“What Luskin does not seem comprehend is that irreducible complexity is not an argument for design — it is an argument against evolution. ”

and

“By pointing out, in court, that individual parts of each of these systems do indeed have perfectly functional roles, we showed that Behe’s claim of unevolvability was false.”

The problem here is that Behe didn’t claim that IC means unevolvability, but he presented IC as an argument against natural selection as the main explanation for the structure. Behe pointed out it in both Darwin’s Black Box and in Court that IC is compatible with evolutionary scenario. It is fully compatible with teleological evolution and common descent, but perhaps not with blind evolution thesis. That’s why the notion of common structures and descent are not argument against IC, if it is understood as Behe has defined the term. IC may yet be indicator of design. Why Miller continues arguing against straw man (claiming that Behe had claimed unevolvability)?

I don’t know. Perhaps it is good business.

accept your theory on the “fusion” of #2 chromo, you drop in the fact
you are Catholic. I sensed that it was the innapropiate moment, a dishonest
moment of inflicting faith into your opinion.

Now can you do “fusion” as you say by technology to effect the cloning
of a chimpanzee into anything resembling humans ? You said “I think
it’s true” Did you mean to refer to your faith in that declaration
or to the data of your science ? “I think it’s true.” ???

They thought the theory of gravity to be true and Einstein said otherwise,
and now they say again, more theory. So what is wrong with pure skepticism
until you can actually demonstrate the fact by technology . Of course that
would constitute “Artificial Selection” not “Natural Selection” but it
would show that is might have been so. Do you understand the meaning
of the future perfect tense ? Show me, don’t tell me what to believe.

And If you say the data had two outcomes and you own the data and the
other guy is ignorant, what does that prove ? It only proves the other
guy is ignorant of your research . Is that something to be proud of ?

If you came out and said ” I know it’s true” instead of “I think it’s
true” the declaration would surpass the idea of “Faith” into Fact.

Best wishes, anyway.

In Dr. Miller’s critique of Casey Luskin’s views involving Intelligent Design, Dr Miller makes the following comment:

“In other words, to Luskin, the only way to show that a system is irreducibly complex would be to take a couple of parts out and see if it keeps working.”

It is my interpretation that Luskin was referring to the functioning of the system. Dr. Miller then continues:

“That stunning error of logic is why he actually believes that pulling a wheel off my Trek road bike would demonstrate the irreducible complexity of the bicycle’s design.”

It is my interpretation that Dr. Miller has switched the focus of the argument from “function” to “design.” The bike without a wheel certainly does not “function” as it did when it had the wheel. This seems to support Luskin’s general theme. The bike without a wheel might be used for stationary exercise but its function is different than the fully operational bike. Dr. Miller is a highly credentialed scientist but my interpretation is that it is he that has committed a “stunning error of logic.” What am I unable to grasp in Dr. Miller’s statement?

Dr. Miller also takes Luskin to task with the following:

“What Mr. Luskin clearly does not understand is that irreducible complexity is really an argument about how a system came to be, not whether it contains dispensable parts. And the argument, so clearly stated by Michael Behe—is that the whole system has to be assembled at once, in “one fell swoop.” because partial assemblies, containing just a few parts, are “by definition nonfunctional.”

Dr. MIller then answers this question with the following:

“How do you test that assertion? By looking around in nature and seeing if partial assemblies of the more complex systems do exist and are indeed functional.”

My interpretation: Dr. Miller’s explanation does not connect to his claim that the argument is about “how a system came to be.” Viewing other “partial assemblies of more complex systems” does not reflect or explain how such less complex systems “came to be.” Likewise, other less complex systems probably have a different function than the more complex system which would seem to make the analogy invalid. Again, what am I missing in Dr. Miller’s logic?

A confused EvoClast.

to Luskin, the only way to show that a system is irreducibly complex would be to take a couple of parts out and see if it keeps working. That stunning error of logic is why he actually believes that pulling a wheel off my Trek road bike would demonstrate the irreducible complexity of the bicycle’s design.

Yo, dingaling–

YOUR BIKE WAS DESIGNED! IT DIDN’T EVOLVE! DUHHH!

The man will not even read that with which he supposedly agrees with let alone that with which he does not agree.

“If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions.” Oliver Wendell Holmes

It is a mistake to assume that every hypothesis must be subject to being proved false. That was an invention of the mind of Karl Popper. Hypotheses need only be proven true at which time they become instantly elevated to the status of theory.

The Darwinian model assumes that it cannot be proven to be either true or false because it makes no predictions. An hypothesis that makes no predictions is not an hypothesis. It is pure fantasy. Even if one grants Darwinism the status of hypothesis, which I am not prepared to do, its central core of natural selection still fails the acid test of true speciation or of any other taxonomic hurdle evidenced in the real world.

Darwinism remains what it was at its inception, the product of the imagination of a couple of Victorian naturalists, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, the latter who abandoned it completely later in life. Consider the complete title of Wallace’s last book (1911)-

“The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose.”

“An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.”
Boris Ephrussi

jadavison.wordpress.com