"Intelligent Design": Stealth War on Science

Revolutionary Worker ^ | November 6, 2005

[Tailgunner Joe]

All you have to do to prove ID is wrong is show that irreducible complexity does not exist in nature.

[Torie]

I used that line yesterday, and I suspect you stole it, and tried to mask the lacency by using the parlance of a gay language.

[Roots]

I couldn't argue irreducible complexity better than this:

"The IC (irreducible complexity) argument also assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. But something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary. For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales, demonstrating that it isn't essential for a clotting system. Many purported IC structures can be found in other organisms as simpler systems that utilize fewer parts. These systems may have had even simpler precursors that are now extinct.

Perhaps most importantly, potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system and the flagellum, which were the three examples Behe used. Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald. If IC is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways—Behe has remarked that such plausible pathways would defeat his argument.

Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes. They also assert that what evolved biochemical and molecular systems actually exhibit is redundant complexity — a kind of complexity that is the product of an evolved biochemical process. They claim that Behe overestimated the significance of irreducible complexity because his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions results in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded and an over-reliance of overly-simplistic metaphors such as his mousetrap. In addition, it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally.

[Torie]

They are stealing my lines John, and I don't mean coke.

[Roots]

All you have to do to prove ID is wrong is show that irreducible complexity does not exist in nature.

ID is not falsifiable! NO! That's like saying "all you have to do is disprove Christianity and it'll all go away", of course it can't be disproven, that's why IT IS NOT A SCIENCE!

[so_real]

You don't have to be a Creationist to be a conservative. You don't have to be religious at all really.

Perhaps so. I won't argue that. And if it was just one or two strange bed-fellows, I'd overlook it -- as another FReeper once posted, even a broken clock is right twice a day. But when all these groups come together and vehemently rally around an issue, any issue ... well, let's just say as a conservative I find it disquieting.

[Coyoteman]

with these naughty young minds cruising the internet, it is quite easy to be exposed to just about everything, and every point of view. Oh the horror.

Yeah, and they'll be getting pretty old before they head for either evolution or religion on the internet!

[Torie]

All sex all the time, can get boring, even for the young.

[Roots]

What strange bed-fellows Evolution has had coming to its support: Communists, the ACLU, the DU, the MSM, PFAW, Wiccans, Ted Kennedy ... the list goes on and on.

Are you suggesting conservatives should blindly oppose any issue that may be supported by a bunch of liberals? Should I retire any further rational arguments and critical thinking for the sake of the Party? I can't locate my "Official Voter's Guide", can you email me a copy of yours?

[so_real]

I'm suggesting that if those groups all got together and told me the sky was blue, I'd peak out the window (twice) before agreeing. I suspect a voluminous number of conservatives would peak out the window more times than that. My comment apparently struck a nerve with you; perhaps you'd peak out the window yourself as well if the issue in question was anything other than evolution. I don't think you should arrest any critical thinking whatsoever at all ... not even for the sake of evolution.

[Senator Bedfellow]

GMTA, I guess ;)

[Torie]

I did a google on GMTA, and came up with with Georgia Motor Trucking Association. They probably listen to Rush Limbaugh on the road.

[jwalsh07]

The "theory" goes like this.

If you poison the minds of the young with teachings that God created the universe, they will be unable to do integrals and derivatives when they get to Calc 1.

The "theory" sucks.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Probably. Perhaps we can interest them in audiobooks of Locke and Montesquieu...

[jwalsh07]

Hey I used that line the other day to Huck while talkng about Alito and Barnhart. You steal it from me?

[Torie]

Only after Aristotle and Plato, and then my favorite, Machiavelli, the latter the one about which I have real expertise, as a philosopher and pundit.

[Torie]

No, you stole it from me. I have the time line, and my post using the term was to YOU! If you posted earlier to Huck, that really sucks.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, sue me counselor!

[Torie]

Here's the gravamen of the complaint:

"Posted by Torie to jwalsh07 On Bloggers & Personal ^ 10/31/2005 2:07:38 PM PST · 52 of 60

What is disturbing about Alito here is not so much his failure to understand that there is an administrative cost to getting a result perfect in every case, as opposed to in most cases, and there is a cost benefit analysis that one must engage in. (The perfect in reality may be the enemy of the good.) Rather, what is disturbing is Alito's apparent failure to give any deference at all to agnecy determinations in administering a law. In that sense, he appears quite activist in having judges second guess agency dterminations that certainly were made in good faith and have a reasonable basis.

[Amish with an attitude]

"A president who consults religious lunatics about who should be on the Supreme Court..."

No doubt the author is speaking of George Washington.