wade-w

Vanderzyden;

I have lost hope that you will deign to answer any of my posts, but you may find it instructive to see what an evangelical christian has to say about your position. I think you will be very surprised. Dr. Lamoureux has a Ph.D. in theology AND a Ph.D. in Biology. You may want to check out <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001336" target="_blank">this thread</a> before you continue here.

Vanderzyden

Weep not for me Starboy. I do get it. I can say that I have carefully examined the issues under consideration from several angles and to a significant depth. Can you say the same? Previously, I accepted evolution. Now, I do not. In other areas, I hold radically different beliefs than I once did--NOT because it feels good, but because the justification for my beliefs has the ring of truth. I have very, very good reasons for doing so. I expose myself and permit the hard questions to come at me. In return, I seek to ask difficult questions. I am prepared for the future with the highest confidence. Are you?

Every man gives his life for what he believes, every woman gives her life for what she believes. Sometimes people believe in little or nothing. One life is all we have, and we live it, and thus it's gone. But to surrender what you are and live without belief is more terrible than dying, even more terrible than dying young. But there is a far worse fate than living without belief. It is to live with a firm commitment to that which at the end of life, at the portals of eternity, turns out to have betrayed you.

-- attributed to Joan of Arc


Now, I will attempt to engage you once more, since you have made attempts at reconcilation. For that, I give you thanks.

So, let's begin by briefly examining your illustration to see if it relates well with the discussion at hand. You are implying that ID "principles" are out-of-specification tools for all scientists. But I am insisting that all scientists do not take this view. That is because they realize that science need not be so narrowly defined and supported only by naturalism. As others have indicated here, science may be construed more broadly. Theoretical physics is one example, since it relies heavily on sound metaphysics.

To reflect what I see on these boards, I would change the second part of your example to read as follows:

Vanderzyden walks into a laboratory and presents an example of irreducible complexity to the naturalistic scientist.

V) I would like to see if you might be persuaded to at least consider a non-natural cause. There are potential benefits, not only for your work, but for you as a person.

S) I'm sorry, but my training prohibits me from entertaining such silly notions.

This is the type of refusal that is implicit in many of the responses I have encountered--you and others.

Your thoughts?

Vanderzyden

K

Vanderzyden:

Should non-natural causes be permitted as explanations in investigations of murder cases? It could certainly help to close a lot of the open cases.

Kevin Dorner

No such thing. A better term for "Irreducible complexity" is "we haven't figured it out yet" or even closer to the mark: "I haven't figured it out yet."

Example: Real biologists must hang their jaws in awe that Behe and friends can promulgate with straight faces that the flagellum (yes, they use "the" as though there were no others) is IC when there are many different types of flagella shown in nature, some with far fewer components than the one they trumpet as "irreducible" (the 9+2 configuration.)

Yet an entire book was written with this supposed "proof" as the centerpiece, whereas five minutes of research into cellular biology would have shown that it is utterly wrong.

So if you find an example of something that you define as IC, how do you tell that this is just not due to a personal lack of knowledge of the subject, or a current (temporary) lack of information of the subject generally?

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Yes, in one word: motive.

Vanderzyden

Behe took one example. OK, so there are other types of flagella that are--to a degree--irreducibly complex. They are still inexplicably complicated--whether one considers the component itself or the relation to its biological context.

Oh, it's interesting what you claim: Which other ones have "far fewer" components?

Vanderzyden

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

K

How is motive non-natural? Motive is a name given to a range of human drives. Motives can certainly be studied scientifically.

A non-natural cause would be more like:

"No human could possibly leave such a grisley crime scene. This must be the work of the devil."

"She was known to miss church often. Let's not rule out the fact that God could have murdered her."

Kevin Dorner

"The eukaryotic cilium is surely complex, but any claim that it is irreducibly complex collapses upon inspection. Although the standard 9+2 arrangement [of microtubules] is the most common form of this biochemical machine, Culex mosquitoes are missing one of the two central pair microtubules, giving them a 9+1 arrangement. Sperm of the eel Anguilla are missing *both* of the central doublets, making them 9+0. Lecudina Tuzetae, a protozoan, is missing three of the usual nine doublets as well as the central pair, a 6+0 arrangement. Another protozoan, Diplauxis hatti, has a fully functional 3+0 flagellum, and
a number of organisms have working motile structures that lack the radial arrangement of microtubules altogether."
--- Kenneth Miller, "Finding Darwin's God", page 142

I think that this book was recommended to you before. I restate this recommendation.

Even though the information is available in such a well-known and oft-referenced source, the ID promoters continue to use the example of "the IC flagellum."

Either they know this already, or they don't. If they do, and continue to use this example, then they they are being deceptive, and should not be trusted as a source of scientific information. If they don't, given the ease with which one could find out, then they are not being thorough in their research, and again should not be trusted as a source of scientific information.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

hyzer

Quote” Yes, in one word: motive.”

How would one conclude “the devil made him do it” or “he was lead stray by a wicked troll”?

How would that help close the case against the supposed perpetrator?

Lizard

Me:
Gee, I've heard this same thing from nearly every creationist: I used to be an evolutionist, but then I saw it was all a fraud.

First, I don't believe anyone who really understood evolutionary science could reject it on evidentiary grounds. So those who say "I was an evolutionist" probably mean, "I never gave it much thought, just took notes in class and took the exam."

Second, I don't believe there are any "very good reasons" for rejecting the whole idea of evolution. Some people may think the Bible is literally true, or that human beings are somehow not subject to evolutionary principles that apply to every other living species on earth. Neither of these is a good reason. They are both merely personal opinions, not evidence that refutes evolutionary theory.

So VZ, I would be interested in what happened that caused you to reject evolution. Are you willing to say?