The Great Debate, Part 3: Miller & Pennock respond

In this last segment, Ken Miller and Robert Pennock challenge creationist Michael Behe's claims, followed by a panel discussion and questions from the audience. Event date: 4/23/2002.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• NCSE
• evolution
• creationism
• intelligent design
• AMNH
• Genie Scott
• Ken Miller
• Robert Pennock
• William Dembski
• Michael Behe
• blind evolution

[BabySatch1]

Ken Miller is amazing. He's like a logic machine.

[zfan2591]

There is no such thing as irreducible-complexity, because it never existed. It was another religious construct thrown into the world with absolutely no real thought.

[BronyEditor]

@danyellcharles Except he's wrong. You can remove one third of the 497 amino acids of flagellum and still have it function precisely as a flagellum. Thus, falsifying "Irreducible complexity".

[DRosenman87]

'theorist' God's taking a shower in my bathroom. Evolutionary biolgist; there's no evidence for that. When we looked in your bathroom when you said he was showering there was no one there. Gotcha! My god showering 'theory' really is science because its falsifiable. Well no; you could always say god's showering in my bathroom but we just can't see it! .....

How the fuck did michael behe become a professor at lehigh.

[zfan2591]

@danyellcharles I love how you put quotes around "scientist". lol There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

[danyellcharles]

@zfan2591 What is interesting is that these "scientist" and "philosopher" don't hear very well. The ID argument by Behe is that the "system" (bacterial flagellum) will not work according to its principal function. He never said the individual proteins would not work in other systems. These arguments are deceptive and sophomoric - they should've known better.

[MrSocrates68]

@EnlightenedReader That's my point. If you watch the video, Ken took a couple of quotes out of context to redefine the definition of irreducibly complex, refutes the redefinition and then says he refuted irreducibly complex. That's cheesy and dishonest. So, if you actually read Behe's books you would know what I am talking about. I encourage the viewers to read Behe and see his videos to see both sides and you will know what I am talking about.

[MrSocrates68]

This is so cheesy. Ken tries to bait Behe into accepting Ken's own definition of irreducible-complexity, Behe doesn't take the bait and yet Ken goes ahead using his own definition, refutes it and then says case closed. Yet he still doesn't address the central thesis of Behe's argument. Ken knows goddamn well what Behe was talking about and yet handwaves and skirts around it. As an engineer, if I tried to pull that shit I would be fired. Very dishonest ...

[Johnf85]

By Michael's definition, EVERYTHING is irreducibly complex. If you take a part away, its CURRENT primary function is no more. Well shit how can you argue that?! That doesnt disprove the function evolved. As miller demonstrates, you can get a system with less parts, in its primitive stage. The complex cell we have today has lots of parts, its irreducibly complex by that definition, but it still evolved.