From: {$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk   
      
   On 03/09/2025 18:46, sticks wrote:   
   > On 9/3/2025 5:01 AM, Ernest Major wrote:   
   >> On 02/09/2025 19:46, sticks wrote:   
   >>> On 9/2/2025 11:08 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   >>>> On 8/30/25 1:54 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ---snip---   
   >>>>> [...]   
   >>>>> 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 . . .   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence   
   >>>> *for* evolution and *against* ID.  There are multiple common   
   >>>> mechanisms by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such   
   >>>> complexity violates engineering principles of keeping things as   
   >>>> simple as possible and of having backup systems.   
   >>>   
   >>> Just learning how things work here in T.O.   
   >>> So things really are not irreducibly complex, but if they are it is   
   >>> evidence for evolution.   
   >>> Got it.  Thanks   
   >>>   
   >>> ---snip   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Behe may have thought that he had an objective means of identifying   
   >> systems that could not have evolved, but he was wrong; using the   
   >> original definition of an irreducibly complex system as one which   
   >> requires all of its parts to function, there are at least three broad   
   >> classes of paths by which irreducibly complex systems can evolve.   
   >>   
   >> An additional issue is finding objective definitions of system, part   
   >> and function. Divide a system into few parts, and it's more likely to   
   >> be irreducibly complex; divide a system into many parts, and it's less   
   >> likely to be irreducibly complex. Consider an eukaryote cell as   
   >> composed of the nucleus, the cytoplasm and the cell membrane; looking   
   >> at it in that way it seems irreducibly complex (until you notice that   
   >> mammalian erythrocytes and thrombocytes lack nuclei). But consider it   
   >> as an assemblage of nucleic acids, proteins and lipid membranes; then   
   >> many parts can be removed, and it continues to function, i.e. is not   
   >> irreducibly complex.   
   >>   
   >> A third issue is that suitably defined a system may be irreducibly   
   >> complex in one species but may not have the same set of parts as the   
   >> same system in another species. The clotting cascade is an example of   
   >> this; it puzzles me why Behe thought that was a good poster system for   
   >> his argument.   
   >>   
   >> As for the more general argument from complexity - the "it's oh so   
   >> complex, it must be designed" - that an argument from incredulity. I   
   >> look at the Heath-Robinson Rube Goldberg nature of life, and my   
   >> reaction is "there's no way that's designed". (Why should you   
   >> incredulity be more dispositive that mine?)   
   >>   
   >> (I think Dawkins is wrong when he writes that "life has the appearance   
   >> of design".)   
   >>   
   >> You can get over the evolutionary argument from complexity by   
   >> postulating an unconstrained designer. The problem with that,   
   >> epistemologically, is that you're no longer explaining the   
   >> observations; instead you're explaining them away.   
   >   
   > Yes, but you're still left with explaining where the information to   
   > build anything originated.  Evolutionists don't have to worry about   
   > being accused of arguing from incredulity because they insist they will   
   > continue looking.  The fact they cannot consider ID is a big asset that   
   > ID folks don't have.  For example my two biggest difficulties are the   
   > initial conditions before the Big Bang and where everything came from,   
   > and this information origination problem within OoL.  Now both places I   
   > come up with my conclusion using logic, philosophical/metaphysical, and   
   > scientific law.  Yet, both scenarios I would be accused of simple   
   > incredulity and dismissed.  It doesn't matter to me that happens, and   
   > I'd be open to be shown how I am wrong in my conclusions, but using   
   > deductive reasoning and the methods above is not incredulity.  It is an   
   > unfair characterization.   
      
   Looking at your first post in this thread, it looks like a classic   
   argument from incredulity. Proving a negative is a difficult task, but   
   if you want to make a positive case that's a burden you have taken on   
   yourself.   
      
   On the other hand, I doubt that you would be accused of making an   
   argument from including for appealing to the cosmological argument.   
      
   Either an uncaused (though QM does have, in some degree, uncaused   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)