The Designer himself!
Posted on 02/18/2004 3:41:01 PM PST by Heartlander
My definition - WHAT are you talking about? Those are the words of Charles Darwin.
Title of this thread: "Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions"
Darwin's words: "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."
Please explain the contradiction - it seems to only exist in your mind.
Your murder scene analogy breaks down as well.
Really? How?
Since at this point irreducible complexity still has no meaning, according to the posted article
Darwin defines the term. This article defines the term. Seems your head is inserted firmly in the sand (although some may substitute a bodily orifice for the sand).
This is an illogical statement. This person is saying one cannot formulate a hypotheses unless said hypothesis can be proved to be the only possible explanation. This is utter nonsense.
I assume you'll say they're irreducibly complex too. Then we'll go right down through molecules to atoms to quarks.
It's irreducible complexity all the way down.
It's just as I stated in my post you originally responded to, everything's irreducibly complex. The term doesn't mean anything.
No it does not. Like I said, you seem to be a wee bit reading-challenged. The titles says:
"Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions"
Nobody is claiming anything about "sub-systems" nor has there been any mention of "perfectly functioning sub-systems"
HINT: The opposition to IC claims that some PARTS of the systems have other purposes.
Repeating unsupported gibberish does not make it any less unsupported gibberish. Nobody has claimed everything is irreducibly complex (except you and you have provided no supporting evidence for your claim).
Miller’s argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That’s it! He doesn’t show how natural selection could do so; he doesn’t cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible; he doesn’t give a theoretical model. He just points to the greater-than-expected complexity of the flagellum (which Darwinists did not predict or expect) and declares that Darwinian processes could produce it. This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely.
The authors is saying "finding a secondary purpose for SOME of the parts of an IC component does not explain how it could evolve using the Darwinian process"
If you believe otherwise, please explain how it could evolve using the Darwinian process. I know that might interrupt your Evo-Reactionary victory dance - but heck - give it a try.
Yes, the proposition you presented is indeed utter nonsense. But it's not what Dennett, the quoted author, said. You didn't fully understand his statement. He is addressing what is actually the fundamental premise of Intelligent Design: that natural processes absolutely cannot account for certain phenomena (and for that specific reason evolution cannot be the explanation for such phenomena). That's the claim of the ID advocates. That is the proposition which they must somehow demonstrate, before it becomes reasonable to speculate about non-natural processes, such as an "intelligent designer."
So according to you, parts of a system with other functions aren't functioning systems. So you deny that these parts of systems that have functions are systems???
If you weren't so busy with your insults maybe you could write a coherent statement. I believe you're just ducking the whole issue.
Basically if there are no examples of irreducibly complex systems, you're still left with only a Designer, because that's where you started.
You just restated the same thing. "that natural processes absolutely cannot account for certain phenomena" - You are claiming the ID hypothesis is only possible after one proves all other hypotheses are not true. That is absurd.
The "natural process" or evolution cannot explain IC so the ID hypothesis is very much valid. Using that logic ID advocates can merely say "the fundamental premise of evolution: that intelligent design processes absolutely cannot account for certain phenomena (and for that pecific reason ID cannot be the explanation for such phenomena)"
The double-edge sword strikes again
1. That was the title of this thread so it is not "according to me"
2. If a part has function it is not a system - it is a part that has a function. If the part functions as a part of a system, it is part of a functioning system.
3. What are you talking about? What is the point to these silly statements?
If you weren't so busy with your insults maybe you could write a coherent statement. I believe you're just ducking the whole issue.
Yeah. Right. You jumped into this thread making statements about "God did it" when the word God does not appear in the article then you have the nerve to comment about somebody else not presenting a coherent statement.
Basically if there are no examples of irreducibly complex systems, you're still left with only a Designer, because that's where you started.
An example of IC has been presented (and you have not refuted it) so clearly you are sticking your head in the sand by claiming no examples exist. (closing your eyes does not make things go away)
From your quote, Dennett invokes mindful and intelligent situations and puts forth, “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” – Zeus and Martians aside… He doesn’t even seem to be concerned with the actual names of the intelligent actors in these situations. Of course an ‘universal acid’ would dissolve any skyhook that he mindfully created.
Anyway, great stuff Pat!
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.