From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:   
   > https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-example-   
   > of-irreducible-complexity/   
   >   
   > Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are   
   > resurrecting that old creationist argument.  They are calling it an   
   > example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in   
   > their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it is   
   > a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just   
   > something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.   
      
   That's a hell of a way to begin a post.   
      
   ---snip---   
      
   Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to   
   bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not   
   something I intend to address.  What does interest me is the accusation   
   that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that it is given   
   to "fool the religious creationist rubes."  This is how Ron talks...i   
   get it.   
      
   He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the   
   example is irreducibly complex.  I'm sure someone would have an   
   experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it is   
   their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to the   
   conclusion they arrive at.  The woodpecker tongue is simply something   
   that defied how this could have happened with unguided mutations or   
   genetic errors.  Combine this with the 9 total things the woodpecker has   
   and it certainly is a daunting example of something that seems guided to   
   completion.   
      
   The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a   
   way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by   
   claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering   
   craftsmanship."  Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming   
   "Life finds a way."  I take the real evolutionists at their word and   
   accept that those things simply aren't real.  If Ron were aligned with   
   the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can   
   use to fool the evolutionist rubes.   
      
   But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what   
   seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the   
   human eye.  The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't   
   work with evolutionary processes.   
      
   https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/   
      
   The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar   
   push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the   
   necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea   
   involved instead for this movement.  Somehow, we are supposed to believe   
   that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution of   
   diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the trochlea pulley, and figured   
   out how to get the superior oblique to thread itself through this tool,   
   and attach itself to the eyeball all on its own, and by chance   
   mutations.  That's all you get, chance.  Even if in the early stages of   
   eye development the need for this rotation was desired, the eye still   
   could not just simply grow it.  It just happened by accident, over a   
   long period of time, and then selection won over and we all get one now.   
      
   Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this way?   
   I don't think I would waste my time.  Someone else can, but to me the   
   example is obvious.  It simply did not happen on it's own.  I really   
   don't care how much time you would allow for it.  Evolution does not   
   have the required tools.   
      
   Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID   
   is correct?  Of course not.  It is simply evidence that intelligence was   
   required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker tongue   
   appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does not have   
   the tools to come up with these solutions for these two features.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)