Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 7/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 1 of 7 (456617)
02-19-2008 5:34 AM


In Message 31 of the "To Good to be True? Intelligently Designed?" thread, jaywill and I get into a discussion regarding the work of Behe, his intellectual integrity, and the status of "irreducible complexity."
The question is: What does it take for an advocate of ID in general and IC in particular to claim that it doesn't exist? If it is scientific, then it must be testable. If it is testable, then it can fail the test. If it fails the test, then it is discarded (to some degree).
So enlighten us: What would it take? What sort of experiment would have to be run in order to conclude that "ID/IC" is nonsense?
At the time Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box, he made the extraordinary claim that there were no papers published anywhere regarding molecular evolution. A simple search of PubMed turned up hundreds of such papers, some written 20 years before Behe's book. Since then, thousands of new papers on molecular evolution have been published and still Behe's book is published stating that there are hardly any. When he was a witness to the Dover case, he repeated this claim only to have the cross-examining attorney start piling up the references in front of him that grew so tall that Behe had to ask that they be cleared because he could no longer see over them.
So what does this mean for Behe's claims? How can he or anybody else justify that "nobody is looking into it"? Or that there are huge questions? Every single example Behe brought up in his book has been shown to be not only reducible but evolved. How many refuting studies must be done before it can be said that Behe was wrong?
ABE: I should think this spin-off discussion would go in either "Biological Evolution" as it relates to how to measure and test ID in general and IC in particular or "Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution."
Edited by Rrhain, : Added where I thought the conversation should go.
Edited by Rrhain, : Reworked original post
Edited by Rrhain, : Changing topic title.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-19-2008 9:20 AM Rrhain has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 7 (456629)
02-19-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rrhain
02-19-2008 5:34 AM


Good topic, but the OP is way too long because it's a detailed reprise of another discussion. Can you edit the OP so as to just introduce the topic clearly and briefly? You can hold aside the rest of the content of the original OP and feed it in as appropriate during the discussion. Post a note when you're done and I'll take a look.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 5:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 10:10 PM Admin has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 3 of 7 (456753)
02-19-2008 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-19-2008 9:20 AM


How's about now?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-19-2008 9:20 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-19-2008 10:40 PM Rrhain has replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 7 (456762)
02-19-2008 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rrhain
02-19-2008 10:10 PM


topic title etc.
My impression is that your core question is "What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?". Perhaps that phrase would be a better topic title? "Throwing Out ID" leaves me with the "I have no idea what that means" impression.
Your question...
What does it take for an advocate of ID in general and IC in particular to claim that it doesn't exist?
...seems clumsy. Might it also be better phrased as "What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?"
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 10:10 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 02-20-2008 1:12 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 5 of 7 (456775)
02-20-2008 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Adminnemooseus
02-19-2008 10:40 PM


Re: topic title etc.
Fine by me.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-19-2008 10:40 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 02-20-2008 8:21 AM Rrhain has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 7 (456801)
02-20-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rrhain
02-20-2008 1:12 AM


Re: topic title etc.
Just wanted to say what a great job you did trimming down that OP. Thanks!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 02-20-2008 1:12 AM Rrhain has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 7 (456803)
02-20-2008 8:22 AM


Thread copied to the What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity? thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024