Perhaps that IDers ignore evidence so there’s no point using it?
Though they also ignore logic, maths and consistency?
2 Likes
It’s more complicated. Darwin analyzed the evolution of an existing system, never thinking about how that came into existence. Of course you know
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated (p. 187 in the first edition)
But you’re right, Darwin talked about multiple function and change of function. What he could explain were structures evolving via direct pathways.
Think about Mivart, who was responsible that you should read the first edition and not the sixth of the Origin. “What good is half a wing” was really a problem for Darwin if there wasn’t a gradient of function.
Okay, that’s discussing wordings.
From my point of view we should use the terminology of Behe and grant him that he could show that certain systems are not in the reach of one (or at best af few) mechanisms.
So what?
He would have to show that no naturalistic mechanism is possible. And even then he wouldn’t have an argument for design (maybe a kind of IBE, but from my point of view even not that, because Design doesn’t qualify as a mechanism).
This is so comically inaccurate that it is frankly astonishing that you wrote it. I offer Chapter IV of the Origin as evidence, which to an educated audience should be unnecessary.
1 Like
Gee, it’s almost like cdesign proponentsists are just creationist by another name, isn’t it…
2 Likes
Of course Darwin was wrong about this. The lung came first and was modified as a swim bladder in teleosts. But the point is the same.
In what way does selection fail as an explanation of changes in function?
Which systems and which mechanism(s) could he show? How would he show such a thing?
For a philosopher, you seem unusually poor at making clear and informative statements.
1 Like
the new function has to be present for selection to ‘see’ it. Selection didn’t generate it.
E.g. the bacterial flagellum.
He didn’t show a mechanism, but problems for a specified one.
I wrote quite a lot about that in other posts. Have I to repeat it for your convenience?
For someone wanting to get answers you are quite impolite. Why can’t you just ask?
that’s old news, e.g.
Mayr, E. (1960) ‘The emergence of evolutionary novelties’ in: Tax, S.; (ed.) ‘Evolution after Darwin. Vol 1. The Evolution of Life’ Chicago, University of Chicago Press S. 349-380, p. 362
I thought that was part of the job description. 
And, as I said before, one could also show problems with the claim that the flagellum was produced by the mechanism of someone banging their head on a desk.
How ought one respond to that claim? I can think of two ways one could respond:
-
Showing that it could be produced by someone banging their head on a desk.
-
Showing that it could be produced by methods other than by banging one’s head on a desk.
You appear to have grave philosophical objections to people using method (2). So what is the alternative? Method (1)?
4 Likes
Well of course selection, technically, generates nothing. It just … selects … among existing variation. But if a single mutation can produce incipient change in function, that’s good enough.
Be more specific. What mechanism did he show a problem for, what was the problem, and how did he show it?
Yes, because you have a tendency merely to allude to things rather than saying them, and in other ways you have been much less than clear. Another attempt, with more attention to communication, would serve you well.
I have tried asking, many times. And I find you quite rude. If you were more responsive, it would help reduce the temperature.
5 Likes
Why? Poems are purely rhetorical. Science is not. You are making my point for me.
Also, you are ignoring the enormous difference in expertise/accomplishments of your two authors, as well as your own lack of expertise as the evaluator.
So I’d say your analogy fails on every level. I’d read the poem before judging anything.
No, I am defending science against mendacious, pseudoscientific culture warriors.
Objectively, there is no ID theory to analyze. There is no ID hypothesis to analyze. You are the one lacking objectivity.
“World view” is another term favored by those who avoid evidence.
4 Likes
You’re not able to see my point.
No problem, live long and prosper.
Considering how much effort you put into obfuscating, instead of just getting to it and saying it, that’s not as much of an insult as one’d think judging just by the wording.
5 Likes
After more than 300 posts, are we any closer to an answer to the thread title?
3 Likes
If you truly believed that, you’d explain with reasons instead of a faulty analogy.
So, I’m asking again, why is rhetoric more important to you than evidence?
1 Like
I’d say it’s a resounding no.
1 Like
what do you mean by ‘obfuscating’?
Did you read my postings?
I explained my point of view several times. If you don’t understand it, I’m sorry.
But don’t worry.
No, but we didn’t discuss that. We argued about IC, weasel program and so on.
But you’re right, the title of my OP is misleading. Maybe I should change it.
… as a warrior in a cultural war.
Any questions 
Mercer already adequately illustrated exactly how you are obfuscating your point. Did you read his postings? I read yours. It is in them that I noticed how consistently you keep not getting to the point, electing to write similes in its place.
If you don’t understand it, I’m sorry.
But don’t worry.
3 Likes