From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/30/2025 3:54 PM, sticks wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Spot on description of the article.   
      
   >   
   > ---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.   
      
   It is a lie, and they know that they are lying, because their definition   
   of IC includes the claim that their type of IC system is something that   
   cannot have evolved, but they obviously have never demonstrated that for   
   the woodpecker or anything else.  By the turn of the century Behe had   
   admitted that IC systems (a system of interacting parts where if you   
   take away one part the system loses it's function) could evolve by   
   natural means, but he maintained that his type of IC systems could not   
   have evolved.  Since that admission 25 years ago Behe has failed to   
   verify that his type of IC systems exist in nature.  This means that   
   whenever the ID perps claim that something is IC they are lying.  After   
   25 years of failure, they know that they are lying about any system   
   being their type of IC.  The best that they can do at this time is   
   continue to claim that some system might be their type of IC system.  It   
   is a stupid god-of-the-gaps argument.  Since we have not yet determined   
   how woodpeckers and flagellum evolved they can still claim that the   
   system might be their type of IC.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   God-of-the-gaps is just stupid and dishonest.  Just because they claim   
   that the gaps can't be filled doesn't mean much.  You need to consider   
   the 100% failure rate of filling these gaps with some god.  Just think   
   of all the god-did-it claims that have been shown to be false once we   
   have figured out what was really going on.   
      
   The Bible has been interpreted to claim that a flat earth was created in   
   a geocentric universe, just a few thousand years ago in 6 days (or for   
   old earth creationists, 6 periods of time).  The Hebrew cosmology has   
   the heavenly bodies embedded in a firmament above the earth that their   
   god opened up to let the rain fall through.  It was the flat earth   
   geocentric cosmology that they got from their neighbors who had been   
   civilized for a longer period of time.  All of these god-did-it claims   
   have been falsified by replacing them with what actually is happening or   
   what actually exists.  There has actually been a 100% failure rate for   
   god-did-it claims.  Not a single verified god-did-it success.  All the   
   ones that we have been able to check out, it turned out that the   
   god-did-it explanation was wrong.  These claims were not testable when   
   they were first made, and it took a lot of hard work to figure out what   
   actually happened or was happening.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   There is no doubt that some that claim to be on the science side are   
   just as nuts and and or incompetent as the ID perps.  Over stating your   
   case and misapplication of terminology is part of human nature, and   
   scientists are human.  The thing about science is that it is self   
   correcting, and things get knocked down to what they should have been,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)