A Case For Intelligent Design? (4)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Science & Reason on Facebook: tinyurl.com/Sci...
"A Case For Intelligent Design? (Part 4 of 4)". This is a clip from The Atheist Experience #660 ("Viewer Calls") with Matt Dillahunty and Martin Wagner.
---
Please subscribe to Science & Reason:
• / best0fscience
• / sciencemagazine
• / sciencetv
• / ffreethinker
---
What is The Atheist Experience?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at an atheist and non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin (ACA), a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
• www.Atheist-Exp...
• www.Atheist-Com...
• www.NonProphets...
Watch The Atheist Experience live:
• Ustream: tinyurl.com/TAE...
• Channel Austin: tinyurl.com/TAE...
(Sundays 4:30 to 6:00 pm CST / 22:30-24:00 UTC)
Support the ACA (donations/membership):
• www.Atheist-Com...
• www.Atheist-Com...
• Blog: AtheistExperien...
• Wiki: www.IronChariot...
• DVDs: atheist-communi...
• Blip.tv: atheistexperien...
• Cartoons: Atheist-Communi...
• E-mail: tv@atheist-community.org
.
Even if an 'intelligent designer' WERE required, it definitely wouldn't be the god of the Old Testament which couldn't even figure out how to defeat a human army with iron chariots.
LOL.....hey also if the bible God or some other god 'intelligently designs' genetic change over time, then it's incredibly bad at it since 99% of all species which have ever lived are now extinct.
@P1ranh4 - "I've never heard an intelligent design supporter/creationist explaining correctly what the evolution theory says and implies and then why it can't be. .... This just leads me to believe that once somebody understands it, the elegance and beauty of the concept/theory is so striking that it is irrefutable"
You're spot-on, but the key phrase to remember here is "want to believe". If they want to believe something else bad enough, they'll reject any and all facts presented them.
Dillahunty: "Everything that COULD be wrong with it IS"
Lol, exactly.
Deductive reasoning triumphs irreducible complexity.
NEXT!
@tommyk77 Linkage has to be defined for the layment to understand logical thought or maybe "critical thinking skills" should be a mandatory subject in grade school.
@MikeDecipher
No, they are allowed to be asked. No one is stopping them from being asked. But no serious scientist takes the questions seriously because they AREN'T SCIENTIFIC. Let's assume evolution is totally false, ID is still not scientific. If evolution is false, the correct stance then would be that we don't understand life, not that ID is correct.
It's like someone proposing a proof of 2+2=5, using entirely unmathematical principles. "See? I proved it." "But that's not math." "So?"
@MikeDecipher Many revolutionary ideas were first met with hostility by the scientific community, but when there was enough supporting data, the ideas were accepted. Some examples: germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, relativity, evolution. However, if an idea is just wrong its proponents can't find supporting data. These people tend to whine that the scientific community is not being fair. Some examples: Lamarckism, Homeopothy, mesmerism, ID.
@MikeDecipher Flawed analogy. The human brain, you know the source of human consciousness, does exist, is seen, known and is testable.
Try again.
I have a 3 legged stool. It is useful to me, because i can sit on it. I can also bash people's heads in with the stool if they try to break into my house. In regard to the stools function as an object to sit on, it is irreducibly complex, take away any part, and it can't support you comfortably anymore and becomes useless in that regard. But in its other regard, it isn't irreducibly complex, as i can use a 2 legged, 1 legged and a stool without legs to bash somebodies head in, or even use the single parts. The stool is still useful for me even if i can't sit on it because a function has been lost.
You can sit on a one legged stool, your legs are the other two supports.
Well put sir!
Evsn if it was designed, there is no way of knowing who designed it. It could be a scientist, or a demon or a magic pixie. Or it evolved naturally. Which is most likely ?
It's tautological. All Bee is saying is if things were different they'd be different. Irreducible complexity is nonsensical.
As stupid as saying since someone won last week's lottery, therefore the lottery was designed for him, and only him, to win.
Nath Krishmaratalata You know there are people who would believe that, too.
Now, you see, if you cut off this cat's head, the cat doesn't function any more. Therefore the cat is irreducibly complex.
I stand by my initial determination of this guy as being someone that memorized talking points and never understood the arguments.
@DoomsdayR3sistance It's like fundies who say there's plenty of evidence for God's existence, yet they don't state one piece of that evidence. They just say "there's plenty of evidence" and that's it.
@OpenlyClosed first of all, anything and everything science says as fact is a theory and nothing is ever proven. You can never prove anything you in science only disprove. Second, the definition of a theory is a hypothesis which is TESTABLE and HAS been supported by a lot of evidence so claiming creation as a theory is just wrong. Evolution is a theory the same way GRAVITY is a theory but yet gravity is never questioned...
"Intelligent design is an inductive argument by analogy and an appeal to ignorance."
THIS! This sums up all of the arguments of ID. Across the board, levels them.
The caller is irreducibly ignorant. Once again the dream team slays another contender. Thats why Im an Atheist because facts and common sense always trump wishful thinking.
In a million years, Matt's descendants are gonna have wings for earlobes!
@MikeDecipher The only thing notable about "Expelled" is that it couldn't get half way through itself without defeating itself. Watch my detailed breakdown of the whole film in my Expelled series where I explain where almost every single thing that is said in that film is useless in the field of evolutionary biology as any kind of critique.
A long time ago people said :"it seems like the earth is the center of the universe,therefore it is more likely that it is so".Don´t let your eyes tell the brain,is the best advice I can give.
Actually, 37 million-jillion does sound like they came up with it off the top of their heads. :-P
_"Now for each of those hundreds of ["irreducibly complex"] systems out there you have to account for an indirect pathway"._
Ignoring for now the question of how you would even define a "direct" vs. an "indirect" pathway in an _undirected process_ like evolution...Yes, exactly! As he points out, the "direct" pathway seems to be impossible. Therefore we look for indirect ones, and we _find_ them, generally speaking. The indirect pathways we hypothesise aren't a copout to get around the absence of an explanation, they are a direct result of predictions based on our knowledge of evolution, which we then test.
Whereas he is _inventing_ out of whole cloth a direct pathway facilitated by magic because he finds the indirect one... emotionally unsatisfying, or untidy, or something?
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
You gave him far too much slack. In Clip 2 you asked him what a non-designed universe would look like, then let him wiggle off the hook. Next time say: "and our viewer will now describe what a non-designed universe looks like" and if they don't , hang up on their arse.
I think Gary's ignorance is irreducibly complex. :)
Behe's definition of Irreducible complexity is actually quite fitting. Sadly, the definition doesn't actually have anything to do with the things evolution claims and is therefore not a counterargument to it.
He was circular. He couldn't get off of his one stuck thought over and over again. He never saw that each protein of the flagellum served a function in a transitional life form and has been observed and tested.
And I just demonstrated that your assertion is incorrect. Those creatures you mentioned support evolutionary theory they dont contradict it. ALSO, evolutionary theory didnt use these animals in the manner you assert.
In evolution, real evolution, animals dont just change into something entirely different. Once again, you know just enough to get it all wrong.
You are making arguments from ignorance.
@o0POSH0o
Evolution isnt a Hypothesis, it is a theory. Do you know the difference. No scientists that are actually working in Evolutionary biology (that is scientists that arent trying to build a trojan horse) make the statements you just made. How do I know this? Because I am an evolutionary biologist. If one of my colleagues made that sort of statement we would laugh them out of the building.
@OpenlyClosed noone can ever be difinitive, about anything. In a debate you're not supposed to prove what you believe as fact youre supposed to show its a better answer REGARDLESS of the subject. This is not only in the Creation Vs. Evolution it is in every possible debate because NOTHING can be proven as fact. All they were doing in the video is showing that there is no legitimate argument that is sufficient for intelligent design without the concept of wanting to believe of such a designer
(cont.) "IC"-system is part of an even larger system of "IC" parts, because they have all evolved together over time. So you don't have to now take into account all these other systems, as the caller says, and therefore assign it a staggeringly low probability. Evolution theory is an explanation of what is observed, not an assertion.
@o0POSH0o
You just, basically, said that you studied evolution, didnt have a clue what you studied then rejected it. Evolution is not about a species breeding with a subspecies then moving along. Your knowledge of evolution is fundamentally flawed.
@baxtar1963 lmao!!! "irreducibly ignorant" That's priceless! Funny you call Matt & Martin the Dream Team 'cause they SLAMMED this guy lolol
What the ID arguments boil down to in the end is really Paley's Watchmaker -argument again and again, in various forms and degrees of sophistication, and can be answered with the same objections.
Also, he is basically using ID to 'fill the gaps'
Claiming that if scientists have not come up with an explanation, therefore it's ID
Basically that's like saying "I don't know, therefore God"
Damn.. God never made anything this complex in the bible or any other holy book... i wonder why :P
Oh I love probabilities having to do with unquantifiable subjects such as god.
Yup, best there is.
its a bitch that im willing but unable to send a donation.
i could say its the thought that counts (which would be a nice and polite responce) however, "prayers" dont put food on tables.
i like how they ask "if you are willing and able" instead of passing around a basket as if you are obligated to donate.
@Redbeardian You would think that concept would be easy to understand. For example, I hear all the time that if the big bang was off my a fraction that it would have collapsed. My reply to that is how do you know there weren't 100 trillion big bangs each taking 100 trillion years to "explode" each failing until the time where there was one that was able to form the universe as we know it. Taking that kind of thinking into consideration would drastically changes everything.
Or, how about this. An INFINITE amount of big bangs.
wow... i can't get over the ignorance of some people.
Behe?? really, are we still talking about this guy?
It is NOT irreducably complex. It evolved from earlier structures that had DIFFERENT functions.
Before you can say that A is the cause of B, you need to show that A and B exist. You can't say we don't know what A is, but what ever it is it caused B, because we don't know what you are talking about. If I find a rock on a beach and say, well it's a funny looking rock, so it must have been designed by a comedian, you would question my reasoning.
I'm a pacifist, but Gary needs a slap!
If you use intelligent design as an argument, you are stuck with the problem of postulating a designer, and a mechanism by which it could "design" things. The entire hypothesis is, if you'll excuse the expression, "irreducibly complex".
It's not the caller's fault that he has exposed to psedu-science.
It reminds me of those silly audiophiles (with WAY WAY too much money) putting their speaker wire on little wooden blocks. I am an audiophile but really...Those people are an embarrassment to the movement.
The guy wasted 40 minutes with one lame argument. The irony is, his premise is, look for things that look designed, and see if it is possible that there aren't. But then he ignores the fact that this HAS been done, WITH the very same structures he's talking about, and yet he rejects that analysis!
Gary's biggest problem... if I call something a machine, then it IS a machine. Good for you Gary, you taken a mind that could maybe have been used to help increase human understanding, and applied it to stupidity. A ringing endorsement for religious intent. 🙄
Irreducible complexity is something Creationists made up.
But you and the others see "creation" everywhere. You are on a beach of watches.
The only irreducibly complex thing I’m aware of is Gary’s consistently circular arguments although he does poses a strong argument against the possibility he was in any way intelligently designed.
Why do creationists/intelligent design proponents all chuck out quotes like they are playing that childs game "Top Trumps"?
All that "intelligent design" amounts to is the claim that something that can do anything must have done it. But, what we are looking for in science is a mechanism that explains our observations and meshes with the vast network of other scientific theories we have obtained by replicable observation, and that theory is natural selection. If there really is some evolved structure that couldn't be explained by natural selection (which would need to be demonstrated), then the answer would be "I don't know", not that something that can do anything must have done it.
emergent complexity. look it up. if it was in the bible you may have an argument for your god. but it's not.
@mattygersh If you've watched their show, they get so many of these people that it grates at their nerves.
@13shadowwolf I think this was my response after watching a whole string of AE vids... probably an overreaction. This last vid (4) actually makes lots of good points and I was actually thinking of another one in my last comment.
I still think it's not going to help the callers - and they don't get much air time (or finished sentences). But then I guess it's for us the viewers, not them the callers.
Cheers!
If the show is a "we are right" festival for atheists and science enthusiasts - that's great and it's part of the show to be arrogant I guess.
If you're trying to show all the religious and science-denying simpletons that they are wrong - if you are trying to convince ordinary people who are phoning in with their not-too-well-thought-out opinions - well then one should be patient and understanding not smug and arrogant, sorry I just think it's a bad form.
I'd argue that Matt's argument regarding the earlobe was going the wrong direction - he should have instead pointed to how evolution of complex systems often requires that each step of the way have SOME use, and that we really should not expect it to be the SAME use each step of the way because, as irreducible complexity is actually correct on, all the components needed for the final system aren't in place. Evolution PREDICTS irreducibly complex systems evolving - their existence is no problem.
Jesus... Michael Behe is one thing. I mean, he "sort of" accepts evolution, and makes some very rudimentary epistemic errors that could be championed by a first year university student, but sourcing William Dembsky... Dembsky is, in lack of kinder words, a raging loon. He's a mathematician who is calculating the odds by working backwards. He has no understanding of biology and even less so of epistemology and the philosophy of mathematics.
This caller needs to read Demski's latest book where he accepts human evolution. He's obviously read at least some of Behe's Black Box, but he certainly has not read about much of anything else, not even a single book on the Dover trial.
You two certainly had more patience with this caller than I would. Good job!
@katey1dog I have a different way of looking at it. I don't find it entertaining at the expense of someone who simply was lacking in education. I think people who are like him are everywhere and need to be shown the error of their thinking in a different format than just a talk show.
College student AND can't think analytically?
Damn, and I had an alacrity toward going to college, but knowing they're just as idiotic as my neighbors....it's back to being a misanthrope.
I just hope the women aren't ugly.
Why don't they just ask the guy for an example of something that is _not_ designed?
Martin already did in an earlier part, and they got no satisfactory answer.
Damian Freeman Yes, he asked him repeatedly, and the caller kept ducking the question because he knew he had no answer. Then Matt interrupted.
Right, what's not designed? Rocks? These religious loons literally got nothin.
@Diomedes01 just because someone sounds intelligent doesn't mean they are, just like just because something seems designed it doesn't mean it is.
the error the caller is making can be traced back to his own argument in part 2 about "DNA is a computer program"... his mistake is invoking "recursion" which is illegal in computer programming. A cannot be defined as the product of A times something else, because you don't know A to begin with.
The caller states, "irreducable complexity" is proven because if you take away a single part, it no longer functions (but as Matt demostrates... it no longer functions AS itself)
Now for your bogus notion of living fossils disproving Evolutionary theory, once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Evolutionary theory is very specific on this matter. If a creature is adapted to its environment and there is no valid competition then evolutionary change will be very, very small. Virtually absent. Best example of this is the Coelocanth. It is found in remote areas that we really didnt study, when we did find it this find proved another prediction of ....
Behe's definition of design is completely bogus. It's just a polished up watchmaker argument. But the fact is, you could find a cube of iron on the beach and it would fit *none* of Behe's definitions - it's simple, unspecified, it possesses no irreducible complexity, nobody would have any idea what it was for - and yet nobody would have an instant of doubt that it was designed, just like the watch.
We know it's designed because nature doesn't form iron into cubes on its own - or make watches.
How hard is it to flip a coin 100 times? How likely is it that the pattern that you get is the pattern you would have gotten before the flipping? EXTREMELY unlikely. (do the math, 2 times itself 100 times). Now do the same thing using NATURAL SELECTION. If the coin flip WORKS (matches the pattern), it is locked in, and we to do the next coin. On average, 150 coinflips will get to the pattern, maybe slightly more, maybe slightly less. Certainly not 1.26 x 10 raised to the 30th power.
@Entertainmentwf - "IC is logically false"
Why? Are you saying (implying) that modifications to existant life forms by an intelligent agency is illogical?
We can do it ourselfes in the lab, so why not other agents? Are you saying it's statistically unlikely (an agent couldn't exist, be motivated or capable of intervening)?
Or are you saying that natural processes have been validated, and would thus logiclly rule out an agent?
Or like Dawkins, that a capable agent violates Occam's parsimony?
"I find it a huge shame [or perhaps 'sham') these ID folk call themselves design theorists.."
Not really. 'Design Theory' in mathematics is not related to detecting design in bio systems; only the name is the same. As well the term itself (design) is nebulous. Put simply, it's 'directed' actions contra to 'undirected' processes, actually a combination of both
Gene tweaking by unknown agencies, either invivo or invitro is my prediction, and embryogenesis the creative process. No 'poof' scenario
"Dembski uses trickery and play on numbers"
I think you'll agree that while math hinges on algorithmic processes, applying them to probabilistic scenarios (complexity, randomness, statistical validations/falsifications) is itself problematic
Validating// falsifying 'design inferences' entails assigning values or ranges of values to non-quantifiable variables. Add to that the forensic (untestable) nature of refuting randomness of past processes. Not easy, and results will always be questionable
@Darahcos
Actually, Gary made more logical conclusions than M & M did.
But that aside, Matt concluded with the statement, "[Dembski] makes the same mistake that ... Creationists make ... they assume that this thing must have occurred once ... "
What?! You mean the 'poof scenario' Matt?
Wrong. ID accepts a gradual phylogenetic progression, with BOTH adaptive evolutionary changes, AND directed ones to produce complexity and novelty.
In sum, I would add NEC (non-evolvable complexity) to IC.
@Diomedes01 I agree but I think Gary may grasp the idea that some bf parts have another function just can't grasp the concept that although scientists don't know how all the 40-50 proteins came together it doesn't mean its irreducible as a whole.
I can claim an electric motor is irreducibly complex.
NM The fact some parts could be used for other functions IE. electromagnet. Although some parts are useless by themselves, they could be used to make some other device functional
@InfiniteUniverse88 - He was unable to grasp how what they told him related to his claims, though. Basically the whole clip was that. His brain was just not in a receptive state. We all understood the arguments he made the first time he said them. There was no jousting, no counter-moves. He just kept presenting the one thing. They'd tell him why it was invalid. Then he'd present the exact same thing again.
That doesn't make for good viewing =/
@Diomedes01 I agree. I truly believe that that individual had the intellect to understand darwins theory. There are so many people that compartmentalize and just refuse to give in when they are beaten. It is as if he decided a long time ago that he wasn't going to ever give up the argument because he believed it to be true. and he's sticking to his guns even after the gunfight is lost. so many are like him and no its not because he's stupid. It is a question of emotion.
I've never heard an intelligent design supporter/creationist explaining correctly what the evolution theory says and implies and then why it can't be. Instead the process we call natural selection was compared to explosions creating complex structures suddenly or just mere chance that something came to be.
This just leads me to believe that once somebody understands it, the elegance and beauty of the concept/theory is so striking that it is irrefutable.
I love this guys argument.
He made the argument that the number of IC systems makes it less likely that it can be a result of evolution... yet he is unable to actually cite one system that is IC.... not one! He only asserts they must be out there... So he has no point there.
Further more, he asserts that evolution must be direct changes... because that's how he believes it must work... because he doesn't actually understand how it does work. again no actual point... none at all, no case.
@MikeDecipher There should be no prejudice towards curiosity. However, the ID proponents did not arrive at their conclusion through curiosity. They set out from the beginning to find a creator, no matter where the evidence led. The wedge document says their plan was to have creationists obtain science degrees, so they could then turn around and try to discredit evolution. True science is the search for truth. A scientist can't deny it, just because he doesn't like it..
The thing many Creationist/ID Proponents seem to forget is the function of chemical interactions in the production of necessary biological precursors. Its not like life just suddenly and randomly happened one day. Complex chemical replicators formed naturally as well as minor protein chains. Its only when feedback systems developed that life began to occur. Life more likely came out of an ecosystem increasing in complexity than an isolated case.
Most genes code for proteins that have multiple uses or functions, across the body far & wide, and even across species. Organisms 'recycle' the proteins, the tools available.
Also Recall that the human protein coding genome is actually a small number, like 20K to 40K, where function is controlled by regulatory genes turning protein coding genes on and off as the particular part of the body structure requires.
@poorkinghaggard I don't really understand your comment. It's true, it's tough to get recognized as a scientist. That's because the peer-review process is a grueling thing to go through. It's a good thing, not a bad thing, that new scientific research is tough to get accepted. Getting something accepted has nothing to do with time or popularity, it has everything to do with whether the claim is correct, and the claims of ID are simply not correct.
@MikeDecipher My hypothetical of evolution being false is to show that ID has no leg to stand on. Every supporting argument for ID comes by trying to debunk evolution. ID itself has absolutely no merit. If you want a scientific theory to be accepted, it first has to be SCIENTIFIC. ID is not scientific. Secondly, you have to debunk the accepted theory (evolution is nowhere near debunked). Then you have to propose a new theory that explains all the evidence that the previous theory did, and more.
@MikeDecipher Where's the censorship? Who's stopping Behe from unleashing his verbal diarrhea? Behe is a university professor. If his ideas had any merit, they'd be taken seriously. This has happened before. Look at Einstein's relativity. The ideas Einstein proposed sounded absolutely preposterous, but they were entirely scientific ideas and the evidence supported them.
No idea is too strange for science, as long as the claim is scientific. To argue otherwise makes you look like a fool.
@MikeDecipher No, it's not the same thing. I'm not speculating about god. I'm not asserting that god exists. The burden of proof is on you to define god, to explain god and to demonstrate god. And please, don't be daft. By saying "show him to me" I meant the same as any other claim. And remember, by showing phenomena that can't possibly explained by natural means, you, at most, justify deism, not theism.
@Bebopopotamus I'm just stating that I'm an Atheist to show who's side I'm on. And secondly. Creation is a theory, duh! Yea, sure, it might be a bad one classified as a sad excuse for an answer, but it's still a theory. What disappointed me is that people who call themself FFreeThinker would be so ignorant and arrogant in an argument. And... Why would I lie about being an Atheist? Lol
If you flip a coin for a hundred times, you get a sequence of heads and tails, like HTHHTHHHHHTTHTHTTHT...
The chance for any one of these possible sequences is 1 : 2^100, so you could say that any sequence is absolutely improbable. But hey, you just DID produce one of these sequences.
So, although it's improbable that humans would re-evolve should we "reset" evolution to the age of bacteria, it is very probable that something else more complex evolves.
@yoavgutt Very few debate gravity. Creation vs. Evolution is a debate. And yes, in a debate you're supposed to prove what you believe as fact. Seeing how this can not be proven as fact, it should be treated as an attempt to be proven as the better answer instead. And, I don't have a problem so much with claiming is as fact as the ignorance of presenting it as a fact. They were cutting that guy off at every turn pretty much saying "You're wrong, I'm right! I'm done with this conversation!".
Hi... Atheist here...
As an Atheist, you should know better than to call someone's opinion on a topic with an undecided answer incorrect. Just so you know, Evolution is a theory. It is highly supported but not proven. Creation is a theory, not so much supported and not proven. Neither of your theories have been proven, thus meaning no one can know for sure who is right. Yes, you can argue who has a better supported answer, but having that better supported answer does not mean that you're right.
@JonO387 Perhaps because they figured that he would stop thinking in circles for long enough to actually hear why his way of thinking is broken. But as in most cases, he called with a point of view, let it be heard, then started thinking of what he was going to say next instead of actually listening to the response. That must be exhausting to the caller and frustrating for the hosts.
@drdalet I would go one step further and say that they are so used to trying to find a purpose in everything that they cant understand that life doesnt have one. There is no direction in evolution, there is no end goal, there is no one (or nothing) pulling the strings. Life is a biochemical process that ended up being able to self-replicate, evolved survival machines and some of those machines invented the interweb.
I/C can be/has been defined in two ways:
1. A complex system such that removal of one part makes the system cease to perform some or all of its current effects.
2. A system that cannot have been produced by natural processes.
[1] does not say anything about whether natural processes could have produced such a system, and
[2] cannot be demonstrated.
I/C is a non-argument in either case.
just to clarify... irreducable complexity MUST suppose Intelligent Design... because it presupposes an ultimate function, the fugellum motor was MEANT to be a motor, so it has to be irreducably complex, but you can't use intelligent design to prove irredcable complexity so you can then use irreducable complexity to prove intelligent design... it's recursion...
Is the study of a subject proof enough for a person to believe or does it take actual experience with it? Another question.. i heard matt say in a previous video that he does not believe it is possible to be 100% certain about something, yet here he states that he believes in absolute truth, is that not 100% certain? It is even possible to obtain absolute truth?
@Diomedes01 - I think you can see the grasping of the last few straws by someone who is starting to see the cracks in his beliefs. He, like most people will probably choose to find any and all reasons to not give up his core belief, which is that there is a designer....most people will do ANYTHING to avoid giving up their core beliefs. I actually feel sorry for him.
Great responses by both Matt and Martin.
I do feel that they didn't pound on the fact that Behe's definition of Irreducible Complexity is bogus, though. They let themselves be sidetracked too many times into arguments that were unnecessary.
Bottom line. Irreducible complexity fails because the flagellum parts had other uses before the parts acted like a motor.
Great series of clips..its important for those who advocate ID to hear this since many claim the athiest experience only take on idiots.This guy clearly isnt as stupid as most of the other IDiots and does a good job at throwing all the common mis conceptions and misnomers only to be completly destroyed by Matt and Martin
@OpenlyClosed - 1. As the man said, it is impossible to to demonstrate that any object has been design by an external (to it) intelligence, without an exemplar of that method of design.
There is no exemplar of intelligent design in existence which is independently verifiable as such without reference to the belief that it has been intelligently designed.
« sort of like our consciousness right? But of course, there are lunatics out there that accepts it's real. »
Consciousness is also very poorly defined, and entirely subjective. Actually, at the moment we can't tell if it *is* a real phenomenon, or simply an illusion caused by a "bug in the Id routines".
@MikeDecipher Reality is where god is?
Show him to me. And you "know" this intelligent source exists? Sorry, every religious person has said that about their particular god. The Greeks were certain of the existence of Zeus.
If you want me to take you seriously, you have to demonstrate god's existence. You can't just assert that he exists and you know of him.
Oh jesus, the probability thing. I just paused it and felt compelled to comment. YOU CAN'T CALCULATE PROBABILITY AFTER THE FACT. No one picks up a particular deck of cards, notes the order the cards are in, and then calculates the probability of getting that particular order and then claims some intelligence had to place the cards.