Pete Dunkelberg Demystified- Imagination is Not Evidence
-*
In his article, Irreducible Complexity Demystified, Pete Dunkelberg tries to demonstrate that IC really isn't. However his article falls flat on its face right from the beginning (3rd sentence):
ID does NOT say anything about "God". Nor does acceptance of ID require a belief in "God". But that isn't the issue. Complexity is only part of the equation and "evolution" has several meanings.
It just gets worse:
That is all wrong. First IC does NOT mean that something could not have evolved. The debate is all about the MECHANISM(s) involved-> willy-nilly vs design. Natural selection only works on what exists- what works stays, what doesn't gets culled. However we know that artificial selection can keep what nature would discard.
Also part 2 needs to be clarified- the design inference requires more than just saying it couldn't have "evolved". Specific criterion must be met- the specified complexity criterion.
He then uses Dr Behe's original definition of IC, which is strange because by April 2003 IC had been revised. Revised because we know that some IC structures do have parts that, if removed, do not alter the function.
Pete goes on to say:
Dr Behe responds:
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
Next Pete wants us to join in on "mind-games"- IOW he wants us to try to think how alleged IC systems could evolve- However reality doesn't exist in our minds alone. Somewhere along the line the rubber has to meet the road- which it never does in Pete's article.
Pete also brings up diseases as evidence against design! Diseases or alleged poor designs have nothing to do with the concept of ID. Diseases could be caused by the random effects on a once good design.
If IC is so easy to refute one must wonder why no one has done so in a lab. Why hasn't any evolutionist conducted the experiment Dr Behe taked about at Dover? Rambling rhetoric is not the way to refute something scientifically.
Unfortunately for Pete and all evotards, imagination is not evidence.
* this is a re-titled repost from 5 years ago
In his article, Irreducible Complexity Demystified, Pete Dunkelberg tries to demonstrate that IC really isn't. However his article falls flat on its face right from the beginning (3rd sentence):
Irreducible complexity (also denoted IC) has gained prominence as the evidence for the intelligent design (ID) movement, which argues that life is so complicated that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (aka God) rather than the result of evolution.
ID does NOT say anything about "God". Nor does acceptance of ID require a belief in "God". But that isn't the issue. Complexity is only part of the equation and "evolution" has several meanings.
It just gets worse:
The argument from IC to ID is simply:
1. IC things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed
That is all wrong. First IC does NOT mean that something could not have evolved. The debate is all about the MECHANISM(s) involved-> willy-nilly vs design. Natural selection only works on what exists- what works stays, what doesn't gets culled. However we know that artificial selection can keep what nature would discard.
Also part 2 needs to be clarified- the design inference requires more than just saying it couldn't have "evolved". Specific criterion must be met- the specified complexity criterion.
He then uses Dr Behe's original definition of IC, which is strange because by April 2003 IC had been revised. Revised because we know that some IC structures do have parts that, if removed, do not alter the function.
Pete goes on to say:
A precursor to IC lacking a part can have any functions except the specified one, which brings us to 'indirect' evolution.
Dr Behe responds:
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
Next Pete wants us to join in on "mind-games"- IOW he wants us to try to think how alleged IC systems could evolve- However reality doesn't exist in our minds alone. Somewhere along the line the rubber has to meet the road- which it never does in Pete's article.
Pete also brings up diseases as evidence against design! Diseases or alleged poor designs have nothing to do with the concept of ID. Diseases could be caused by the random effects on a once good design.
If IC is so easy to refute one must wonder why no one has done so in a lab. Why hasn't any evolutionist conducted the experiment Dr Behe taked about at Dover? Rambling rhetoric is not the way to refute something scientifically.
Unfortunately for Pete and all evotards, imagination is not evidence.
* this is a re-titled repost from 5 years ago
posted by Joe G @ 12:05 AM
3 Comments:
At 6:50 AM,
The whole truth said…
Hey joe-boi, is your imagination evidence?
At 7:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Nope, only evotards think imagination = evidence.
At 4:33 PM,
The Reactionary Researcher said…
Interestingly, I think that the larger point regarding IC systems is often overlooked. Take the iconic example of the bacterial flagellum: Much is made about engine itself being an IC system, which seems to be true, but largely misses the point about the flagellum.
The flagellum is part of an integrated biological detection and response system wherein the cell is responding positively, by swimming towards some stimulus, or negatively, by swimming away from some stimulus. The activity of the flagellum really makes no sense in the absence of the detection and signaling systems.
Through the years, the only person I've ever seen acknowledge this was Matzke. In his "paper" discussing the evolution of the flagellum, he hand waves for... several paragraphs about the benefits of random motion. From my perspective having an outboard motor that runs, but no idea of where the boat is going is a really bad idea, and would be more likely to be selected against.
It's always been surprising to me that the fundamental nature of the flagellum as a system has never really been the focus; yes, the motor is complicated, amazing, etc., but having a motor coupled to random motion is well... the reason we don't let people who are legally blind drive.
Post a Comment
<< Home