read the article and try again.
If God is not the "Intelligent Designer", then who is?
Still no definition.
Observing design does not in any way shape or form require one to define the designer - that is a very "unscientific" statement. You assume a lot. This article just supports the concept of Irreducible Complexity (a concept first put forth by Darwin), it says nothing about creation or god.
Some people think there are "Reds" or commies under their beds, <1/1,000,000th% thinks there are "god worshipers" hiding under his bed.
Irreducible complexity is older than Darwin. The concept of the Designer was universally acknowledged at the time to be God.
You are merely baiting me, as irreducible complexity presumes a Designer. Otherwise why not give a definition of complexity that is workable?
Like they say, any PR is good PR.
…reminds me of a story from my youth. I grew up is a small town called Damascus Maryland (not so small now), a suburb of Washington, DC. In the town there used to be one grocery store, Acme (I swear I saw the Coyote shopping there often). The parking lot was on the side of the store which was just a big empty brick wall. One day somebody spray painted in very large letters "(some guy's name) sucks (male genitalia)" on the side wall of the Acme. It was up for a while so everybody in town got to see it. Years later I was in a band with some older guys and they mentioned they know the guy that was the subject of the graffiti. I asked "what was his reaction" - I was told his position was "any PR is good PR"
I did not write the article that is the topic of this thread. This is what the author has to say:
A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
My opinion: A system that has no function/value/benefit unless all parts are in place and functioning - even if some of the other part have unrelated purpose.
My dog is this fight is going after the intellectual laziness of our Evo-Reactionary friends. I am not a partisan in this battle other than that.
Make that "My dog in this fight"
Irreducible Complexity has nothing directly to do with the concept of design. So you say the concept of IC came BEFORE Darwin - really. Please explain the context of Irreducible Complexity BEFORE the theory of evolution was composed.
You are merely baiting me, as irreducible complexity presumes a Designer. Otherwise why not give a definition of complexity that is workable?
You assume a lot. Using your logic, if the police found a murder victim they must presume who the murderer is. Science does not work that way - one can observe evidence without understanding the cause.
I pointed out that you clearly did not read the article because you claimed the article made statements that are clearly not contained in the article - you merely presented Evo-Reactionary reply #1 (even though it was totally illogical and inapplicable).
BTW: I have presented both the author's definition of the Irreducible Complexity and my opinion. Unless you are merely baiting me, you need to admit a definition exists and has existed for years.
Try this one:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Historians are not embarrassed by the fact that they cannot yet tell us, and probably never will be able to tell us, whether Alexander the Great arranged for the assassination of Philip II of Macedonia--or closer to the present, whether Oswald acted alone. This unrepairable ignorance does not conceal any abyss, however. It does not open the door, for instance, to the hypothesis that Zeus had a hand in Philip's death, or that Oswald was aided by Martians. In the same spirit, we may encounter unrepairable ignorance of the history of evolution, but this will not open the door to hypotheses about the intervention of an intelligent designer unless somebody can show that the work to be done during this history could not possibly be done by mindless evolution by natural selection.
The title of the posted article contradicts your posted definition.
Your murder scene analogy breaks down as well. Since at this point irreducible complexity still has no meaning, according to the posted article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.