Posted on 02/18/2005 7:09:03 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and thought by many to be the chief proponent in the intelligent design movement, battled Vincent Cassone, department head of biology at Texas A&M University regarding the key points of the controversial intelligent design theory Tuesday evening in Rudder Auditorium.
Intelligent design is the theory that certain aspects of the natural world were created by a source of intelligence for a specific purpose, rather than evolving from random patterns.
As applied to biology, Behe said the design is not a mystical process, but is deduced from solid physical and empirical findings, whereas Darwin's theory of evolution appeared to have glaring holes.
(Excerpt) Read more at thebatt.com ...
Nice post!
This is actually a balanced article. These are tough to find.
LOL!
> Guess what? You no longer have a mouse trap
That's right. You have something *else*.
You have just debunked the "irreducible complexity" arguement.
> Guess what? You no longer have a mouse trap
That's right. You have something *else*.
You have just debunked the "irreducible complexity" arguement.
Thanks! I thought the same thing after I read it.
"That settles it for me. The mousetrap evolved entirely by random mutation and natural selection."
As did this computer I am using to respond! :-)
From the article you posted:
"The mousetrap illustrates one of the fundamental flaws in the intelligent design argument: the fact that one person can't imagine something doesn't mean it is impossible, it may just mean that the person has a limited imagination."
Actually, that is the major flaw in "non-ID" thinking.
And I assume his "reduceable" mousetrap is humor.
From McDonalds own "reduceable mousetrap article:
"Of course, the reduced-complexity mousetraps shown below are intended to point out the logical flaw in the intelligent design argument; they're not intended as an analogy of how evolution works."
In other words, it is an analogy. Analogies are designed to explain a thing more simply, not prove it. All his analogy proves is that he can be creative and clever. His mousetrap has no examples whatsoever in the actual biological world.
When I was in High School back in 1970, a very clever paper was reprinted that proved black is white. It was a hoot and got an A at some university. Of course the logic was flawed, but in a very covert way. I read and reread it and learned a lot about debate from that paper.
The trick is to get the reader/listener to grant you one seemingly insignificant point (which is actually false), and then build your entire foundation for your conclusion from that one point, without exposing it. They don't know what hit them.
Stop it! The whole argument against the irreduceably complex mousetrap is a straw man designed to confuse the issue. Don't go for the bait. 8^>
Not to a blind man.....
Put random changes into the source code for Windows, for a zillion years.
is it any better???
Ergo, NSID is proven!
Some days I think that might actually help Windows.
Imagine that. Hallelujah!
LOL!
A much better explanation for the mousetrap.
:-)
A computer isn't science. It's technology.
SW
Thanks for the ping. Great Article!
Wonder how long it'll take the evo-ping list to make it's round...
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.