NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

Hi Ahmad,It seems to me that Behe has been refuted many times e.g (from a v quick google):biochemistry:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Design.htmlprobability (+thermodynamics):Page Not Found - The Skeptic Tankand you can find loads of refutations here:World of AkiraWhat interests me is:1) how you are so sure that Behe was never refuted
2) why you think Behe has never ever published his findings for peer review
3) why you think Behe's argument differs from the "we don't know why this is, so this must prove a designer" fallacy.PE

We can simplify the 2LoT debate greatly if you wouuldn't mind pointing out which specific step in evolution violates the 2LoT.There's no outcry in the physics community about the 2LoT being violated and posting 22 year old out of context articles from ahem- chemical engineering industry publications doesn't serve your case particularly well either.

quote:

---

But, we might ask, does not added energy ever slow down entropy? Yes, but only when carefully applied by an outside intelligence.

​

It takes energy to build a house out of planks, pipes out of galvanized steel, windows out of glass, and then apply paint and maintain it all. By so doing, we slow entropy for a time. An intelligence higher than the house constructed it and keeps it in good shape. Eventually, the higher being steps back and stops the endless repairs and replacementsand entropy takes over. The house falls to pieces. The living organism is like that house. It requires continual maintenance to keep it in proper shape.

---

It seems your understanding of entropy needs work. Can you expound on the mechanism by which intelligence affects the thermodynamic properties of adiabatically closed systems (without resorting to analogy)? How do you define intelligence in this context?Seems to me the higher being's getting his energy from the sun.PE

quote:

---

Einstein puts it: "Science without religion is Lame and Religion without Science is blind".

---

Ahmad,Other Einstein quotes:"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.""To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world. ""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion.""I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it. ""have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. ""A man's moral worth is not measured by what his religious beliefs are but rather by what emotional impulses he has received from Nature during his lifetime. ""The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously""If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?""Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being."Its a popular misconception that Einstein was a "God-believer" in the conventional sense and he is often quote mined, either for his "religion blind and lame" comment (as quoted by you) or the "god does not play dice with the universe", the general argument being that since Einstein understood a great deal about cosmology and was a very clever man, he would therefore be able to opine authoritatively on the nature of God. Its more accurate to say he was a pantheist, believing God and the material universe to be one and the same (similar to Spinoza). So no heaven, hell or houris, I'm afraid.Unless of course you don't agree with what Einstein had to say on religion. In which case you wouldn't be quoting him to support your argument.PE

quote:

---

Actually, Doolittle provided a plausible scenario for the evolution of the clotting cascade, but I'm buggered if I can find it at the moment. Anyone?

---

Is this the one?http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR22.1/doolittle.htmlexcerpt:"In fact, Behe employs a variety of creationist arguments that have been abused in the past. Of all these, the "improbability argument" is the most fallacious and most misunderstood. Thus, Behe writes about the likelihood of assembling appropriate combinations of parts of the proteins that function in a clotting scheme: "Doolittle apparently needs to shuffle and deal himself a number of perfect bridge hands to win the game. Unfortunately, the universe doesn't have time to wait." This statement follows upon some absurd arithmetic about possible combinations of shuffled units and comparisons to the Irish sweepstakes. His argument omits many relevant considerations: for example, most of the observed duplications and exon shuffling are localized to specific regions of specific chromosomes, so the number of combinations is not as large as he supposes. Its major fallacy, however, lies in the presumption that some special combination must be achieved. When we play bridge, any specified hand is just as unlikely as a perfect hand. But someone wins every time, whether or not they have a perfect hand.This point about "perfect hands" brings me to what annoyed me most in Behe's book; his use of Rube Goldberg cartoons. Ironically, I have often used Goldberg's contrived linkages as examples of how evolution works! In fact, I have used them in teaching medical students about how macromolecular cascades function. I have also used the same cartoons in debating creationists, pointing out that no Creator would have designed such a circuitous and contrived system. Instead, this is how the opportunistic hand of natural selection works, using whatever happens to be available at the moment (the resources that result from such processes as gene duplication and exon shuffling). "Looking at this board I see you hint at being a fellow Spurs supporter. Say it ain't so?PE

Ahmad,That was an impressively long post. Apologies if I pick on just one part of it, as I don't have a paleontology background.I wanted to focus in on the form of the argument that ICers use. Consider the following statements:1) it is demonstrably impossible for X to produce Y
2) I cannot see how X could produce Y
3) it is conceivable that X has produced Y, but the process has not been determined yet.
4) X has been conclusively shown to produce YNow I would paraphrase your position as being (2), wheras your standard biologist would argue (3) (or (4)!) when it comes to irreducibly complex systems.To overturn a pardigm, you generally have to do more than insist upon (2), you have to show that (1) must be the case. Do you have any examples of this? Personally, I don't see how you (or Behe) can show that complex machanisms could not have come about through gradual evolution, especially as he's already been proved wrong about the Bombardier beetle.In any event, how would you say that your argument differs substantively from the standard God of the Gaps" (in this case, Intelligent Designer of the Gaps) fallacy?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

Its quite hard to outline the entire creation thoery but tell you what; you tell me one thing creation can't explain and evolution can and I'll respond

---

Who designed the intelligent designer?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:

quote:

---

Who designed the intelligent designer?

---

​

Ever heard of the word [i][b]Eternal[/i][/b]?

​

Regards,
Ahmad

---

Ever heard of the word spacetime?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

Isaak tried to explain how the mechanism of the bombardier beetle could have come by evolution but he was wrong in many aspects.

---

Wrong in many aspects, huh? Pray, continue.

quote:

---

If that is the case with a system, it is not irreducibly complex; in fact, it CANNOT be irreducibly complex since it evolved according to Behe's defintion

---

quote:

---

Therefore, an IC system, by definition, is unevolvable... unless proven otherwise

---

quote:

---

So unless it is demonstrated otherwise, an IC system is unevolvable

---

You're speaking in riddles man. An IC system is by definition unevolvable....unless proven otherwise?. How do you disprove a definitional proof??So, it can't be IC if it evolves? Whats all this unless proven otherwise malarkey?So you are saying you've got examples of systems that look to you to be IC? So what? All you've done is add a new term: "IC" and given it a bizarre definition. You haven't demonstrated anything.Lets take an example. Monstrously Ossified systems can only have arisen through evolution. You make the claim that a system is not MO, therefore you have to prove that everything didn't evolve?Or another....Burgeoning Wing Clump systems have only three invisible antennae, undetectable to all instruments. YOU make the assertion that BWC systems don't exist - YOU prove that all systems aren't BWC (including fauna ).I could go on This was your response to why IC wasn't GotG:Part 1: The Phantom Gap

quote:

---

There is a difference between explaining ongoing natural processes and the origins of natural processes. To use an analogy, just because a software program runs without the creator being present doesn't mean we should say there was no personal creator. Also, evolutionary theory has its own gaps that are assumed to occur without support by direct evidence. This is not to say that a broad theory of science has to explain every detail before being accepted. However, when it comes to evolutionary theory, far more gaps are accepted than are typical for other scientific theories.

---

Strange thing to say. How are you measuring gap counts here? Sounds more like a personal prejudice to me.Part 2: Return of the Behe

quote:

---

There is another reason why Dr. Behe's ideas should not be equated to the God of the gaps idea. In the past, the gaps were generally due to lack of information about certain natural processes. In contrast, Dr. Behe's ideas involve processes where we do have information. That information, though not complete, is sufficient to indicate problems with postulating completely naturalistic explanations.

---

If Behe has information proving that it is impossible for certain systems to have evolved then you should share it with us. Otherwise you're just saying goddidit, aren't you?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-25-2002]

Ahmad,Thanks for the response - feel we're getting somewhere now. I'll have a look at the links and evidence you've posted and get back to you. Bit pushed at the moment PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell