Beautifully said.  Is someone collecting these nuggets for an SEB online calendar?  An email newsletter, perhaps; “SEB QOTWâ€?

Variations on that quote have been going around for a long time. But I’m glad you like it. Here’s another one that I think may be pertinant here:

ID is based on the concept that things look designed. Thus we can infer that they are. Similarly, the Earth looks flat. Thus we can infer it is. The moon looks like there’s a giant face on it. Thus we can infer that there’s really a giant person in the moon. The sun looks like it goes around the Earth. Thus we can infer that it does. It’s sunny and looks warm outside. Thus I can infer that it is (actual temperature is 27º F).

I’ve tried to read every word of this, but you all keep calling Mixy “him.“ I’ve been picturing Mixy as a woman this whole time. I don’t mean that to be a derogatory statement towards women at all, I just get that feeling from “her” patterns of argument. Am I crazy? Well, don’t answer that. I’m often wrong when it comes to this particular internet phenomenon.

Mxyzptlk was a male character in the Superman comics, so I thought of our Mxy as male. 

The comics character Mxy was given to rather, uh, non-standard logic to say the least so his name may be well-chosen.

ID is based on the concept that things look designed. Thus we can infer that they are. Similarly, the Earth looks flat. Thus we can infer it is. The moon looks like there’s a giant face on it. Thus we can infer that there’s really a giant person in the moon. The sun looks like it goes around the Earth. Thus we can infer that it does. It’s sunny and looks warm outside. Thus I can infer that it is (actual temperature is 27º F).

Reminds me of a remark by a Bible College professor, which I immediately rejected, of course:

“Maybe God just made the universe with the appearance of being billions of years old.“

Thanks oldfool. You comic book fans always come through.

Mixy opines…

“Maybe God just made the universe with the appearance of being billions of years old.�

Been there, done that. There’s nothing to say that God didn’t create the universe and everyone in it exactly as they are now with all their memories and experiences just 5 minutes ago. Without some compelling reason to buy into either idea, however, it ends up being little more than fodder for potheads to discuss after smoking a joint.

Reminds me of a remark by a Bible College professor, which I immediately rejected, of course:

“Maybe God just made the universe with the appearance of being billions of years old.�

Not really a new idea, of course.  Philip Henry Gosse advanced it in 1857 in his Omphalos.  It still comes up on fundamentalist websites.  Of course, if God can do anything, He could have created the world, appearing old, anytime- including two seconds ago.  Or maybe He’ll do it tomorrow…

Without some compelling reason to buy into either idea, however, it ends up being little more than fodder for potheads to discuss after smoking a joint.

I beg your pardon, Les- we discuss interesting ideas…
Another example of how we evilutionists just can’t agree on anything- Les says five minutes, I say two seconds- a factor of 150 difference!  Teach the controversy!

Most of us are pretty familiar with the basic ideas of ID and that’s the problem.  It isn’t much of an idea to begin with; and the only ‘evidence’ for it is that a mathematician, a lawyer, and a molecular biologest want very much to find a deity behind complex evolved organisms.

If there’s more, out with it.  If not, shut up.

No need to get nasty about it, just share it with elwed.

Still, once you finally got around to posting the two aspects of Behe’s book you felt were compelling evidence in support of ID we stepped up and provided supporting references to how both of those examples have been shown to be anything but irreducibly complex, which you proceeded to dismiss out of hand.

Not true.  I provided links to Behe’s thorough rebuttal of the claims.  Isn’t that an acceptable mode of reply here?  I’ve noticed others doing the same with no suggestion they were out of line to do so. 

Also there aren’t very many theories that don’t have “gaps� and “things we can’t explain� in them. If that’s your criteria for rejecting them then there’s barely a single thing in science you can accept. The Theory of Gravity being one of the foremost.

But I haven’t ever seen anyone discuss a theory of gravity who felt the need to include with the discussion a disclaimer to explain that it has gaps and unexplained phenomena.  The reason being, of course, that unlike evolutionary (or abiogenesis, if you prefer) theories, the evidence for gravity will stand on its own merits. 

By the way, evolution does not deal with the big bang or how life began. Those fields are, respectively, cosmology and abiogenesis.

Call it whatever you wish, if you can’t tell that evolutionists are using evolutionary theory to point the way back to biogenesis via the path of “common origins” of all species, you’re even blinder than you claim IDers are.

But if you’re hankering for an explanation “without gaps and things we can’t explainâ€?, better stick to Goddidit.  That has the advantage of not requiring thinking.

Wrong again.  Theology has had its own “gap theory” for quite some time now.  I can’t believe you have never heard of it, it’s actually pretty basic stuff.

Anyway, Mxyzptlk , you yet again dodged my question. How is Behe not been proven false when his two pet “irreducible� systems have been shown to be reducible?

So you never bothered to go check out the link I provided to the site with Behe’s rebuttal?  I even told which heading to look under so no one would be confused (or so I thought).  I figure Behe himself would be the primary source rather than subjecting you to my summarization of what he says.  Even so, I detailed what he had to say about why the Hall study does not qualify as “irreducible systems being shown to be reducible.“  I also posted from Behe’s preface to show exactly what he is addressing, and attempting to define what is being said with the word “evolution,“ since it has quite a variance of usage depending on who says the word.  If you did not see the posts, then I no longer have to claim you are not reading my responses, because clearly you did not.

You keep saying we’re not providing the evidence. But really, neither are you. I don’t expect you to post a 20 page dissertation. Give the quick summary and then link to the beef to back it up.

As I just said, that’s exactly what I did, scroll up and see for yourself.

1) You post saying Behe has discredited evolution because his irreducible complexity theory has proven that systems like the flagellum and blood clotting are irreducible.
2) We counter that and say that they have been shown to be reducible. Additionally, several links have been provided demonstrating this.
3) You repeat your claim ad naseum with a bit of “stop persecuting me�, and “you’re not listening to anything I say� tossed in for good measure.

Let’s look at your own “rhetorical strategy”:

(1) “Not listening to anything I say” will do, although it is not totally accurate.  You obviously read the parts you wish to see, I’ll give you that. 
(2) You repeat your claim ad nauseam that I did not respond, when clearly I did.

Are you not seeing how weak your argument is? We’ve effectively destroyed the flagellum/blood clotting/irreducibly complex argument, but you continue to use it.

No, you have not.  Behe has effectively destroyed the argument against it.  But of course, if you don’t read it, you wouldn’t know that, would you?

And I’m fine with that. I’m not desperate to have everything explained right away like you seem to be. Science works by admitting there’s things we don’t know and then slowly, and thoroughly analyzing them. Science lives by analyzing the gaps. Not by filling them with God.

A poor summary of what you wish I had said, but nowhere near it. I’ve clearly stated several times already that I do not deny evolutionary theory in what it can theorize about change within species.  But I certainly do not agree with its ultimate goal of evolving from a common original, and no one has shown anything that even tends toward a preponderance of evidence, and certainly nothing to make it the foregone conclusion so many treat it as being. 

I’ve tried to read every word of this, but you all keep calling Mixy “him.� I’ve been picturing Mixy as a woman this whole time. I don’t mean that to be a derogatory statement towards women at all, I just get that feeling from “her� patterns of argument. Am I crazy?

No, just guilty of stating an unprovable hypothesis.

The comics character Mxy was given to rather, uh, non-standard logic to say the least so his name may be well-chosen.

Heh, heh.  And the analogy was applied to this discussion, putting evolution in the place of Superman, which I thought was apt, Superman being a fictional character.  (Again, using “evolution” in the sense already described as quoted from Behe.)

Mixy opines…

“Maybe God just made the universe with the appearance of being billions of years old.â€? 

Damn, misquoted again!  How in the world did you miss the preceding line?:

Reminds me of a remark by a Bible College professor, which I immediately rejected, of course:

...it ends up being little more than fodder for potheads to discuss after smoking a joint.

Hey! I resemble that remark, or did, or would if it didn’t cost so much.

POTHEADS RULE! sorta

Wow! Pretty colors!

Ahhh! Oh, “holiday” colors!

Hey, I’m just a photographer here and all this science makes my head hurt, but isn’t Behe trying to rebut the claims of actual biologist kinda like the snapshooter on Flickr telling me my lighting is all wrong. I just snicker and move on.

There’s something that Consi understands, but totally eludes Myxi.

When you dip your toes into hostile waters, you always play to a larger audience than the active participants. The interests of anybody wishing to support ID on this site are best served by a well-presented argument, which includes a concise definition of exactly what it is that the contestant wants to show. This serves two purposes - it is a common courtesy to any passive reader that may not have a grasp of the subject matter and it helps to prevent later misunderstandings or misrepresentations.

For somebody that displays a shaky grasp on evolution, it is more than reasonable to demand a clarification about the merit of ID. Repeated and willful evasion of questions isn’t conducive to a serious debate (and forget about a discussion).

Finally, why should we bother to conduct a debate by link? Posters like Myxi come here to make some point or other; we are not obliged to seek out material on the web, they on the other hand are well advised to look up ours if they wish to sincerely engage anybody.

Up to this point, Myxi hasn’t posted anything of substance, but spammed this thread with incessant whining. Until such time as this changes, I don’t see a reason to waste more time with him or her.

I am a glutton for punishment.  Must be trying to cause enough pain for my endorphines to kick in…

So you never bothered to go check out the link I provided to the site with Behe’s rebuttal?

Uh, Myxi, I did.  I read all the way through Behe’s reply to critics of his characterization of blood clotting as “irreducibly complex”.  Sorry, no cigar.  He’s still wrong.

Behe knows a lot about biochemistry, and marvels (rightly enough) at the complexity of certain molecular systems- blood clotting, in this case.  He can’t see how it could have evolved, because every molecule is necessary to the working of the system, so a previous evolutionary step with one molecule fewer couldn’t work.  And his critics have yet to come up with a convincing scenario as to how it could have evolved.  Says Behe.  Sounds convincing, right?

The basic problem with this kind of reasoning is that it is the “argument from incredulity”, as in “gee whiz, I sure don’t see how that could have happened”.  The general answer to this is, Nature is Smarter than You Are.  The particular answer to the evolution of blood clotting is not known for certain- yet.  One likely possibility is scaffolding, in which a precursor stage uses additional molecules to support a structure, which once complete, were no longer necessary, and evolved away.  Think of an arch- remove one stone, and it collapses.  How can it be built?  With scaffolding.

Exactly such a process has been observed in star corals which fluoresce in different colors, utilizing a chain of molecules analogous to those involved in blood clotting. No irreducible complexity necessary.

So while Behe may be correct in saying that blood clotting has not yet been satisfactorily explained, there are models already available which are likely to lead to an explanation in the future. 

As I said before, however, the main problem with ID is methodological- it is unfalsifiable.  Behe’s rebuttal consisted entirely of his demolishing of proposed models for blood clotting.  Fine- the work of the evolutionists is cut out for them.  The difference is, ID has no work to do at all, since it cannot perform experiments or make predictions.  That is, unless you count “That sure looks like it’s designed” as an experiment, and “I bet blood clotting is real complex” as a prediction.

If I could, I would like to take a moment to disavow my earlier appearance as a pothead supporter. I think I was channeling Tiny Tim or something.

Sorry, that was just the rebel in me talking and you can all rest assured that I don’t abuse the happy-stuff.

Pot kills and I don’t wanna die. You can drive yourself insane using pot and/or have flashbacks for the rest of your life.

Plus, children read this site and it isn’t nice to corrupt them.

Anyway, back to your excellent discussion. I wish I could add to it but I know how angry I get when my questions are ignored. (Mxyzptlk, I was looking at you when I said that.)

M:

As a casual observer to this thread, you are getting whacked my friend.  You haven’t asked for any suggestions, but I will try to be helpful believing that it is an articulate discussion of the subject you are looking for and that is what brought you to SEB.

1)

Hey Mxyzptlk, if you’re so well read in Behe and Dembski, why don’t you *start* by telling us which of their arguments you find most compelling. Quote the pertinent paragraphs, cite the sources and then the folks here can (once again and if they so choose) get to work debunking them. It’s easy! Just cut the best words from Dembski’s sad little website and bring them on over here.
  I can tell that some of the regulars are getting tired of watching you sidestep their very relevant points and questions. Can you? Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “Why did I come to SEB?â€?

The tone is hostile and condescending.  Nonetheless the point is well taken.  You did bring up the flagellum and blood clotting, however, you did not explain in your words what you were saying. 

It has been my experience here and across the web that when someone I don’t know enters a conversation and says “So and so says…“ that is really very helpful.  I find it more helpful when you tell me your understanding of what the issue is.  The simple reason for this is I can gauge whether you know what you are talking about and I can also decide at what level the discussion is being held. 

If you want to advance the discussion, restart it. Posit that you are talking to your grandma and you need to keep it simple and explain ID and its compelling points.  Next, compare and contrast ID with evolution.  Then summarize both for us.  It will likely take 3-4 long posts, however, if you were to undertake the endeavor I strongly suspect the regulars would hold their fire until you finished.

2)

  By the way, evolution does not deal with the big bang or how life began. Those fields are, respectively, cosmology and abiogenesis.

Call it whatever you wish, if you can’t tell that evolutionists are using evolutionary theory to point the way back to biogenesis via the path of “common origins� of all species, you’re even blinder than you claim IDers are.

The first quote is accurate, in spite of what you may be inferring.  Evolution is a separate field.  It is readily apparent that you are mixing up abiogenesis with evolution.  You must separate them out, and set out your version of ID so that it is clear which area you are talking about.

3) Snarky comments are fun when playing on your home turf.  Not so when playing an away game.  Borders on being rude to your host, and it does not matter whether the host has been rude to you. You visit, you wipe your feet on the mat before you come in the door.  Just good manners my friend.

4) You would be in a much better position that is insulated if you were to posit that God created the world and all that is in it, but utilized evolution as a means to an end.  All they can say is “Can’t prove it” and “Uhnt-uh, nooooooo he didn’t.“ 

Merry Christmas and May God Bless You and Yours this Holiday Season.

Damn!!

Les, hoping your in the holiday spirit now that you’ve trimmed the site and would do me the favor of correcting the quote. It ends and my words begin with “The first quote…“ and then deleting this request so it doesn’t needlessly clutter the thread.

Heh, I was content merely to watch on the sidelines, but this is too rich.

Mxy: I’ve clearly stated several times already that I do not deny evolutionary theory in what it can theorize about change within species.  But I certainly do not agree with its ultimate goal of evolving from a common original…

  He keeps referring back to Behe as one of the main sources for his views.  I hadn’t checked the Behe site in a while so I thought that I would look at the links.  Here is a direct quote from one of his rebuttals entitled “Intellegint Design is not Creationism”:

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,“ even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent.

(emphasis mine)
  Uh-oh looks like one of mxy’s foundation stones turned out to be gypsum.  He is in direct disagreement with his hero.  What will happen?  How will he reconcile his ideas with Behe’s?
  Also a quick look on the web produced some recent metabolic research regarding the “intelligence” behind such pathways.  One of the better papers was “Evidence from Biochemical Pathways in Favor of Unfinished Evolution rather than Intelligent Design” by Edward J. Behrman and George A. Marzluf.  They just go through a quick and abbreviated list of six different biochemical pathways that show that if they were designed, it was done by an imbecile (or someone with a poor understandiong fo biochemistry).  The six cases are: unnecessary inversions, unnecessary pathways, duplicate pathways, unnecessary waste, unnecessary connections, and unnecessary editing.  Their conclusion:

The examples that we have noted argue for the absence of highly intelligent design. They are not intended as a comprehensive collection but as a limited sample of “inefficient� situations in metabolism. Students and instructors can readily unearth more to their own satisfaction. The current success in directed evolution shows that purposeful change, even by human intelligence, is not so difficult.

Just wanted to point out that all of Behe’s rebuttals

<--- linked by

Mxyzptlk earlier take us only to essays and interviews he (Behe) has written which date to no later than August 2001. In other words, anything anyone in the scientific community has written in the last four years about his ideas has not been responded to at this link. Like, for example, the 2003 article Les pointed us to which debunks Behe’s flagellum irreducibility nonsense.

Got anything more current, Mxyzptlk? Or am I missing something in the “Responses to Critics” section you directed me to at your link?

KLTPZYXM!

What Consi said.

Uflf, it only works if you get him to say it backwards!!!  lol

Oops, sorry for the spastic dyslexic typing.  Should be “Ulf”.

Consi, it’s fixed, no problem. Warbi, thanks for pointing out the fact that Behe’s “replies” are seriously outdated versus the newer studies. It makes you wonder of Myxi is even bothering to read what we’ve presented seeing as he appears to think he has rebutted it already.

Ulfrekr, I keep wanting to chant “Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!“

Behe suggests the figure of 90% of our general population who believe in God is no different among scientists.

Now that is quite simply bullshit. I would expect most respectable scientists to be more intelligent than the general population. And which “God” is Behe talking about? Because I have a pretty good idea of which one he thinks he’s talking about…

POTHEADS RULE! sorta

Well but of course we do!