Intelligent Designer or Cosmic Accident pt 2

http://www.focuspress.org Join Dr. Brad Harrub in the series Convicted on whether the world came about by an intelligent designer or cosmic accident.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• intelligent
• designer
• cosmic
• accident
• athiesm
• creationism
• evolution
• dr.
• brad
• harub
• focus
• press
• convicted
• designe
• chance
• truth
• apologetics

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 Wrong, every system that has been claimed to be IC has been shown to have a subset of its parts confer a function.

Yes that's my point, for *that* system to function, modular evolution means adaption of existing function for new function.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "irreducible complexity says that there are systems in which the *removal* of a part causes the system to cease function." Yes, and such a system cannot function while it's being built. And evolution requires the system to function while it's being built.

"all components must be in place before *that* function can occur" Actually, all components must be in place before the specified *system* can function at all.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 No, irreducible complexity says that there are systems in which the *removal* of a part causes the system to cease function. No, all components must be in place before *that* function can occur, even Behe tried to weasel out of it by saying that the TTSS doesn't convey the same function as a flagella but he missed the overarching point of course.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "modular evolution works by altering working systems into working systems with a different function" And irreducible complexity says that it can't happen that way. You can't build a system (regardless of the source of components) one component at a time and adding a new function with each component. Rather all components must be in place before ANY function can occur.

continued...

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 Again, that's a strawman on your part, no one is claiming that evolution works by breaking existing functional systems. To say that ID is a valid science, yes you have to explain how it was built, that's step three in the scientific method. That's a pretty important one.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "It's a valid analogy because you're still trying to say that the existence of those interdependent parts is a mechanism, it's not." No, I'm saying that the removal of those parts is a means to test for irreducible complexity. It doesn't have to say how it was built, it just has to say whether or not one specific means of construction is plausible.

continued...

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 No it doesn't. Science is an inductive, not deductive process.  You have to actually give positive evidence for your claims so that's a false dichotomy on your part.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 It says that systems can be co-opted, which they can. IC is about a god of the gaps argument even so it's been refuted because as I've pointed out before IC systems have been shown to have functional subsets of parts.