Where does this guy get off making conclusions that something is irreducibly complex when the rest of the scientific community disagrees with him? What a douche bag!
@CesarPhilosophe I'm curious - what is your definition of science - from what I have seen in your responses, nothing is science that you don't agree with - so please, define science from your own perspective - Thanx.
behe didnt say its NOT science, he said that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS...TERMS defined by NAS!! Now, i will help you learn something today...go back and read what happens to scientists who dare challenged the church's doctrines, and belief systems....ID is science. You cannot prove to me it isnt, outside your own def.
Very embarrassing for scientists, so sad. But with money, greed comes. Hopefully science will come back from that. I believe they will.
Then Philip Campbell, editor in chief of the peer-review journal Nature, stepped down hours after his appointment, do to the threats,marginalization of real scientists he took part in with fellow climate gate/scam scientists. When new-science religions are challenge they push back, regardless of truth, so sad.
Im biased, why cant u admit ur are as well? Man, u evos have such problems with being humble.
id not science? Just like global warming is science? 25000 scientists challenged it were all marginalized, banned from peer reviews ,criticized as poor scientists... by HEAD climate chief scientist, Phil Jones, director of the university's Climatic Research Unit, again, HEAD, leader, top dog, who has now stepped down over the lies, and fabricated evidence
"If you're reffering to my second paragraph its not only a opinion its a known fact."
Just like evolution? or how about the 'fact" of global warming, or the "fact" that Humans caused global warming? Got to love the 'facts" that scientists spew, of course, until they are exposed as lies... climate gate ring any bells? But of course u still believe it...its called bias....same thing u use when looking at ID. Can u give me the def. of science pls?
Thats ur opinion& a biased one at that. Creationists would be better fit for ur brilliance. ID is science..same tests, science, theorys as godless science. The ONLY diff, is they actually admit the possibility of intelligence though, not an absolute. Its actually honest science .
These scientists have gone to the very same universities, studied the same curriculum, but becasue they are only being honest with some of the evidence, they are marginalize as right wing crazy God people.
pls elaborate? 99% of 19th century scientists who paved the way for everything we know now didnt have any prob w/loving & engaging in science while understanding their finite minds as compared to the infinite mind of our creator? Im curious, why wouldnt ID be science same universities, yrs, but recognize the obvious, A designer. Why hatred for anything God within todays pseudo scientists & sheep who follow this new religion?
so why are we still talking about it? i t did massive damage to evo, though we really needed it? Evo is a crutch for those who find God repugnant....and no im not ignorant to its claims....I love science, and follow it religiously. Many discoveries my modern science is excellent, and it has an important part in Glorifying the designer. if evo was such an absolute, u wouldnt have thousands of scientists, in all fields impartial to its 'supposed' absolutes
And to be fair this video sounds good because it's really scientific and I do not doubt what he is saying...but it proves nothing. You CANT prove it at all, at least science can be proved better than I.D. It has even been ruled in court I believe I.D. is not science...Thus you're entitled to believe it but it should not be TAUGHT.
Oh and infinitemika my prof was not intimidated...he LOVES it. Hes just a respectful guy, but I know on the inside he was dying to blast Behe ; )
"And to be fair this video sounds good because it's really scientific and I do not doubt what he is saying...but it proves nothing. You CANT prove it at all"
LOL...pls. so, we can prove evo? have u seen it in action? other than smal adaptations within species? if so, pls let me know....ill pass it on to the world....good science, but 95% assumption, taught as fact...thats scary
well he cant...the truth hurts...plus he was obviously intimidated by BeHe who is a genius that could and has (darwins black box) ripped evolution up beyond repair
"Behe spoke at my school, my Anthro Prof went and I cant believe he didnt kill him. LOL"
he couldnt, BeHe is not dumb..neither are the thousands of other PHD;s who also have SERIUOS questions for evolution, and its validity, as would darwin if he were alive today
Such is this case, in which Behe describes with such clarity. Why don't we add up the positive evidence for Intelligent Design, including: Irreducible Complexity, the Anthropic Principle and the so called Cambrian Explosion - throw in a little 21st century common sense and a bit of Ockham's Razor and you will find that Darwinism is completely dead - behold, we are held accountable...
The subject in the video is irreducible complexity - this concept, proven through scientific evidence, that which is observable and repeatable, can not be denied - Darwin himself, stated that if it was discovered that a biological component exsisted which could not have been made through a series of small modifications resulting from natural selection, that his theory would be disproven...
Where IDers see irreducibility of a complex system, scientists see a puzzle to be figured out. That is a scientist's real dogma, "Solve the problem." We are talking about a battle of dogmas. One side chooses the supernatural dogma and one side chooses the how does it work dogma. One side sees only universal answer (creator), one side only sees a universal question (how?). I like the question.
BEHE the Id fundamentalist, wanted the definition of science to be changed so that ID becomes science LOL. Offcourse he said astrology would also be included as science under his warped definition needed to try and pretend ID is science!
Intelligent Design is part of what is called the Wedge Strategy, in which bigoted theists blame atheism for all the troubles of the world and are seeking to gain political power to impose xainity on everyone like a xian taliban. There is a political agenda being foisted upon us here by religious bastards who want everyone to be as deluded as they are. Fight the inane busllshit of ID!
INTELLIGENT DESING is a fact... how do u explain molecular machines inside the cell, and how do u explain information codes inside the dna molecule? the only logical answer is intelligence. fuck EVOLUTION.
Our ignorance about natural phenomena does not prove that ID is a "fact." It only proves our ignorance.
On the other hand, if you believe in intelligent design is a fact because it is more plausible (the "only logical answer," you say), please answer this question: Which is more plausible, a single creator or multiple creators of our immense universe? Does not polytheism make far more logical sense--if one accepts intelligent design as fact?
My, my, young man (i.e., Belluschi85), you must be an odd Christian to use such abusive language when attempting to explain your faith! Obviously you are expressing your frustrating lack of answers to my questions by lashing out, so I'll let it go, kid. In any event, can you please point me to the part of the Bible that you think I should read?
U dont need to read it,, I'll put it up 4 u... Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.",,, Hebrews 11:3 (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." ,, does it sound like ATOMS, figure that out.. u might want to read/ Isaiah 40:22/
Job 26:7/ Isaiah 40:22/ Job 40:15-24/ Job 41/ enojoy it
Thanks, Bellu, Job is actually one of my favorites in the Bible. No kidding.
But the quotes you supplied prove nothing about the legimacy of intelligent design. They merely assert that God made the world. Moreover, unlike yourself, Job admits that he has no proof, but that it's "through faith we understand" what you interpret as an atomistic theory. Fair enough; all religion is based on faith. But this is NOT evidence, especially the scientific kind that intelligent design folk claim exists.
a lot of scientist r having doubts about evolution.... dont believe me... google it and find out... intelligent design is a scientific theory, that evolutionist hate cuz if they admit it.. all the books will have to be rewritten,, and the brand of evolution... will be considered as a joke... nobody would ever trust in science again... u get the picture>> is very clear right..
Belluschi: Yes, a lot of scientists dispute evolution--probably a few thousand. But hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of professionals do not, so you can't use the doubts of a tiny minority as evidence unless you account for why they ARE a minority.
You misunderstand science. Those who replace old theories with new ones are celebrated, not hated. Two of my heroes, Galileo and Einstein made their reputations "rewriting" the books. And we trust science even more because of them.
did u know that Galileo and Einstein had religious belifs regarding the universe?
"probably a few thousand"... why is it that those few thousand have doubts,, Evolution is a fact, doesnt it?.. then why those "few thousand" r having a hard time believing in evolution, after all, evolution is a proven fact, where there shouldnt be any doubts at all.
Bellu: You must not be a scientist, because you again badly misunderstand it. Doubt is a normal part of the process of scientific inquiry. NO theory, even the theory of gravity, has universal agreement among scientists. So the fact that some doubt a theory says NOTHING about the truth or falseness of that theory.
The fact that Galileo and Einstein held "religious beliefs regarding the universe" is also irrelevant. Neither man ever expressed doubts about the theory of evolution.
You've admitted that you are retarded, so dealing with your rantings the same way one deals with a retards rantings is simple. GO TAKE YOUR MEDICATION.
Good point. I have studied evolution enough to know its fact...that is until i came across your insightful comments...now i dont know what to believe.
I did puke on evolution once... cuz it sounded too good to be true... but then it turned out to be a false theory which doesnt explain shit about life... especially on cells.
If you are looking for answers regarding Abiogenesis, there is a lot you can learn on the web. Be careful though, there are a lot of sites that purport to contain unbiased information but are actually just fronts for creation science and intelligent design dogma.
However, your question has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If you would like to discuss that, I'd be happy to.
My question was directly to your comment, so it stands:
Both responses about ID being religion cause me to suspect that neither of you can reason in the abstract. Clearly, you are not able to grasp my earlier points. If you can't distinguish between a man's belief system and his methodology, you disqualify yourself from rational discussion. Your critics have read Darwin and his successors, but you have not read the ID authors. Your low level of intellectual curiousity is remarkable.
ID authors need to be read. Only the facts need to be understood. The speculations and pseudoscience of ID warrants no respect whatsoever. It's not science.
Both creation science and intelligent design have a pedigree that goes back 2300 years. CS begins with faith and moves forward (Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, Anselm); ID begins with observation and moves backward (Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley etc.) Augustine's "faith seeking understanding," for example,is CS; Aristotle's "prime mover" argument is ID. Don't get conned by the ignorance/ dishonesty of Judge Jones and Barbara Forrest.
1. Wow, that's impressive. I give a specific example showing that Judge Jones presided over a kangaroo court and no one seems to be scandalized. 2. Who is the designer? Science can only detect the EFFECTS of intelligent innovation, it cannot identify the designer. That is the business of religion.
Yeah, it was a kangaroo court from what I've read but Darwinian fundamentalists don't care about that. They only care about the win. Now had the ID theorists won, rest assured that the focus would be on the process.
The fact that ID can't identify the designer means that it has not only failed to give an in depth explanation of anything (like evolution can), AND that like you say, it necessitates religion, is precisely why it shouldn't be treated scientifically...and it's why Judge Jones ruled the way he did...and Jones is a Bush-appointed conservative republican anyway...
JDR:The fact that ID can't identify the designer means that it has not only failed to give an in depth explanation of anything
Response: ID doesn't have to identify the designer. And it's absurd to think that just because it doesn't that we should assume that it evolved when the evidence says otherwise.
It's called Intelligent DESIGN...the only reason IDers don't name a designer is because if they did, it would be God, and that would give away the religious nature of the theory...and the evidence doesn't say otherwise. Evolutions explains things like the flagellum, it's just a matter of going and looking it up for yourself.
Dawkins claims that at trial Ken Miller "showed how the bacterial flagellar motor could evolve via known functional intermediates." Again, this is just false. What Miller did was to point to another irreducibly complex system, the Type III Secretory System and claim it as an intermediate—even though the best evidence shows it is derivative of the flagellum and not the other way around.
Doesn't matter. Placing some "unknown intelligence" into a gap of understanding of a natural process is NOT SCIENCE, and has never been. Science came about specifically to examine natural processes WITHOUT "magic" or "unknown intelligent designers" as part of the explanation. ID people need to go off and discuss their PHILOSOPHY among themselves.
I went through the critical parts of the transcript of the Dover trial. Judge Jones often misrepresented Behe's statements in his decision. One Example: Behe acknowledged that the plausibility of intelligent design CAN BE AFFECTED by whether one believes in God or not (Obviously true)
But Jones stated in his decision that Behe said ID DEPENDS UPON a belief in God. That is a blatant lie calculated to make it appear that Behe was saying his science is faith based.
Response: Creationists claim that the designer is God. ID theorists limit themselves to identifying an intelligent agent. Not all ID theorists believe in God
•Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
An example of evolution being falsifiable would be, say, finding a hippopotamus in the Precambrian strata. That could falsify evolution since it's in contradiction to what the theory tells us about what we should find in the real world if it's true. ID needs to be able to be potentially falsified in the same manner before it is on equal grounds with evolution...finding flaws in evolution doesn't cut it, and that's all Behe is trying to do.
Don't know it is not part of ID, Aliens? Men from the future?, consciousness?, some other as get undiscovered natural agent? Maybe there is no designer but Selection acting on random mutations is not the designer either.
It's a shame to see scientists like Behe, who in the face of a mystery (the evolution of the flagellum isn't really a big mystery) resort to design to explain things...not only does he not provide any real evidence, he simply tries making the rival theory look wrong. If evolution were wrong (it probably isn't), that wouldn't automatically validate Intelligent Design.
It's a shame to see scientists like Behe, who in the JD:(the evolution of the flagellum isn't really a big mystery) resort to design to explain things...not only does he not provide any real evidence, he simply tries making the rival theory look wrong.
Response: It's a mystery to YOU and scientists thus far. He does use real evidence. You're just not aware of it.
If it didn't evolve naturally then it was design. What other alternative do you suggest?
Like which ones? His best example, the 'poster organism' for the ID movement (the bacterial flagellum) is not irreducibly complex, and we know very well how it evolved.
Since youtube doesn't allow link I'll send you a text message with a few scholarly articles.
A big name scientists who is probably one of the most vocal critics of irreducible complexity is Ken Miller. There are videos of him giving lectures, etc, here on youtube.
he doesn't give a theoretical model. He just points to the greater-than-expected complexity of the flagellum (which Darwinists did not predict or expect) and declares that Darwinian processes could produce it. This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely.
Miller tries to distract attention from its manifest design by pointing out that parts of the structure can have functions other than propulsion. In particular, some parts of the flagellum act as a protein pump, allowing the flagellum to aid in its own construction--a level of complexity that was unsuspected until relatively recently.
The evident purpose of Miller and others is to make the concept of IC so brittle that it easily crumbles. However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn't be used for any other purpose.
Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin's Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system
Miller's argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That's it! He doesn't show how natural selection could do so; he doesn't cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible;
How would you know whether Behe read the papers or not? I've been following the reviews and no one comes any closer than Miller. In fact several others have agreed that there isn't anything in the literature which explains a Darwinian pathway for IC
You should read up on what happened at the dover trial...Behe was presented with a number of papers and books which all discuss the evolution of the flagellum, out of 50 or so books and papers, Behe read 4...and simply shrugged it off as evidence which wasn't convincing enough for him...the man simply doesn't want evolution to be true.
I certainly find that hard to read based on what I've read so far and I'm not about to read through the entire transcript. If you post the exact quote here I'll check it out further.
I would direct you to a certain video here but it appears you've already seen it...and I'm not about to go searching through the transcript myself for the exact quote, I'm a bit busy. The point is, Behe has only read so much, and what he has read, he just won't accept regardless of the science. he simply doesn't want evolution to be correct.
A. No, I haven't. I have read those papers that I presented though yesterday on the immune system.
Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no?
A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results. So you get up to speed pretty quickly. You don't have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so.
'The nice thing about science' is that we get to follow certain criterion when we 'do' science...Behe himself said that if Intelligent design were to be allowed as science, astrology would count as well...but that's not how it works.
Science also has to be falsifiable or verifiable. ID is not and ID scientists have been unwilling so far to design any sort of testable hypothesis, even with encouragement from religious organizations.
Now, one can't have it both ways. One can't say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable
Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions. See Decoding DNA, Nucleosome code, Pyknons, Fractal Genomics, and design, law, and chance for more on this.
"You should read up on what happened at the dover trial.."
It amazes me that, although Behe proved himself to be a fraud, the moronic fundies like "owen" still hold his opinion as valid. Or, maybe they don't, but since he's the main source of info for the fundie websites, they have no choice but to quote his ramblings.
"Behe did not prove himself a fraud. Do grow up. "
allan: Behe claimed for years that ID is science and then had to admit under oath in Kitmiller v. Dover BOE that there is not one iota of scientific information validating ID. In the process, he exposed himself as a fraud.
Do acquaint yourself with the subject before you post next.
I am acquaint with the subject I can asure you. The idea that Behe thinks yet alone admitted that "there is not one iota of scientific information validating ID" (I would have wrote "supporting" not "validating") is not credable. It is your calling Micheal Behe a fraud that I take exception to. I disagree with you but I would not have called you a fraud. I disagree with some things Richard Dawkins says but I think him a man of integrity.
allan: each time you post you demonstrate that you are assuredly UN-acquainted with the facts of the matter. Read the trial transcript of Behe's testimony in the court case I mentioned earlier. He admitted under oath that there is no verifiable scientific evidence supporting ID. That is a fact, not my opinion.
Deal with it. You can continue to sit in the corner with your hands over your ears screaming HE DID NOT!!!!, but that won't make Behe less of a fraud.
Why doen't u just quote the statement that you are refering to and think justifies you in believing that Behe thinks that "there is not one iota of scientific information validating ID" I have read some of the transcripts but do not recognise your paraphrase. Look Behe could be wrong about what he believes. I could be wrong about a great many things I believe. But where does being a "fraud" fit into all of this?
The statement won't fit in a 500 character text box. Why don't you man up and admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about?
Behe is a fraud because he maintained for years that ID is science and then to prevent perjuring himself had to admit that there was scientific information supporting ID.
Kaysandesses: You can managed to attribute quotes to Micheal Behe using far less than 500 chacracters but now you say you can not fit them in a 500 character box.
So you think that it is unscientific to doubt that natural selection can produce some (indeed many) of the things attributed to it. To seek to distinguish between those that reasonably could and those that reasonably could not and make then an inference to design.
Yes paraphrasing as mentioned by me earlier! So Micheal Behe said and thinks no such thing except in YOUR paraphrasing. That is moving the goal posts in ever the posts got moved.
How have I moved the goal posts?
I summed up what ID and also stated that you think it unscientific. You respond with "The point is about ID not being science. Don't try to shift the goalpost midstream"! So you think my summing up does make it science?
Anyway the mainpoint was the use of the word "fraud"
Behe claimed ID is science. Later he had to admit under oath that there is no scientific verification of ID. He misrepresented the nature of ID. That is fraud.
You can continue to wander through life with your head in the sand if you wish. It is of no concern to me. That is all.
That is not a reasoned response. You have continued to type and fill many 500 character boxes but refuse to back up your assertions which you pass off as Micheal Behe's own thoughts and admissions. You can repeat your own statements as many times as you wish but that will not turn them into Behe's.
Yes, I think it is important we have these people. Basically they can build their castles on a particular piece of biology, until someone sets about explaining it properly, then they have to go quiet and pick somewhere else to start building.
LMAO..it's hilarious how the militant secularists are getting their panties in a wad over this. Behe isn't saying that "this is proof god did it!", he is just explains why it is inprobable that the flagellum evolved, seeing as how bacteria quickly remove useless genes from their genome. It most certainly has NOT been debunked, simply saying that it has won't make it so.
Behe has an agenda. He wants ID taught in schools. There is no science in ID. It is the statement that something looks designed so there must be a designer. That is not science. One book IDers push is "Pandas and People" and old creationist book. Teach science in science class. Teach ID in a liberal arts course.
Did Behe say he wanted ID taught in schools or are you just making that up? What about archeology, forensics, and cryptography and the SETI program that relies on ID? No science there either?
Behe testified at the Dover trial. He was a witness for the group who wanted to change the definition of science so that ID could be taught in science class.
Archeology, forensics, cryptography and the SETI program is not the study of the miraculous. It uses science, natural science not magic. There is no POOF and the thing being studied miraculously appears. ID requires the interference of a God, a designer. Science has yet to find that. If it does, so be it. Then you will have proof of God. But so far no proven miracles.
Intelligent design is the field of study that investigates signs of intelligence. It identifies those features of objects that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause. This "magic" as you understand it to be is also used in the other sciences mentioned. ID also relies on specified complexity which include irreducible complexity.
The difference is that once someone says that something, "people, animals or the such was intelligently designed" what is the next step? Science would say "how did this happen and look for answers. Behe supports the theists will ID. The next step there is which God to believe in. That is not science.
When evolutionists determine that the non-coding region of DNA is junk DNA because that's what they would expect, what's the next step? When evolutionists determine certain organs are vestigial, what's the next step? ID predicts that these do have valuable functions. Evolution is based on assumptions and speculation. That's not science.
What are the valuable functions of these vestigial organs? Who is ID is studying them? IDers did not study the human Genome, scientists did. Science does not always find the answers and sometimes their answers are wrong. Someone proves that the world does not work the way we think it does and then gives proof. Saying that a vestigial organ has an important function is not proof. What is the function?
It seems beyond dispute that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm led to a false presumption that non-coding DNA lacks function, and that this presumption has resulted in real-world negative consequences for molecular biology and even for medicine
These are your strawmen. The future will see your "natural selection of the gaps" argument continuing to lose plausibility as an explaination for an ever increasing number of phenomenom (observed facts) and features of the living world and only explaining, and relevent to, a large number of low level and trival changes and adaptions.
Archeology is the study of previous cultures, forensics uses science to understand evidence, cryptography is the study and use of codes to send or conseal information and SETI is the search for intelligent life on other worlds. When you say flagellum is intelligently designed what is the next step??? What are you studing or looking for?
The next step is to continue to determine what else in nature is a result of natural causes or intelligent causes. Evolution would have us wait millions of years in spite of predicted probabilities of next to zero. Therefore evolution can never be falsified and anything not falsifiable is not science.
Not true, if something is eventually found to not happen by natural causes. ID may win the argument. Science progressing is a benefit to IDers. The better we understand the natural world the easier it would be to prove that something was not created naturally but was indeed created.
Evolution will NEVER conclude that a living organism did not come about through natural causes no matter how much evidence stacked against it. That's the nature of evolution which is why it is not science.
What evidence is stacked against it? The only thing stacked against it is a lack of knowledge. Why are some people so against evolution? Why not Einstein's Theory of relativity? Now that theory is very very hard to prove. Evolution goes against the theists' beliefs. That is the only reason that it is questioned all the time. IDers will never conclude that life came anywhere but through a designer.
All kinds of evidence, especially at the molecular level. Einstein's theory of relativity has not become an ideology like evolution. Einstein's theory of relative has not shaped the way many people now look at the world. ID by definition looks to distinguish what is a product of nature and what is a product of design
All the videos I've seen doesn't show IDers distinguishing between what is a product of nature and what is a product of design. They show everything as being a product of design. Now that is an ideology. Evolution is just a mechanism to explain the world as it is. Anything beyond that is not science. Anything beyond that is ideology.
No it doesn't. ID by definition says that everything was designed. If I'm wrong in this show me. Where is it written that ID seek to distinguish what is a product of nature and what is a product of design?
Highlander7 It is hard to believe that you really believe what you have written here. It is your side surely that is commited to EVERYTHING in the living world being a product of natural selection. ID proponents first and foremost do not subscribe to that. Further they claim that it should be possible to distinguish between features that are reasonably the result of Natural Selection and those that are not. And that design is a reasonable inference.
I'm not on a side. If I am shown proof that there is a designer, fine, until then no designer. I never said everything has come about by natural selection. But it seems to be the most probable mechanism. There may be others.
Highlander7 It is refreshing to find someone who is not on a side. Which things are you then saying did not come about by non-random selection acting on random mutations?
The fact that 'junk DNA' is not junk has emerged not because of evolutionary theory but in spite of it. On the other hand, people asking research questions in an ID framework would presumably have been looking for the functions of non-coding regions of DNA all along, and we might now know considerably more about them.
Then people who believe in ID should give them money to do their studies and prove that they are right. Nobody said that proving what you believe to be true is easy. To me, evolution makes sense but if their is proof that it is wrong that is okay too. I want the true. Solving the puzzle of life is not easy but the journey is interesting.
Just because someone is a good debater does not mean that they are right. You can have all true in the world on your side but come off poorly in a debate. That is why some scientists do not go to debate or lose them.
No we don't. What we do need is genuine scientific debate, but when only one side of the debate is science and the other side is pseudoscience which tosses their hands up in the air and says "GOD/designer did it" when a scientific answer isn't immediately present, you don't have genuine scientific discourse. Interjecting GOD/designer when you don't have an explaination is intellectually lazy.
Oh, it's really simple. There exists intermeidary forms for the cilia and flagellum. Not only that, but the flagellum is not even irreducibly complex--it can work without some of its parts.
Please look it up if you are interested. Behe and the entire ID debate has been creditably shredded as has William Dembski's arguments. It's insipid garbage. If you're really interested, watch the American Enterprise Institute debate from last year. Also, read the cross-examination by Eric Rothschild of Michael Behe from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Behe was thoroughly dismantled on the stand, having to admit that ID was no more scientific than astrology.
What has gotten proven wrong? That's just it, faith doesn't "prove" anything. God of the Gaps has shrunken exponentially over the past century purely due to scientific discovery. And yes, Behe's specific claims were proven wrong, not just his concepts. Please, look it up.
he means those specific examples. But go ahead, keep using the God of the Gaps argument. It just shows your idiocy when they get proven wrong over and over and over.
In my opinion, Ken Miller has hardly debunked ID. By all means I advise people to check out his arguments. And check out the arguments of his opponents and make up their own minds.
Where does this guy get off making conclusions that something is irreducibly complex when the rest of the scientific community disagrees with him? What a douche bag!
kusalaviro 1 year ago
This guy was put on the stand and was made to look foolish. See the special from PBS
NOVA | Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
pchtermino 1 year ago 2
@CesarPhilosophe I'm curious - what is your definition of science - from what I have seen in your responses, nothing is science that you don't agree with - so please, define science from your own perspective - Thanx.
McDaveDJM 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
behe didnt say its NOT science, he said that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS...TERMS defined by NAS!! Now, i will help you learn something today...go back and read what happens to scientists who dare challenged the church's doctrines, and belief systems....ID is science. You cannot prove to me it isnt, outside your own def.
this argument is extremely weak, so lets move on
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika ID is not science, look up Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, to save us all time
VarykGerai 11 months ago
@CesarPhilosophe
Very embarrassing for scientists, so sad. But with money, greed comes. Hopefully science will come back from that. I believe they will.
Then Philip Campbell, editor in chief of the peer-review journal Nature, stepped down hours after his appointment, do to the threats,marginalization of real scientists he took part in with fellow climate gate/scam scientists. When new-science religions are challenge they push back, regardless of truth, so sad.
infinitemika 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
Im biased, why cant u admit ur are as well? Man, u evos have such problems with being humble.
id not science? Just like global warming is science? 25000 scientists challenged it were all marginalized, banned from peer reviews ,criticized as poor scientists... by HEAD climate chief scientist, Phil Jones, director of the university's Climatic Research Unit, again, HEAD, leader, top dog, who has now stepped down over the lies, and fabricated evidence
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika global warming is not science, its a subject of study.
VarykGerai 11 months ago
@CesarPhilosophe
LOL!!!!! definetly needed that laugh....scared my little boy who was beside me when I read that!
infinitemika 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
"If you're reffering to my second paragraph its not only a opinion its a known fact."
Just like evolution? or how about the 'fact" of global warming, or the "fact" that Humans caused global warming? Got to love the 'facts" that scientists spew, of course, until they are exposed as lies... climate gate ring any bells? But of course u still believe it...its called bias....same thing u use when looking at ID. Can u give me the def. of science pls?
infinitemika 1 year ago
Thats ur opinion& a biased one at that. Creationists would be better fit for ur brilliance. ID is science..same tests, science, theorys as godless science. The ONLY diff, is they actually admit the possibility of intelligence though, not an absolute. Its actually honest science .
These scientists have gone to the very same universities, studied the same curriculum, but becasue they are only being honest with some of the evidence, they are marginalize as right wing crazy God people.
infinitemika 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
"Because ID is not science"
pls elaborate? 99% of 19th century scientists who paved the way for everything we know now didnt have any prob w/loving & engaging in science while understanding their finite minds as compared to the infinite mind of our creator? Im curious, why wouldnt ID be science same universities, yrs, but recognize the obvious, A designer. Why hatred for anything God within todays pseudo scientists & sheep who follow this new religion?
infinitemika 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
so why are we still talking about it? i t did massive damage to evo, though we really needed it? Evo is a crutch for those who find God repugnant....and no im not ignorant to its claims....I love science, and follow it religiously. Many discoveries my modern science is excellent, and it has an important part in Glorifying the designer. if evo was such an absolute, u wouldnt have thousands of scientists, in all fields impartial to its 'supposed' absolutes
infinitemika 1 year ago
And to be fair this video sounds good because it's really scientific and I do not doubt what he is saying...but it proves nothing. You CANT prove it at all, at least science can be proved better than I.D. It has even been ruled in court I believe I.D. is not science...Thus you're entitled to believe it but it should not be TAUGHT.
Oh and infinitemika my prof was not intimidated...he LOVES it. Hes just a respectful guy, but I know on the inside he was dying to blast Behe ; )
tiki2188 2 years ago
@tiki2188
"And to be fair this video sounds good because it's really scientific and I do not doubt what he is saying...but it proves nothing. You CANT prove it at all"
LOL...pls. so, we can prove evo? have u seen it in action? other than smal adaptations within species? if so, pls let me know....ill pass it on to the world....good science, but 95% assumption, taught as fact...thats scary
infinitemika 1 year ago
N like ur head is eriducibly fuckin bald.LOL
eneckchalk 2 years ago
Behe spoke at my school, my Anthro Prof went and I cant believe he didnt kill him. LOL
tiki2188 2 years ago
well he cant...the truth hurts...plus he was obviously intimidated by BeHe who is a genius that could and has (darwins black box) ripped evolution up beyond repair
infinitemika 2 years ago
OK, we'll go with that one... Whatever gets you to sleep at night. We have the right to disagree after all
tiki2188 2 years ago
@tiki2188
"Behe spoke at my school, my Anthro Prof went and I cant believe he didnt kill him. LOL"
he couldnt, BeHe is not dumb..neither are the thousands of other PHD;s who also have SERIUOS questions for evolution, and its validity, as would darwin if he were alive today
infinitemika 1 year ago
Such is this case, in which Behe describes with such clarity. Why don't we add up the positive evidence for Intelligent Design, including: Irreducible Complexity, the Anthropic Principle and the so called Cambrian Explosion - throw in a little 21st century common sense and a bit of Ockham's Razor and you will find that Darwinism is completely dead - behold, we are held accountable...
McDaveDJM 2 years ago
The subject in the video is irreducible complexity - this concept, proven through scientific evidence, that which is observable and repeatable, can not be denied - Darwin himself, stated that if it was discovered that a biological component exsisted which could not have been made through a series of small modifications resulting from natural selection, that his theory would be disproven...
McDaveDJM 2 years ago
Behe admits chimps and humans have a common ancestor. He accepts evolution!
StupidCreationists 3 years ago
Where IDers see irreducibility of a complex system, scientists see a puzzle to be figured out. That is a scientist's real dogma, "Solve the problem." We are talking about a battle of dogmas. One side chooses the supernatural dogma and one side chooses the how does it work dogma. One side sees only universal answer (creator), one side only sees a universal question (how?). I like the question.
highlander7 3 years ago
BEHE the Id fundamentalist, wanted the definition of science to be changed so that ID becomes science LOL. Offcourse he said astrology would also be included as science under his warped definition needed to try and pretend ID is science!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Intelligent Design is part of what is called the Wedge Strategy, in which bigoted theists blame atheism for all the troubles of the world and are seeking to gain political power to impose xainity on everyone like a xian taliban. There is a political agenda being foisted upon us here by religious bastards who want everyone to be as deluded as they are. Fight the inane busllshit of ID!
alien8ted 3 years ago
What CDK007's Video On The Evolution Of the Flagellum
Kujien 4 years ago
INTELLIGENT DESING is a fact... how do u explain molecular machines inside the cell, and how do u explain information codes inside the dna molecule? the only logical answer is intelligence. fuck EVOLUTION.
Belluschi85 4 years ago
Our ignorance about natural phenomena does not prove that ID is a "fact." It only proves our ignorance.
On the other hand, if you believe in intelligent design is a fact because it is more plausible (the "only logical answer," you say), please answer this question: Which is more plausible, a single creator or multiple creators of our immense universe? Does not polytheism make far more logical sense--if one accepts intelligent design as fact?
ghettofreeze 4 years ago
Just shut up and read the bible fuck hole
Belluschi85 4 years ago
My, my, young man (i.e., Belluschi85), you must be an odd Christian to use such abusive language when attempting to explain your faith! Obviously you are expressing your frustrating lack of answers to my questions by lashing out, so I'll let it go, kid. In any event, can you please point me to the part of the Bible that you think I should read?
ghettofreeze 4 years ago
U dont need to read it,, I'll put it up 4 u... Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.",,, Hebrews 11:3 (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." ,, does it sound like ATOMS, figure that out.. u might want to read/ Isaiah 40:22/
Job 26:7/ Isaiah 40:22/ Job 40:15-24/ Job 41/ enojoy it
Belluschi85 3 years ago
Thanks, Bellu, Job is actually one of my favorites in the Bible. No kidding.
But the quotes you supplied prove nothing about the legimacy of intelligent design. They merely assert that God made the world. Moreover, unlike yourself, Job admits that he has no proof, but that it's "through faith we understand" what you interpret as an atomistic theory. Fair enough; all religion is based on faith. But this is NOT evidence, especially the scientific kind that intelligent design folk claim exists.
ghettofreeze 3 years ago
a lot of scientist r having doubts about evolution.... dont believe me... google it and find out... intelligent design is a scientific theory, that evolutionist hate cuz if they admit it.. all the books will have to be rewritten,, and the brand of evolution... will be considered as a joke... nobody would ever trust in science again... u get the picture>> is very clear right..
Belluschi85 3 years ago
Belluschi: Yes, a lot of scientists dispute evolution--probably a few thousand. But hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of professionals do not, so you can't use the doubts of a tiny minority as evidence unless you account for why they ARE a minority.
You misunderstand science. Those who replace old theories with new ones are celebrated, not hated. Two of my heroes, Galileo and Einstein made their reputations "rewriting" the books. And we trust science even more because of them.
Think!
ghettofreeze 3 years ago
did u know that Galileo and Einstein had religious belifs regarding the universe?
"probably a few thousand"... why is it that those few thousand have doubts,, Evolution is a fact, doesnt it?.. then why those "few thousand" r having a hard time believing in evolution, after all, evolution is a proven fact, where there shouldnt be any doubts at all.
Belluschi85 3 years ago
Bellu: You must not be a scientist, because you again badly misunderstand it. Doubt is a normal part of the process of scientific inquiry. NO theory, even the theory of gravity, has universal agreement among scientists. So the fact that some doubt a theory says NOTHING about the truth or falseness of that theory.
The fact that Galileo and Einstein held "religious beliefs regarding the universe" is also irrelevant. Neither man ever expressed doubts about the theory of evolution.
ghettofreeze 3 years ago
You've admitted that you are retarded, so dealing with your rantings the same way one deals with a retards rantings is simple. GO TAKE YOUR MEDICATION.
kenthovindspimp 3 years ago
do you deny the holocaust? because more historians deny the holocaust then scientists who deny the theory of evolution.
PtH888999 3 years ago
"Just shut up and read the bible fuck hole"
LOL...brilliant.
Good point. I have studied evolution enough to know its fact...that is until i came across your insightful comments...now i dont know what to believe.
marcotenshi 3 years ago
"Just shut up and read the bible fuck hole"
Is there a fuck hole in the bible?
If so, how does one read it?
How does one read any fuck hole for that matter?
what is a bible fuck hole, exactly?
Is it revealed only to those with pure faith?
did your deity create this bible fuck hole?
eh, nevermind.
Just shut up and study evolution, fuck hole.
kenthovindspimp 3 years ago
I did puke on evolution once... cuz it sounded too good to be true... but then it turned out to be a false theory which doesnt explain shit about life... especially on cells.
Belluschi85 3 years ago
Are you retarded?
kenthovindspimp 3 years ago
where did the first living cell come from?
Belluschi85 3 years ago
If you are looking for answers regarding Abiogenesis, there is a lot you can learn on the web. Be careful though, there are a lot of sites that purport to contain unbiased information but are actually just fronts for creation science and intelligent design dogma.
However, your question has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If you would like to discuss that, I'd be happy to.
My question was directly to your comment, so it stands:
Are you retarded?
kenthovindspimp 3 years ago
I'll answer for him - "yes I am"
syrett76 3 years ago
yeah... i was retarded when i believed in evolution....butt head
Belluschi85 3 years ago
Then you are retarded now.
Your belief system has no bearing on your mental state.
Beliefs, as you have shown, are temporary, Retardation is permanent.
So sorry.
kenthovindspimp 3 years ago 2
why?
kenthovindspimp 3 years ago
Man created god ..
tellnet 4 years ago
who created u?
Belluschi85 4 years ago
My parents found me under a gooseberry bush, Marcello.
tellnet 4 years ago
Both responses about ID being religion cause me to suspect that neither of you can reason in the abstract. Clearly, you are not able to grasp my earlier points. If you can't distinguish between a man's belief system and his methodology, you disqualify yourself from rational discussion. Your critics have read Darwin and his successors, but you have not read the ID authors. Your low level of intellectual curiousity is remarkable.
traditionlives 4 years ago
ID authors need to be read. Only the facts need to be understood. The speculations and pseudoscience of ID warrants no respect whatsoever. It's not science.
thormn8 4 years ago 2
Both creation science and intelligent design have a pedigree that goes back 2300 years. CS begins with faith and moves forward (Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, Anselm); ID begins with observation and moves backward (Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley etc.) Augustine's "faith seeking understanding," for example,is CS; Aristotle's "prime mover" argument is ID. Don't get conned by the ignorance/ dishonesty of Judge Jones and Barbara Forrest.
traditionlives 4 years ago
1. Wow, that's impressive. I give a specific example showing that Judge Jones presided over a kangaroo court and no one seems to be scandalized. 2. Who is the designer? Science can only detect the EFFECTS of intelligent innovation, it cannot identify the designer. That is the business of religion.
traditionlives 4 years ago
Yeah, it was a kangaroo court from what I've read but Darwinian fundamentalists don't care about that. They only care about the win. Now had the ID theorists won, rest assured that the focus would be on the process.
owensphil4 4 years ago
The fact that ID can't identify the designer means that it has not only failed to give an in depth explanation of anything (like evolution can), AND that like you say, it necessitates religion, is precisely why it shouldn't be treated scientifically...and it's why Judge Jones ruled the way he did...and Jones is a Bush-appointed conservative republican anyway...
JDRedstone 4 years ago
JDR:The fact that ID can't identify the designer means that it has not only failed to give an in depth explanation of anything
Response: ID doesn't have to identify the designer. And it's absurd to think that just because it doesn't that we should assume that it evolved when the evidence says otherwise.
owensphil4 4 years ago
It's called Intelligent DESIGN...the only reason IDers don't name a designer is because if they did, it would be God, and that would give away the religious nature of the theory...and the evidence doesn't say otherwise. Evolutions explains things like the flagellum, it's just a matter of going and looking it up for yourself.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
JdRedstone: Evolutions explains things like the flagellum, it's just a matter of going and looking it up for yourself.
Response: Yeah, I looked it up. There are NO Darwinian pathways detailing the flagellum
owensphil 4 years ago
None huh? You must have looked very hard.
Ken Miller uses one of the leading hypothesis for this all the time in his lectures. I'm sure you're familiar with it.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
Dawkins claims that at trial Ken Miller "showed how the bacterial flagellar motor could evolve via known functional intermediates." Again, this is just false. What Miller did was to point to another irreducibly complex system, the Type III Secretory System and claim it as an intermediate—even though the best evidence shows it is derivative of the flagellum and not the other way around.
owensphil 4 years ago
And how exactly does the evidence demonstrate that?
JDRedstone 4 years ago
Doesn't matter. Placing some "unknown intelligence" into a gap of understanding of a natural process is NOT SCIENCE, and has never been. Science came about specifically to examine natural processes WITHOUT "magic" or "unknown intelligent designers" as part of the explanation. ID people need to go off and discuss their PHILOSOPHY among themselves.
GetMeThere1 4 years ago
I went through the critical parts of the transcript of the Dover trial. Judge Jones often misrepresented Behe's statements in his decision. One Example: Behe acknowledged that the plausibility of intelligent design CAN BE AFFECTED by whether one believes in God or not (Obviously true)
But Jones stated in his decision that Behe said ID DEPENDS UPON a belief in God. That is a blatant lie calculated to make it appear that Behe was saying his science is faith based.
traditionlives 4 years ago
Well who else would the designer be?
JDRedstone 4 years ago
JDRedstone:Well who else would the designer be?
Response: Creationists claim that the designer is God. ID theorists limit themselves to identifying an intelligent agent. Not all ID theorists believe in God
owensphil4 4 years ago
ID Predictions:
•Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
owensphil4 4 years ago
id Predictions:
In general, vestigial organs (sic) will yield some function for the organism. See design, law, and chance for more on this.
•The correlation between habitability and discovery will strengthen. See Privileged Planet for more on this.
owensphil4 4 years ago
That is not in dispute. Evolution predicts the same thing...but how could this be looked at from the position of ID as potentially falsifiable?
JDRedstone 4 years ago
JDRestone:That is not in dispute. Evolution predicts the same thing..
Response: You'll have to identify what predictions you're referring to.
owensphil4 4 years ago
An example of evolution being falsifiable would be, say, finding a hippopotamus in the Precambrian strata. That could falsify evolution since it's in contradiction to what the theory tells us about what we should find in the real world if it's true. ID needs to be able to be potentially falsified in the same manner before it is on equal grounds with evolution...finding flaws in evolution doesn't cut it, and that's all Behe is trying to do.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
Don't know it is not part of ID, Aliens? Men from the future?, consciousness?, some other as get undiscovered natural agent? Maybe there is no designer but Selection acting on random mutations is not the designer either.
allan3141 3 years ago
It's a shame to see scientists like Behe, who in the face of a mystery (the evolution of the flagellum isn't really a big mystery) resort to design to explain things...not only does he not provide any real evidence, he simply tries making the rival theory look wrong. If evolution were wrong (it probably isn't), that wouldn't automatically validate Intelligent Design.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
It's a shame to see scientists like Behe, who in the JD:(the evolution of the flagellum isn't really a big mystery) resort to design to explain things...not only does he not provide any real evidence, he simply tries making the rival theory look wrong.
Response: It's a mystery to YOU and scientists thus far. He does use real evidence. You're just not aware of it.
If it didn't evolve naturally then it was design. What other alternative do you suggest?
owensphil 4 years ago
That it evolved naturally. Behe has failed to show that it did not evolve naturally in the face of a large amount of evidence that it did.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
Behe has shown that some complex structures are irreducibly complex
owensphil 4 years ago
Like which ones? His best example, the 'poster organism' for the ID movement (the bacterial flagellum) is not irreducibly complex, and we know very well how it evolved.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
Who knows how the bacterial flagellum evolved? Give me a name. Any information that you could post would be appreciated.
owensphil 4 years ago 2
Since youtube doesn't allow link I'll send you a text message with a few scholarly articles.
A big name scientists who is probably one of the most vocal critics of irreducible complexity is Ken Miller. There are videos of him giving lectures, etc, here on youtube.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
he doesn't give a theoretical model. He just points to the greater-than-expected complexity of the flagellum (which Darwinists did not predict or expect) and declares that Darwinian processes could produce it. This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely.
owensphil 4 years ago
Behe:
Miller tries to distract attention from its manifest design by pointing out that parts of the structure can have functions other than propulsion. In particular, some parts of the flagellum act as a protein pump, allowing the flagellum to aid in its own construction--a level of complexity that was unsuspected until relatively recently.
owensphil 4 years ago
The evident purpose of Miller and others is to make the concept of IC so brittle that it easily crumbles. However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn't be used for any other purpose.
Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin's Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system
owensphil 4 years ago
BEHE RESPONDS
owensphil 4 years ago
Behe:
Miller's argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That's it! He doesn't show how natural selection could do so; he doesn't cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible;
owensphil 4 years ago
That's why you should google 'evolution of the flagellum' and read some of those papers...something Behe never actually did much of.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
How would you know whether Behe read the papers or not? I've been following the reviews and no one comes any closer than Miller. In fact several others have agreed that there isn't anything in the literature which explains a Darwinian pathway for IC
owensphil 4 years ago
You should read up on what happened at the dover trial...Behe was presented with a number of papers and books which all discuss the evolution of the flagellum, out of 50 or so books and papers, Behe read 4...and simply shrugged it off as evidence which wasn't convincing enough for him...the man simply doesn't want evolution to be true.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
I certainly find that hard to read based on what I've read so far and I'm not about to read through the entire transcript. If you post the exact quote here I'll check it out further.
owensphil 4 years ago
That should read "I certainly find that hard to believe..."
owensphil 4 years ago
I would direct you to a certain video here but it appears you've already seen it...and I'm not about to go searching through the transcript myself for the exact quote, I'm a bit busy. The point is, Behe has only read so much, and what he has read, he just won't accept regardless of the science. he simply doesn't want evolution to be correct.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
Behe:
A. No, I haven't. I have read those papers that I presented though yesterday on the immune system.
Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no?
A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results. So you get up to speed pretty quickly. You don't have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so.
owensphil 4 years ago
'The nice thing about science' is that we get to follow certain criterion when we 'do' science...Behe himself said that if Intelligent design were to be allowed as science, astrology would count as well...but that's not how it works.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
Science is an
unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those
lights, intelligent design is indeed science.
owensphil 4 years ago
Science also has to be falsifiable or verifiable. ID is not and ID scientists have been unwilling so far to design any sort of testable hypothesis, even with encouragement from religious organizations.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
Now, one can't have it both ways. One can't say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable
owensphil4 4 years ago
Name a prediction ID makes that we could test please.
JDRedstone 4 years ago
ID Predictions:
Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions. See Decoding DNA, Nucleosome code, Pyknons, Fractal Genomics, and design, law, and chance for more on this.
owensphil4 4 years ago
(1) The TypeIII Secretory System is not ancestral to the Bacterial Flagellum
allan3141 3 years ago
"You should read up on what happened at the dover trial.."
It amazes me that, although Behe proved himself to be a fraud, the moronic fundies like "owen" still hold his opinion as valid. Or, maybe they don't, but since he's the main source of info for the fundie websites, they have no choice but to quote his ramblings.
kaysandesses 4 years ago
Behe did not prove himself a fraud. Do grow up.
allan3141 3 years ago
"Behe did not prove himself a fraud. Do grow up. "
allan: Behe claimed for years that ID is science and then had to admit under oath in Kitmiller v. Dover BOE that there is not one iota of scientific information validating ID. In the process, he exposed himself as a fraud.
Do acquaint yourself with the subject before you post next.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
I am acquaint with the subject I can asure you. The idea that Behe thinks yet alone admitted that "there is not one iota of scientific information validating ID" (I would have wrote "supporting" not "validating") is not credable. It is your calling Micheal Behe a fraud that I take exception to. I disagree with you but I would not have called you a fraud. I disagree with some things Richard Dawkins says but I think him a man of integrity.
allan3141 3 years ago
allan: each time you post you demonstrate that you are assuredly UN-acquainted with the facts of the matter. Read the trial transcript of Behe's testimony in the court case I mentioned earlier. He admitted under oath that there is no verifiable scientific evidence supporting ID. That is a fact, not my opinion.
Deal with it. You can continue to sit in the corner with your hands over your ears screaming HE DID NOT!!!!, but that won't make Behe less of a fraud.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
Why doen't u just quote the statement that you are refering to and think justifies you in believing that Behe thinks that "there is not one iota of scientific information validating ID" I have read some of the transcripts but do not recognise your paraphrase. Look Behe could be wrong about what he believes. I could be wrong about a great many things I believe. But where does being a "fraud" fit into all of this?
allan3141 3 years ago
The statement won't fit in a 500 character text box. Why don't you man up and admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about?
Behe is a fraud because he maintained for years that ID is science and then to prevent perjuring himself had to admit that there was scientific information supporting ID.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
Kaysandesses: You can managed to attribute quotes to Micheal Behe using far less than 500 chacracters but now you say you can not fit them in a 500 character box.
So you think that it is unscientific to doubt that natural selection can produce some (indeed many) of the things attributed to it. To seek to distinguish between those that reasonably could and those that reasonably could not and make then an inference to design.
allan3141 3 years ago
"You can managed to attribute quotes to Micheal Behe using far less than 500 chacracters but now you say you can not fit them in a 500 character box."
allan you're a genius! You can understand basic written English! It called paraphrasing.
"So you think that it is unscientific to doubt that natural selection can produce some (indeed many) of the things attributed to it."
The point is about ID NOT being science. Don't try to shift the goalpost midstream.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
Yes paraphrasing as mentioned by me earlier! So Micheal Behe said and thinks no such thing except in YOUR paraphrasing. That is moving the goal posts in ever the posts got moved.
How have I moved the goal posts?
I summed up what ID and also stated that you think it unscientific. You respond with "The point is about ID not being science. Don't try to shift the goalpost midstream"! So you think my summing up does make it science?
Anyway the mainpoint was the use of the word "fraud"
allan3141 3 years ago
I'll explain this once again, using small words.
Behe claimed ID is science. Later he had to admit under oath that there is no scientific verification of ID. He misrepresented the nature of ID. That is fraud.
You can continue to wander through life with your head in the sand if you wish. It is of no concern to me. That is all.
kaysandesses 3 years ago
Comment removed
allan3141 3 years ago
That is not a reasoned response. You have continued to type and fill many 500 character boxes but refuse to back up your assertions which you pass off as Micheal Behe's own thoughts and admissions. You can repeat your own statements as many times as you wish but that will not turn them into Behe's.
allan3141 3 years ago
Yes, I think it is important we have these people. Basically they can build their castles on a particular piece of biology, until someone sets about explaining it properly, then they have to go quiet and pick somewhere else to start building.
stevebritgimp 4 years ago
what tosh
allan3141 3 years ago
Why are Darwin's lackeys so afraid of informed debate? Instead of resorting to attacks try wrestling with the facts. (I just busted a rhyme!)
JWGames 4 years ago 2
LMAO..it's hilarious how the militant secularists are getting their panties in a wad over this. Behe isn't saying that "this is proof god did it!", he is just explains why it is inprobable that the flagellum evolved, seeing as how bacteria quickly remove useless genes from their genome. It most certainly has NOT been debunked, simply saying that it has won't make it so.
BillyBawb 4 years ago
Behe has an agenda. He wants ID taught in schools. There is no science in ID. It is the statement that something looks designed so there must be a designer. That is not science. One book IDers push is "Pandas and People" and old creationist book. Teach science in science class. Teach ID in a liberal arts course.
highlander7 4 years ago
Did Behe say he wanted ID taught in schools or are you just making that up? What about archeology, forensics, and cryptography and the SETI program that relies on ID? No science there either?
owensphil 4 years ago
Behe testified at the Dover trial. He was a witness for the group who wanted to change the definition of science so that ID could be taught in science class.
highlander7 4 years ago
Archeology, forensics, cryptography and the SETI program is not the study of the miraculous. It uses science, natural science not magic. There is no POOF and the thing being studied miraculously appears. ID requires the interference of a God, a designer. Science has yet to find that. If it does, so be it. Then you will have proof of God. But so far no proven miracles.
highlander7 4 years ago
Intelligent design is the field of study that investigates signs of intelligence. It identifies those features of objects that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause. This "magic" as you understand it to be is also used in the other sciences mentioned. ID also relies on specified complexity which include irreducible complexity.
owensphil 4 years ago
The difference is that once someone says that something, "people, animals or the such was intelligently designed" what is the next step? Science would say "how did this happen and look for answers. Behe supports the theists will ID. The next step there is which God to believe in. That is not science.
highlander7 4 years ago
When evolutionists determine that the non-coding region of DNA is junk DNA because that's what they would expect, what's the next step? When evolutionists determine certain organs are vestigial, what's the next step? ID predicts that these do have valuable functions. Evolution is based on assumptions and speculation. That's not science.
owensphil 4 years ago
What are the valuable functions of these vestigial organs? Who is ID is studying them? IDers did not study the human Genome, scientists did. Science does not always find the answers and sometimes their answers are wrong. Someone proves that the world does not work the way we think it does and then gives proof. Saying that a vestigial organ has an important function is not proof. What is the function?
highlander7 4 years ago
It seems beyond dispute that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm led to a false presumption that non-coding DNA lacks function, and that this presumption has resulted in real-world negative consequences for molecular biology and even for medicine
owensphil 4 years ago
These are your strawmen. The future will see your "natural selection of the gaps" argument continuing to lose plausibility as an explaination for an ever increasing number of phenomenom (observed facts) and features of the living world and only explaining, and relevent to, a large number of low level and trival changes and adaptions.
allan3141 3 years ago
Archeology is the study of previous cultures, forensics uses science to understand evidence, cryptography is the study and use of codes to send or conseal information and SETI is the search for intelligent life on other worlds. When you say flagellum is intelligently designed what is the next step??? What are you studing or looking for?
highlander7 4 years ago
The next step is to continue to determine what else in nature is a result of natural causes or intelligent causes. Evolution would have us wait millions of years in spite of predicted probabilities of next to zero. Therefore evolution can never be falsified and anything not falsifiable is not science.
owensphil 4 years ago
Not true, if something is eventually found to not happen by natural causes. ID may win the argument. Science progressing is a benefit to IDers. The better we understand the natural world the easier it would be to prove that something was not created naturally but was indeed created.
highlander7 4 years ago
Evolution will NEVER conclude that a living organism did not come about through natural causes no matter how much evidence stacked against it. That's the nature of evolution which is why it is not science.
owensphil 4 years ago
What evidence is stacked against it? The only thing stacked against it is a lack of knowledge. Why are some people so against evolution? Why not Einstein's Theory of relativity? Now that theory is very very hard to prove. Evolution goes against the theists' beliefs. That is the only reason that it is questioned all the time. IDers will never conclude that life came anywhere but through a designer.
highlander7 4 years ago
All kinds of evidence, especially at the molecular level. Einstein's theory of relativity has not become an ideology like evolution. Einstein's theory of relative has not shaped the way many people now look at the world. ID by definition looks to distinguish what is a product of nature and what is a product of design
owensphil 4 years ago
All the videos I've seen doesn't show IDers distinguishing between what is a product of nature and what is a product of design. They show everything as being a product of design. Now that is an ideology. Evolution is just a mechanism to explain the world as it is. Anything beyond that is not science. Anything beyond that is ideology.
highlander7 4 years ago
Try googling the video - Steven Meyer vs. Peter Ward
Only design with specified complexity and increased information counts
owensphil 4 years ago
No it doesn't. ID by definition says that everything was designed. If I'm wrong in this show me. Where is it written that ID seek to distinguish what is a product of nature and what is a product of design?
highlander7 3 years ago
Highlander7 It is hard to believe that you really believe what you have written here. It is your side surely that is commited to EVERYTHING in the living world being a product of natural selection. ID proponents first and foremost do not subscribe to that. Further they claim that it should be possible to distinguish between features that are reasonably the result of Natural Selection and those that are not. And that design is a reasonable inference.
allan3141 3 years ago
I'm not on a side. If I am shown proof that there is a designer, fine, until then no designer. I never said everything has come about by natural selection. But it seems to be the most probable mechanism. There may be others.
highlander7 3 years ago
Highlander7 It is refreshing to find someone who is not on a side. Which things are you then saying did not come about by non-random selection acting on random mutations?
allan3141 2 years ago
In all seriousness nothing can be found that is not natural. In what sense could it be? It something happens/ actually exists then is it natural.
allan3141 3 years ago
The fact that 'junk DNA' is not junk has emerged not because of evolutionary theory but in spite of it. On the other hand, people asking research questions in an ID framework would presumably have been looking for the functions of non-coding regions of DNA all along, and we might now know considerably more about them.
owensphil 4 years ago
Then people who believe in ID should give them money to do their studies and prove that they are right. Nobody said that proving what you believe to be true is easy. To me, evolution makes sense but if their is proof that it is wrong that is okay too. I want the true. Solving the puzzle of life is not easy but the journey is interesting.
highlander7 4 years ago
The ID already receives public funding. There's no need.
owensphil 4 years ago
He made it up. It is easier than dealing with the real arguments
allan3141 3 years ago
But if we do that the next generation will end up as indoctinated as you.
allan3141 3 years ago
Yes their attitude is interesting (hilarious) and speaks volumes
allan3141 3 years ago
Why was Dawkins afraid to debate him on the TV show "Think Tank"?
kmckulski 5 years ago
Just because someone is a good debater does not mean that they are right. You can have all true in the world on your side but come off poorly in a debate. That is why some scientists do not go to debate or lose them.
highlander7 2 years ago
This guy is dangerous. He knows just enough to fool people that know nothing.
herrinband 5 years ago
He got embrassed by the prosecution in Dover when questioned about the immune system. This is debunked.
g12er 5 years ago
Debunked. Try again.
constust 5 years ago
Where is the evidence behe?
BACTERIOFAAG 5 years ago
we need people like behe though. its healthy
amarbleinspace 5 years ago
No we don't. What we do need is genuine scientific debate, but when only one side of the debate is science and the other side is pseudoscience which tosses their hands up in the air and says "GOD/designer did it" when a scientific answer isn't immediately present, you don't have genuine scientific discourse. Interjecting GOD/designer when you don't have an explaination is intellectually lazy.
Leones44 5 years ago
yeh i guess
amarbleinspace 5 years ago
Oh, it's really simple. There exists intermeidary forms for the cilia and flagellum. Not only that, but the flagellum is not even irreducibly complex--it can work without some of its parts.
warriorgrog 5 years ago
E coli is irreducibly complex, therefore god exists. Otherwise known as 'The Argument From Bloody Stools'.
methinxaweezil 5 years ago
I won't go to a bar with Bloody Stools.
highlander7 2 years ago
Please look it up if you are interested. Behe and the entire ID debate has been creditably shredded as has William Dembski's arguments. It's insipid garbage. If you're really interested, watch the American Enterprise Institute debate from last year. Also, read the cross-examination by Eric Rothschild of Michael Behe from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Behe was thoroughly dismantled on the stand, having to admit that ID was no more scientific than astrology.
PeterEvolves 5 years ago
There have been four people in a row who have said that it's been debunked. Please tell us WHY.
dogmaster05 5 years ago
Don't you mean "HOW"?
highlander7 2 years ago
What has gotten proven wrong? That's just it, faith doesn't "prove" anything. God of the Gaps has shrunken exponentially over the past century purely due to scientific discovery. And yes, Behe's specific claims were proven wrong, not just his concepts. Please, look it up.
sr332603 5 years ago
he means those specific examples. But go ahead, keep using the God of the Gaps argument. It just shows your idiocy when they get proven wrong over and over and over.
Epyon42 5 years ago
Irreducibile complexity has certainly not be debunked. Interested parties should research the matter themselves.
kornbelt 5 years ago 2
Uhh...yes it has. Search for Ken Miller on YouTube to see an excellent presentation debunking more ID claims.
sr332603 5 years ago
In my opinion, Ken Miller has hardly debunked ID. By all means I advise people to check out his arguments. And check out the arguments of his opponents and make up their own minds.
kornbelt 5 years ago 3
Comment removed
allan3141 3 years ago