EN: Muller Two-Step a Refutation of Behe's Irreducible Complexity?

[Patrick]

Perfect. You now are an honorary New Jersey-an and you can meet us at the Pork Store for espresso.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@Patrick

Pork Store for espresso

Sounds great!! What exit??!!

[Patrick]

exit 118 turn right.

[T_aquaticus]

@Michael_Callen

As I’ve said in the past, one can use The Edge of Evolution as a template. It was very well presented, comprehensible and sensible as written.

Have you read any books on evolution (e.g. Kenneth Miller) that you consider to be well written?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@T.j_Runyon

Forums like this keep them alive. Should people be responding to them?

@T.j_Runyon

So do you agree with me that ID topics are footnotes… with virtually no relevance to Joshua’s work in which he already acknowledges that God guided creation?

We dont have to ban ID topicd … we just need to give them their own room!

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@T_aquaticus

Have you read any books on evolution (e.g. Kenneth Miller) that you consider to be well written?

Thanks for asking. I’m, as I mentioned, working on Futuyma now, and have not read Kenneth Miller. If you have suggestions, please let me know. That said, my point was not that there is a lack of well-written material available. My point was that everyone interested in getting a point across to the public should look at the job that DI is doing, and, in particular Michael Behe as an author. Their mastery of articulation of complex subjects is over the top. They publish books, articles, podcasts and videos that speak to the public in a way that is easily digestible. This is what needs to be emulated. To say that there are well-written materials is not going to change anything in terms of public perception.

As you said earlier, it could be a real sacrifice or departure from the normal way that things are done in this realm. I agree.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Michael_Callen

Until the mainstream science community learns how to articulate their positions in a similar way as DI (wherein the public can understand the science, the issues, and certain arguments are true or false) it will continue.

I disagree. The article that is the subject of this thread, typical of ID propaganda is a turgid, incoherent mess. I challenge you or anyone else to summarize the main arguments it makes, in such a way that they are clear and convincing.

No, the DI thrives the by the fact that their supporters do not understand the relevant science, and are easily bamboozled by someone with apparent qualifications throwing around a bunch of big numbers and sciencey-sounding jargon. They are reassured that, along with all the science they do not understand, there is apparently some science they also don’t understand, but which proves their god exists.

Excellent communicators of science abound, but even when creationists hear them, they are not persuaded. Just look at this forum if you need examples.

[T_aquaticus]

@Michael_Callen

Thanks for asking. I’m, as I mentioned, working on Futuyma now, and have not read Kenneth Miller. If you have suggestions, please let me know.

I read a bit of Dawkins’ “Climbing Mt. Improbable” and thought it was okay, but most of my reading is a bit more technical. Also, I may not be the best judge of how well the author is able to relate science to the lay public. If you do run across a good article or book, I would be interested to hear about it.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@Faizal_Ali

I disagree

Okay, but you miss my point.

@Faizal_Ali

No, the DI thrives the by the fact that their supporters do not understand the relevant science, and are easily bamboozled by someone with apparent qualifications throwing around a bunch of big numbers and sciencey-sounding jargon. They are reassured that, along with all the science they do not understand, there is apparently some science they also don’t understand, but which proves their god exists.

This may be the case, but their readers comprehend the message that they intend to articulate. That’s the point I’m making.

But seriously, I don’t care to argue. They are doing a superior job with their public relations and if you don’t see that, it’s part of the problem.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Michael_Callen

This may be the case, but their readers comprehend the message that they intend to articulate.

That is not my experience. They just understand “Goddidit”. In my experience, ID supporters can rarely articulate the actual arguments ID’ers make.

Unless that’s what you mean by “comprehend the message.”

Again, creationism is not the fault of bad science teaching and communication. It’s the result of bad theology.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Michael_Callen

They are doing a superior job with their public relations and if you don’t see that, it’s part of the problem.

“Superior” in what respect?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@T_aquaticus

I read a bit of Dawkins’ “Climbing Mt. Improbable” and thought it was okay, … If you do run across a good article or book, I would be interested to hear about it.

Dawkins is well-spoken and articulate. His thoughts in “God Delusion” were well-organized, they were just really weak and not at all compelling. I was happy with that!

I often cite The Edge of Evolution (Behe) as a great example of how the complex process of evolution can be clearly articulated to the public. It was superbly written and a really fun read. I think that someone like @NLENTS could use it as a template and articulate a very strong message.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Michael_Callen

It was very well presented, comprehensible and sensible as written.

How many binding sites have evolved in HIV in real time? Behe says zero.

@Michael_Callen

I often cite The Edge of Evolution (Behe) as a great example of how the complex process of evolution can be clearly articulated to the public.

Behe’s book grossly misrepresents evolution.

[T_aquaticus]

@Michael_Callen

They are doing a superior job with their public relations and if you don’t see that, it’s part of the problem.

It helps that they have a more receptive audience who already accepts their conclusion before they write a word. There is also a very obvious culture war aspect to the DI which I consider a detraction, but their audience probably laps it up. The DI has the advantage of only needing to produce a thin veneer of something appearing to be science, and it doesn’t have to stand up to any critical analysis.

[T_aquaticus]

@Michael_Callen

I often cite The Edge of Evolution (Behe) as a great example of how the complex process of evolution can be clearly articulated to the public.

The problem is that it was incorrectly articulated to the public.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@Faizal_Ali

“Superior” in what respect?

I feel as though you are trying to not comprehend what I’m saying.

@Mercer

How many binding sites have evolved in HIV in real time? Behe says zero.

John, please don’t misunderstand. What I’m speaking about here is not technically-correct information. I’m not the judge of that. I’m talking about the creation of a public relations machine (organization, articles, books, videos, podcasts, etc.) that is doing a bang-up job of articulating its message to the public.

Anyone here can talk all they would like about whether or not the message is wrong… but does John Q. Public get it? No. That’s your problem.

It’s not just having one book. And you have to leave open room for those with faith, as many do here. Then you can capture the minds in the way that DI has done.

@T_aquaticus

The problem is that it was incorrectly articulated to the public.

I realize that.

Two issues:

1. What is an effective means by which people can be reached (the public).
2. What is an accurate message that can be articulated to the public.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@T_aquaticus

It helps that they have a more receptive audience who already accepts their conclusion before they write a word.

Yes, it is very helpful. I bought into it hook, line and sinker, because it made sense and was well-articulated. Then I came here and learned of the weaknesses inherent in the science, data and conclusions. Most of us (Christians) are interested in the truth, not in a lie that supports our worldview. I’m sure that’s a surprise to many here, but it is the truth.

[T_aquaticus]

@Michael_Callen

Most of us (Christians) are interested in the truth, not in a lie that supports our worldview. I’m sure that’s a surprise to many here, but it is the truth.

It’s not a surprise, but I admit I use an overly wide brush at times. There is something seductive about arguments that agree with something you already believe. Scientists fall into this trap all of the time, so it certainly isn’t limited to religious groups.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

The issue is trust. That is the missing ingredient.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@T_aquaticus It’s healthy to evaluate personal weaknesses and understand how they affect our thinking and opinions. I think that there’s a pride (not a good pride) that comes from thinking that you understand a complex issue that takes others a lifetime to understand. There are many pitfalls for sure.

@swamidass

The issue is trust. That is the missing ingredient.

Absolutely. This is why any organization who forms to work similarly to how DI works has to be accepting of a position of faith, too. Else, as for me with “God Delusion”, you write off the information source (Dawkins) from the start, even though his books on general evolution may be helpful.