Posted: Sep 20, 2014 5:03 pm
CharlieM wrote:
Behe's examples of the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade have not been dedunked. Put it this way, if you had made some claim and somebody produced several documents and said that by these documents your claim is debunked. Would you just accept their evidence or would you ask them to be more specific as to how exactly the contents of these documents debunked your claim? The presentation of these documents in court was just a party trick.
Of course it's been debunked, CharlieM. One Black Swan debunks it more than adequately for anyone who employs logic as their means to rationality.
Your contention now implies that Behe had evidence rather than biased speculation, or you're engaging in the age-old Creationist methodology of shifting the burden of evidence. If Behe wants his claims to be taken seriously, then he needs to be forwarding evidence for them rather than assertions. It's that 'science' thing again, Charlie. Sorry that it just won't conform to your demands for your side's claims to be given special unearned status. I think we can all see how much it pains you, but you have to bear in mind that on exactly the same grounds as we'd accept Behe's claims, so we'd need to accept Astrology's.
CharlieM wrote:You do not understand the claims of ID. ID looks for evidence of design, it makes no claims about the designer. How many times does this need to be repeated before it sinks in? Being an advocate of intelligent design does not require a person to be a creationist.
We all understand the claims of ID very well, CharlieM - your single contention notwithstanding. You might seek to slip into the shadowy spaces where you don't really have to support anything, but any time you raise your head over the parapets and attempt to stake a claim, there's an argument already besieging you.
Calculate the specified information, CharlieM. If you can't do it, admit that it's because it begs the question. It starts from the position that information is already specified and then uses its own claim as evidence.
ID doesn't make any claims about the Designer, CharlieM - but we all know that the majority of ID proponents are Protestant Christians who do have a very Specified Designer in mind. Stop trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.
Another abstract we could so easily deal with is by stopping talking about other people's claims about the purported designer and start hearing yours. You are the one here acting as the proponent, after all. So many thousands of words on the topic, yet you've forwarded nothing of substance. I contend there's a reason for that - because the substance would immediately be recognisable as Christian.
