Part 3 of Behe's response to Lehigh Colleagues

It is imprudent to provide no evidence for ID, and instead try to argue against evolution. It is just a weaker version of the same negative argument.

3 Likes

I agree this would be imprudent if that’s Mike did. It is however viable to argue why his explanation is the best available.

Then Behe should present evidence for this explanation instead of trying to argue against evolution.

2 Likes

Evolution is a process with a random portion providing raw materials and a non-random portion selecting genetic combinations which work. Why do you keep making the same mistaken claims about evolution over and over and over and over?

I’ll note you still can’t answer the question of how to tell simple IC from non-simple IC. It’s still empty claims and word games from you.

1 Like

When you say it is not random and then you then say there is a random portion you are contradicting yourself. What irreducible complexity does is stretch out the random steps before those steps can get fixed in a population. The longer the random steps the bigger the challenge for evolutionary mechanisms.

1 Like

I already did this and yet it is really not necessary for the argument to be valid. What Behe identifies are specific IC systems like the flagellar.

Back to your silly words games.

Of course followed by the same old evidence free assertions. ID-Creationism is dead and stinking.

No you didn’t Bill. You claimed you could tell a simple IC system from a non-simple one by the size and number of proteins. When asked what that size and number of proteins are you gave the evasive non-answer “500 random bits”. But that’s OK Bill. We’re used to ID-Creationists making lame claims and running when asked to provide support.

1 Like

Please give us some examples of simple IC biological systems you agree evolved without intelligent intervention.

why always repeate ‘ID-Creationists’’ when there is no such term exist and no one supports it, even Behe does not support any theory called ‘‘ID-Creation’’

if we are talilking mutual respect, the dialoge is valid, when in first place you are not rediculed by the term ‘‘ID-Creationists’’

If you think life was created by an intelligent designer then you’re an ID-Creationist. Don’t whine because the correct terminology is used.

How much respect did Creationists show science when they rebranded Creationism as “Intelligent Design” solely to get around U.S. laws against teaching religious idea in science classes?

2 Likes

This is why:

3 Likes

it just had marketing strategy to rise money, when you write grant proposal you write for each organisation different proposal to say simply words that they want to listen. if you want to rise money from some religous fundings you write something like that proposal, if from secular organisation different one. It is common for fundrising be a bit manipulative. It does not mean it was your overall goal…

from this said, i do not want to contine this off toppic, better to discuss Behe’s response to his colleagues

And he seems to have been successful in this if one looks at the proposed solutions to the problem of IC.
All the solutions require many random steps to happen without selection playing a major role. Take CNE as an example, Selection has very little to do with it till the last two steps. Natural selection moves on from a creative role to being just a screening process.

Now its just a series of accidents which get fixed in the genome for no particular reason whatsoever.

Youre saying they lied to get money? Thats even worse

4 Likes

This is also the weakness of neutral theory.

1 Like

Everyone knows POOF MY DEITY DIDDIT! is the stronger scientific answer, right Bill?

We can see neutral mutations being fixed in populations in real time. Lenski’s experiment is a perfect example

1 Like