Posted: Jun 24, 2010 7:04 am
And I suggest that it matters not a whit, whether it would be impossible by "slight successive modifications" or not, whether it requires a co-opting of parts which had evolved for another purpose or not, as long as there is a possible sequence whereby it could arise naturalistically.
The entire basis of Intelligent Design is refuted if we can point to a plausible sequence within natural evolution which leads to the observed result. Which is what Cali's long post at the beginning of this thread has already done. So ID is already toast, because it's already falsified in its main prediction (the prediction that evolutionists will not be able to provide a naturalistic explanation).
Intelligent Design is not even up to the level of a plausible sequence because idiots like Behe are still behind at questions like: how can the designer physically install its new design module ? We know that the new proteins must be coded for by DNA in the cell, but where did the designer built the DNA sequences and how did it transfer the new DNA to the cell. I mean, specifically, how ? Like Craig Venter does ? Maybe by controlling the atoms in the DNA with psychic power ?
Gee, I don't know why Behe never offers any ideas about how the idiot designer physically did its work. I guess it's because he knows how ludicrous he would sound, no matter how he tried to dress it up fancy - his idea amounts to SHAZAM ! PRESTO ! FLAGELLA !
Meanwhile, the "evolutionists" are doing the hard work, doing the physical research, and we do know the mechanism whereby mutations and recombination produce at least some of observed new proteins seen in labs. We don't need to add a mysterious unexplainable designer to explain the possible evolution, we've already got a working explanation in natural evolution and right now we're filling in a few pertinent details, as Cali's OP says.
Behe knows that. That's why he only applies his concept of "intelligent design" to biology systems which are hard to explain at today's level of knowledge. He never tries to use "intelligent design" to explain things which we are already certain of, such as, the genetic basis for human's need of dietary Vitamin C. Why not ? If an intelligent designer is a good explanation for something "complicated" like the flagella, why would not the designer be a good explanation for something simple like Vit C ? No, Behe knows his so-called theory is only good for the gaps, good for areas where there is still some uncertainty about the specific sequence of evolution.
Charlie, perhaps you are misunderstanding Behe's work and that is a problem you can remedy by reading him more carefully. Perhaps you are deliberately misrepresenting Behe's work - I would hate to think so but years of dealing with lying creationists have made me justifiably suspicious.
The entire basis of Intelligent Design is refuted if we can point to a plausible sequence within natural evolution which leads to the observed result. Which is what Cali's long post at the beginning of this thread has already done. So ID is already toast, because it's already falsified in its main prediction (the prediction that evolutionists will not be able to provide a naturalistic explanation).
Intelligent Design is not even up to the level of a plausible sequence because idiots like Behe are still behind at questions like: how can the designer physically install its new design module ? We know that the new proteins must be coded for by DNA in the cell, but where did the designer built the DNA sequences and how did it transfer the new DNA to the cell. I mean, specifically, how ? Like Craig Venter does ? Maybe by controlling the atoms in the DNA with psychic power ?
Gee, I don't know why Behe never offers any ideas about how the idiot designer physically did its work. I guess it's because he knows how ludicrous he would sound, no matter how he tried to dress it up fancy - his idea amounts to SHAZAM ! PRESTO ! FLAGELLA !
Meanwhile, the "evolutionists" are doing the hard work, doing the physical research, and we do know the mechanism whereby mutations and recombination produce at least some of observed new proteins seen in labs. We don't need to add a mysterious unexplainable designer to explain the possible evolution, we've already got a working explanation in natural evolution and right now we're filling in a few pertinent details, as Cali's OP says.
That is a serious misreading of Behe's point as far as Intelligent Design. Behe may never have said directly that it is impossible but his every implication is that it is so close to totally impossible as to require the services of an outside designer for it to occur. Otherwise, what would be the point ? If there is a perfectly acceptable naturalistic method, what would be the point of adding an extra layer of implausible explanation in the form of an outside designer ?Charlie M wrote:I take it you are referring to my comment, "Note that Behe is not saying that it is impossible for an irreducibly complex system to be assembled by known naturalistic means."
Behe knows that. That's why he only applies his concept of "intelligent design" to biology systems which are hard to explain at today's level of knowledge. He never tries to use "intelligent design" to explain things which we are already certain of, such as, the genetic basis for human's need of dietary Vitamin C. Why not ? If an intelligent designer is a good explanation for something "complicated" like the flagella, why would not the designer be a good explanation for something simple like Vit C ? No, Behe knows his so-called theory is only good for the gaps, good for areas where there is still some uncertainty about the specific sequence of evolution.
Charlie, perhaps you are misunderstanding Behe's work and that is a problem you can remedy by reading him more carefully. Perhaps you are deliberately misrepresenting Behe's work - I would hate to think so but years of dealing with lying creationists have made me justifiably suspicious.