# Dembski Responds to Rosenhouse

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dembski-responds-to-rosenhouse/15166>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design\
**Created:** [June 14, 2022, 4:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dembski-responds-to-rosenhouse/15166 "2022-06-14T16:05:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2022, 1:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dembski-responds-to-rosenhouse/15166/10 "2022-06-19T13:45:58Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> So Rosenhouse agrees with Behe’s edge of evolution!

Everyone agrees that there is an edge of evolution, what they disagree with is that any known attribute of a living organism is beyond that edge.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> If only it can be shown that multiple, simultaneous mutations are required, which I believe Behe shows, in regard to new protein-protein interactions.

But he _doesn’t_ show this. He _assumes_ it in order to argue protein-protein interactions are beyond the edge. He says to evolve a new protein-protein interaction would require multiple simultaneous mutations, and without this intermediates are deleterious. But that’s all he does, SAY it. He doesn’t SHOW that this is true. All evidence we have show that it ISN’T true.

So yes, if we join Behe in making a demonstrably false assumption about biochemistry then with this false assumption evolution couldn’t produce X. It’s just that the assumption is demonstrably false.

The End.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Or the bacterial flagellum!

I remind you that the flagellum already exists and that in the thread on T-URF13 evolution you said this:

> [@From Panda's Thumb: The Evolution of T-URF13: Does Irreducible Complexity Count or Not?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/from-pandas-thumb-the-evolution-of-t-urf13-does-irreducible-complexity-count-or-not/15172/5):
>
> > Literally any event can be calculated as improbably as you wish, after the fact.
> 
> No, before the fact. And events can be probable, or improbable, before the fact.

And yet here you are pointing to the flagellum _after_ the fact. Ironic.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dembski-responds-to-rosenhouse/15166)._