Ah, "bulverism", great word, I love it!
But it was coined by CS Lewis, not Michael Behe.
And "bulverism" implies some kind of ad homenim disparagement, which I didn't do.
And, it turns out that Michael Behe is an anti-evolutionist, by the way.
Otherwise, nice try, FRiend.
Further, "bulverism" or no, my argument in post #48 is exactly correct:
papertyger defining "irreducibly complex": "a functioning mechanism whose constituent parts must be arranged in a specific order for that function to manifest."
But the core essence of it is simply this: "I can't see how this could evolve naturally, therefore it's 'irreducibly complex' until somebody proves otherwise."
And, of course, the speaker with then do his/her best not to be convinced by any explanation presented.
That's "Russia, Russia, Russia" all over again.
Perhaps some of our logisticians can give us a word for that kind of argument?
How about argument from ignorance?
papertyger: "That the term dovetail nicely with Dembski’s 'Intelligent Design' theory is only reinforces the strength of a thesis whose critics chief tactic has been studied ignorance."
Both "irreducibly complex" and "intelligent design" are themselves "studied ignorance", indeed arguments from ignorance:
So the old joke has a serious meaning:
'Oh, is that so? Explain…' replies God.
'Well,' says the scientist, 'we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.'
'Well, that’s very interesting… show Me.'
So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.
'No, no, no…' interrupts God, 'Get your own dirt.' "
Point is: regardless of what process God used, whether natural or supernatural, or some combination, the Universe is still His plan, His Creation and His irreducibly complex intelligent design.
And for reasons I don't really understand, He made it possible for us to understand a lot of it through natural-science.
papertyger: "Moreover, how is our 'third grader' better served by 'some pretty amazing stuff going on' than an effort to describe objective reality?"
Our "third grader" will not understand the complexities of science any more than would, say, ancient Israelites and so every explanation will seem like "some pretty amazing stuff" and "irreducibly complex."
But the fact remains that a lot of the physical realm does yield to natural explanations, giving us a vague picture of how nature got from the Beginning to now.
Why, you ask?
Well, just my opinion: because He wants us to know and appreciate the full complexity of His intelligently designed Universe, and our place in it.
You disagree?
Unfortunately for you, such qualifications are determined by those who know using indicators completely outside your realm of competence and/or experience.
You can't fool a frenchman by affecting a french accent.
But it was coined by CS Lewis, not Michael Behe.
While I freely admit the horrid grammar I used (after posting) to make this point, I think you get the point that neologisms are nothing new, and gain wide acceptance by those needing a term to descibe uncatagorized phenomena. (C.f. Jeff Cooper's term "hoplophobe.")
So your disparagment of the term "irreducable complexity" is rather petty and pedantic, as it describes a perfectly legitimate concept I've already elaborated on. If you have a problem with it, simply demonstrate it's self contradiction instead of pompously asserting the term has no validity, because those who don't like it don't use it.
And "bulverism" implies some kind of ad homenim disparagement, which I didn't do.
And there's the gainsaying. My post #57 demonstrates "ad hominem disparagement" is EXACTLY what you did. Your denial does not change the FACT of what you wrote.
And, it turns out that Michael Behe is an anti-evolutionist, by the way. Otherwise, nice try, FRiend.
It's not a "try." Behe says so himself in "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism." I can not provide a proper reference as I own the audiobook, and it's not worth 13 dollars to me to fully document your false assertion.
Nevertheless, that Behe is not a "Darwinist," has no bearing on his being an evolutionist; the fact of which I'm sure escapes you.
Further, "bulverism" or no, my argument in post #48 is exactly correct:
"Exactly correct?" Dear Joe, the assertion you refer to ISN'T EVEN AN ARGUMENT! It's a gratuitous assertion (which according to the rules of logic can be just as gratuitously be denied). You provide no premise justifying, let alone connecting, your conclusion, whatsoever. It is only by the variant definition of "disagreement" that your assertion can be called anything approaching an "argument" in the Aristotelean sense.
Both "irreducibly complex" and "intelligent design" are themselves "studied ignorance", indeed arguments from ignorance:
"because I can't figure this out naturally, and certainly don't want to, therefore it must be irreducibly complex intelligent design."
Not at all! Aside from your continued dependence on gratuitous assertions, forensics is a universally respected field of scientific inquiry, the sole exception being when it's applied to evolutionary theory. And while your side loves to hoodwink its novice devotees, such as yourself, by falsely claiming intelligent design is an "argument from ignorance," it fails to point out the inescapable truth that claiming evolution can do something they can't demonstrate is EXACTLY THE SAME ignorance as claiming evolution can't, except with forensics as a guide, there's far more reason to side with "can't" than there is with conjectural "can."
At this point, i think i have adequately DEMONSTRATED to any fair minded observer the vapid nature of your rhetorical complaints (i just can't bring myself to credit you for an "argument"), and so will forgo further point-by-point refutation of your prattle.