Author Topic: Irreducible complexity  (Read 2160 times)

Squid

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2007, 01:41:15 AM »
Dembski actually is a mathematician.  Technically he holds two Ph.D.s - one in mathematics and one in philosophy as well as a BA in psychology and and MS in statistics.

As far a lawyers go, I'm not sure who you might be thinking about.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Squid »

McQ

  • Administrator
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3672
  • Foolproof and capable of terror.
(No subject)
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2007, 04:31:55 AM »
William Dembski is a smart guy. But for one major blind spot. He is irrationally married to ID. He's like the Stanton Friedman of physics. IQ of about a million( exaggerating, of course)  and the comon sense of a slug.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by McQ »
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Squid

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2007, 11:53:19 PM »
Quote from: "Faylen"
Didn't Dembski claim to be a lawyer?  I just can't keep these people straight.  He makes simply hysterical videos, though.


Was it Phillip Johnson?  The guy who wrote Darwin on Trial?  He's a lawyer.  Here's his page from ARN:

http://www.arn.org/authors/johnson.html
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Squid »

omen

  • Padawan Learner
  • Posts: 5
Re: Irreducible complexity
« Reply #33 on: January 17, 2007, 01:46:05 PM »
Quote from: "Theist"
Merry belated Christmas everyone!

I'll get right to the point,
Michael Behe, a known biochemist once said irreducible complexity is "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" So you take a mousetrap, you remove one part and the whole thing doesn't work anymore.
You take a look at anything living around you, even ourselves. What if we were designed without a heart? or bones? what if we had no muscle? Do you think we'd be what we are now? certainly not. We have everything we need to survive. Sure we die at some point, but while we live, we've all we really need. In order for all of this to be, there surely must be a creator. Intelligent and intentional design. The big man upstairs says, 'let there be light' there was light and then created everything else. He designed all of us to survive. Yes you could argue that there are people out there who die before they are even born, or there are those who are mentally/physically disabled, including myself. I am hard-of-hearing, mild hypotonia, meaning I'm not quite as strong as most people my age, I have what they call Aspergers syndrome which falls under the 'umbrella' of autism, I was born with Ruebella. So you are talking with someone who could quite easily say "No fair and just God could have created me to be like this." But I don't. So perhaps then you say, "he's just naive" but am I? Maybe I'm not naive, but have the ability to come to terms with what I was born with. Perhaps a lot of others like myself realize that there surely must be a reason as to why I'm like this, a purpose. And maybe we need to be humble enough to accept that. We aren't all created equally in our own perception because there are some who have things that others don't, or rather, some who don't have things that others do. That's becuase we have a tendecy, as humans, to compare and judge things according to what we see physically. In the eyes of God we are equal however because we all have a purpose.
So how can all this be, without an intelligent designer?


Did you by chance actually read the Dover trial transcripts?

1. <b>Behe redefines science, and by his definition has to admit that astrology is a science.  On the stand, infront of the court. </b>

2. Admits that there has never been any research into actually proving ID.

3. Admits that ideas such as irreducible complexity are only counter evidences to evolution, and do not equate proof of ID.

4. Admits that the only credible way for science to continue is to submit to peer reviewed sources.

5. Admits that he has not submitted any of his claims to peer reviewed sources.

6. Admits their are exactly ZERO peer reviewed studies submitted to science publications. ( Of ID or creationism )

7. Was confronted with over 50 articles, several books, and textbook examples of how his arguements have been refuted, or simply incorrect.

8. He simply dismissed them.

9. The people supporting ID admitted that their motivation was to redefine what science is, so that it will include the supernatural.  The supernatural by definition, is beyond our natural sences, it is completely unprovable.. and beyond empirical evidence.  Any ones statement of the supernatural would be equivically true, such as,"Leprechauns exist." And I would be telling the truth, according to this redefinition of science.

10. Their is only one scientific group that supports ID ( the discovery institute, self proclaimed scientific group at best )

11. Many of the witnesses for ID ( and the Dover school board ) were caught backtracking or having previously lied under oath. <b>( they swore on the bible each time ).</b>

12. The textbook that was being suggested to the Dover school board about creationism ( and the counter arguement to evolution ) <b>contained verified outdated scientific examples of evolution, or information that was verifiably false.</b>

13. The Pandas book was found to be the exact same book used in earlier cases with the exception that "creationism" was removed ( since it was ruled religious ) and replaced with ID.  Often some text included the exact same mispellings/grammatical errors, ( meaning they appeared both in the creationist edition, and the ID edition )

If anything the Dover trial shows us the depth of lies and misinformation that creationist, and some theist are willing to go in order to justify their belief.. to themselves.  If you require proof, you can search wiki for dover trial transcripts.. or I can post excerpts and pages later ( I dont have access to the info at work ).  No matter how many times some theist call the judge in the trial an "activist judge" it will not escape the fact he is a christian himself.  Its also revealing to read his final conclusions, and utter disgust at the amount of lying & backtracking involved in the trial.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by omen »

Squid

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2007, 02:30:25 AM »
If anyone is interested NCSE has all the documents surrounding the case including the transcripts of each day.

http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=5
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Squid »

Huxley

  • Beginning to See the Wedge
  • *
  • Posts: 34
(No subject)
« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2007, 01:37:29 PM »
There cannot be such a thing as irreducable complexity as Behe described it. All his attempts and examples (the main thrust of his 'hypothesis') were shown to be indeed reducable.

This was succesfully demonstrated by Ken Miller, the Biology Prof (and no mean slouch at Catholicism either)

Anyone read 'Darwin's Black Box' by Behe?  I had the misfortune to purchase it a couple of years ago before I knew what it actually was. It was a poor and crude attempt at character assasination of Darwin with a lot of WTF's? on every page. I never got to finish it; I could not see any point in ad hominem attacks because they brought nothing to the table. Behe however, is an asshole.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Huxley »

omen

  • Padawan Learner
  • Posts: 5
(No subject)
« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2007, 02:08:00 PM »
Quote from: "Huxley"
There cannot be such a thing as irreducable complexity as Behe described it. All his attempts and examples (the main thrust of his 'hypothesis') were shown to be indeed reducable.

This was succesfully demonstrated by Ken Miller, the Biology Prof (and no mean slouch at Catholicism either)

Anyone read 'Darwin's Black Box' by Behe?  I had the misfortune to purchase it a couple of years ago before I knew what it actually was. It was a poor and crude attempt at character assasination of Darwin with a lot of WTF's? on every page. I never got to finish it; I could not see any point in ad hominem attacks because they brought nothing to the table. Behe however, is an asshole.


lol I learned more about cartoon characters reading that book with its idiotic analogys.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by omen »

Squid

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2007, 12:29:03 AM »
It reminds me of something Michael Shermer once said in an interview (and I'm paraphrasing) - 'Smart people are good at rationalizing things they came to believe for irrational reasons.'
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Squid »

MrE2Me

  • Made of Star Stuff
  • *
  • Posts: 63
(No subject)
« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2007, 02:00:07 AM »
Funny, I just watched that discussion myself.  Shermer's exact quote about why smart people believe weird things - "They're better at rationalizing beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by MrE2Me »
[size=92]I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts[/size]

Squid

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2007, 01:51:26 AM »
Quote from: "MrE2Me"
Funny, I just watched that discussion myself.  Shermer's exact quote about why smart people believe weird things - "They're better at rationalizing beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."


Cool, thanks.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Squid »

Big Mac

  • Buddies With Uncle Bert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
(No subject)
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2007, 03:32:11 AM »
That's off of Bullshit! regarding the episode on the Bible, if I'm not mistaken.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Big Mac »
Quote from: "PoopShoot"
And what if pigs shit candy?

Whitney

  • Global Moderator
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • Gender: Female
  • Mysteriously Absent - Like God
    • http://fellowshipoffreethought.org
(No subject)
« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2007, 09:32:49 AM »
Quote from: "MrE2Me"
Funny, I just watched that discussion myself.  Shermer's exact quote about why smart people believe weird things - "They're better at rationalizing beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."


If you get Playboy...he has an article in this month's issue about why Americans believe strange things.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Whitney »

Big Mac

  • Buddies With Uncle Bert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
(No subject)
« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2007, 01:51:00 AM »
Right, like people actually read Playboy...:P
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Big Mac »
Quote from: "PoopShoot"
And what if pigs shit candy?

Squid

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #43 on: February 05, 2007, 07:34:35 AM »
Quote from: "Big Mac"
Right, like people actually read Playboy...:P


Playboy has articles?!
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Squid »

Big Mac

  • Buddies With Uncle Bert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
(No subject)
« Reply #44 on: February 05, 2007, 10:13:22 PM »
Shhh, it's mostly just Details articles rehashed to be not as gay as the magazine.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Big Mac »
Quote from: "PoopShoot"
And what if pigs shit candy?