[lonestar67]

Irreducible complexity is a concept that is probably dominant in science rather than exceptional.

Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.

I have no personal disagreement with evolutionary biology as a study but I do reject the outrageous censorship of scientiests such as Behe. Students should be able to access the controversies of evolution rather than be dogmatically told that all questioners are practicing pseudo science.

[Antonello]

Irreducible complexity is a concept that is probably dominant in science rather than exceptional.

Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.

I have no personal disagreement with evolutionary biology as a study but I do reject the outrageous censorship of scientiests such as Behe. Students should be able to access the controversies of evolution rather than be dogmatically told that all questioners are practicing pseudo science.

You forgot to mention a couple of examples of irreducible complexity throughout the ages that could only be attributed to the presence of a God. Let me help you out...

* Lightning
* Rain
* Fire
* Eclipses
* Earthquakes
* Disease
* Tidal Waves
* Volcanoes
* 'Shooting Stars'

I'm sure I missed a few, but hopefully this helps make your point that Goddidit has been with us throughout history.

[Coyoteman]

Students should be able to access the controversies of evolution rather than be dogmatically told that all questioners are practicing pseudo science.

Actually I had a couple of courses way back in grad school which dealt directly with the controversies of evolution; I suspect this kind of course is taught all the time.

And no, there was no mention of CS (ID not having been dreamed up yet). The courses stuck to science.

[Rudder]

...censorship of scientiests such as Behe.

Behe wasn't functioning as a scientist when he formulated his ID theories...there's not a bit of science in ID.

Actually science welcomes critiques that are meaningful and generated by data derived via the scientific method. In fact, that is exactly the way science progresses.

ID is actually sophistry.

[RogueIsland]

Irreducible complexity is a concept that is probably dominant in science rather than exceptional. Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.

Go back and read my post. My criticism was specifically targeted at Behe's definition of IC, upon which he bases his argument. Since his definition is fundamentally flawed, any conclusions vis-a-vis the Theory of Evolution that he derives from it are equally suspect.

[atlaw]

Irreducible complexity is a concept that is probably dominant in science rather than exceptional.

Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.

What does identification of causation have to do with irreducible complexity? And what's irreducibly complex about forensic medicine?

Seems to me that if you've identified a cause, you're most likely looking at a "reducibly complex" item or event. It also seems to me that forensics of any type is the antithesis of irreducible complexity.

I have no personal disagreement with evolutionary biology as a study but I do reject the outrageous censorship of scientiests such as Behe.

Behe has been censored? When and how? He seems to be raking in some pretty good money from sales of his "censored" books.