| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 40:22:31 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,391 |
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it is
a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it
is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to
bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not
something I intend to address.-a What does interest me is the accusation that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that it is given
to "fool the religious creationist rubes."-a This is how Ron talks...i
get it.
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it is their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to the conclusion they arrive at.-a The woodpecker tongue is simply something
that defied how this could have happened with unguided mutations or
genetic errors.-a Combine this with the 9 total things the woodpecker has and it certainly is a daunting example of something that seems guided to completion.
The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering craftsmanship."-a Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming "Life finds a way."-a I take the real evolutionists at their word and
accept that those things simply aren't real.-a If Ron were aligned with
the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can
use to fool the evolutionist rubes.
But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the human eye.-a The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't
work with evolutionary processes.
https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/
The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea involved instead for this movement.-a Somehow, we are supposed to believe that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution of diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the trochlea pulley, and figured
out how to get the superior oblique to thread itself through this tool,
and attach itself to the eyeball all on its own, and by chance
mutations.-a That's all you get, chance.-a Even if in the early stages of eye development the need for this rotation was desired, the eye still
could not just simply grow it.-a It just happened by accident, over a
long period of time, and then selection won over and we all get one now.
Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this way?
I don't think I would waste my time.-a Someone else can, but to me the example is obvious.-a It simply did not happen on it's own.-a I really
don't care how much time you would allow for it.-a Evolution does not
have the required tools.
Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID
is correct?-a Of course not.-a It is simply evidence that intelligence was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does not have
the tools to come up with these solutions for these two features.
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it
is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to
bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not
something I intend to address.-a What does interest me is the accusation that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that it is given
to "fool the religious creationist rubes."-a This is how Ron talks...i
get it.
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it is their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to the conclusion they arrive at.-a The woodpecker tongue is simply something
that defied how this could have happened with unguided mutations or
genetic errors.-a Combine this with the 9 total things the woodpecker has and it certainly is a daunting example of something that seems guided to completion.
The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering craftsmanship."-a Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming "Life finds a way."-a I take the real evolutionists at their word and
accept that those things simply aren't real.-a If Ron were aligned with
the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can
use to fool the evolutionist rubes.
But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the human eye.-a The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't
work with evolutionary processes.
https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/
The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea involved instead for this movement.-a Somehow, we are supposed to believe that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution of diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the trochlea pulley, and figured
out how to get the superior oblique to thread itself through this tool,
and attach itself to the eyeball all on its own, and by chance
mutations.-a That's all you get, chance.-a Even if in the early stages of eye development the need for this rotation was desired, the eye still
could not just simply grow it.-a It just happened by accident, over a
long period of time, and then selection won over and we all get one now.
Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this way?
I don't think I would waste my time.-a Someone else can, but to me the example is obvious.-a It simply did not happen on it's own.-a I really
don't care how much time you would allow for it.-a Evolution does not
have the required tools.
Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID
is correct?-a Of course not.-a It is simply evidence that intelligence was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does not have
the tools to come up with these solutions for these two features.
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it
is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to
bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not
something I intend to address.-a What does interest me is the accusation that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that it is given
to "fool the religious creationist rubes."-a This is how Ron talks...i
get it.
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it is their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to the conclusion they arrive at.-a The woodpecker tongue is simply something
that defied how this could have happened with unguided mutations or
genetic errors.-a Combine this with the 9 total things the woodpecker has and it certainly is a daunting example of something that seems guided to completion.
The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering craftsmanship."-a Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming "Life finds a way."-a I take the real evolutionists at their word and
accept that those things simply aren't real.-a If Ron were aligned with
the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can
use to fool the evolutionist rubes.
But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the human eye.-a The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't
work with evolutionary processes.
https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/
The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea involved instead for this movement.-a Somehow, we are supposed to believe that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution of diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the trochlea pulley, and figured
out how to get the superior oblique to thread itself through this tool,
and attach itself to the eyeball all on its own, and by chance
mutations.-a That's all you get, chance.-a Even if in the early stages of eye development the need for this rotation was desired, the eye still
could not just simply grow it.-a It just happened by accident, over a
long period of time, and then selection won over and we all get one now.
Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this way?
I don't think I would waste my time.-a Someone else can, but to me the example is obvious.-a It simply did not happen on it's own.-a I really
don't care how much time you would allow for it.-a Evolution does not
have the required tools.
Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID
is correct?-a Of course not.-a It is simply evidence that intelligence was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does not have
the tools to come up with these solutions for these two features.
sticks wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it
in their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and
it is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was
just something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
Since this post is really about bashing Mr. Crawford and a chance to
bring up again the same arguments I've snipped them as that is not
something I intend to address.-a What does interest me is the
accusation that it is a "lie" to consider this an IC example, and that
it is given to "fool the religious creationist rubes."-a This is how
Ron talks...i get it.
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the
example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that, but of course it
is their assumptions from viewing the empirical evidence leads them to
the conclusion they arrive at.-a The woodpecker tongue is simply
something that defied how this could have happened with unguided
mutations or genetic errors.-a Combine this with the 9 total things the
woodpecker has and it certainly is a daunting example of something
that seems guided to completion.
The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process
by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of
engineering craftsmanship."-a Similar to using the term "Mother
Nature", or claiming "Life finds a way."-a I take the real
evolutionists at their word and accept that those things simply aren't
real.-a If Ron were aligned with the ID crowd, he would say they're
simply nice words and phrases we can use to fool the evolutionist rubes.
But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in
the human eye.-a The Superior Oblique is something that to me just
doesn't work with evolutionary processes.
https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/
The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar
push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the
necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the
trochlea involved instead for this movement.-a Somehow, we are supposed
to believe that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the
engineering solution of diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the
trochlea pulley, and figured out how to get the superior oblique to
thread itself through this tool, and attach itself to the eyeball all
on its own, and by chance mutations.-a That's all you get, chance.
Even if in the early stages of eye development the need for this
rotation was desired, the eye still could not just simply grow it.-a It
just happened by accident, over a long period of time, and then
selection won over and we all get one now.
Yeah, it's pretty easy to maintain that incredulity when you assiduously avoid even a cursory search for things that upset your apple cart. Here
you go- this is over 20 years old, at the talk origins website (www.talkorigins.org) that I suggested to you:
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
And here's this on evolution of oculomotor neurons and muscles:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0940960224000177
That one popped up with a 0.5 second delay from Google.
Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this
way? I don't think I would waste my time.-a Someone else can, but to me
the example is obvious.-a It simply did not happen on it's own.-a I
really don't care how much time you would allow for it.-a Evolution
does not have the required tools.
Many years ago I helped mentor a student doing a bacterial growth study.
She showed me her data and I asked her where the 12-hour number was. She replied, "Oh, I didn't bother taking that measurement. I knew what it
was going to be." She didn't last in the research program.
Chris
Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID
is correct?-a Of course not.-a It is simply evidence that intelligence
was required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker
tongue appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does
not have the tools to come up with these solutions for these two
features.
On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it
in their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and
it is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was
just something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
[...]
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the
example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .
Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence
*for* evolution and *against* ID.-a There are multiple common mechanisms
by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such complexity violates engineering principles of keeping things as simple as possible and of
having backup systems.
On 9/2/2025 11:08 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it
in their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and
it is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was
just something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
[...]
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows
the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .
Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence
*for* evolution and *against* ID.-a There are multiple common
mechanisms by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such
complexity violates engineering principles of keeping things as simple
as possible and of having backup systems.
Just learning how things work here in T.O.
So things really are not irreducibly complex, but if they are it is
evidence for evolution.
Got it.-a Thanks
---snip
On 9/2/2025 11:08 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it
in their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and
it is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was
just something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
[...]
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows
the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .
Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence
*for* evolution and *against* ID.-a There are multiple common
mechanisms by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such
complexity violates engineering principles of keeping things as simple
as possible and of having backup systems.
Just learning how things work here in T.O.
So things really are not irreducibly complex, but if they are it is
evidence for evolution.
Got it.-a Thanks
On 9/2/2025 11:08 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it
in their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and
it is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was
just something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
[...]
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows
the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .
Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence
*for* evolution and *against* ID.-a There are multiple common
mechanisms by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such
complexity violates engineering principles of keeping things as simple
as possible and of having backup systems.
Just learning how things work here in T.O.
So things really are not irreducibly complex, but if they are it is
evidence for evolution.
Got it.-a Thanks
---snip
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are
resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an
example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it in
their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and it
is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was just
something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
[...]
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .
The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a
way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering craftsmanship."-a Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming "Life finds a way."-a I take the real evolutionists at their word and
accept that those things simply aren't real.-a If Ron were aligned with
the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can
use to fool the evolutionist rubes.
But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what
seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the human eye.-a The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't
work with evolutionary processes.
https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/
The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea involved instead for this movement.-a Somehow, we are supposed to believe that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution ...
That's all you get, chance.
You are coming very late into the ID creationist scam.-a The IDiots perpetrating the scam have never produced any valid ID science.-a All
they have used their ID science claims for is as bait to sucker the
rubes into trying to teach the junk in the public schools so that the ID perps can tell them not to do that, and the ID perps bend them over and
try to force them to take their obfuscation and denial switch scam that
the ID perps tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID nor creationism,
when the switch scam is just the same obfuscation and denial that the scientific creationists used to use to claim that their creation science
had enough merit to be taught in the public schools.-a Nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the bait and switch run on them have
dropped the issue instead of bending over for the switch scam.-a Biblical creationists want to teach the kids their religious beliefs, and if they can't tell the students why they are lying to them, they do not want to teach them enough science for them to be told what to deny.-a The ID scam has been a classic bait and switch scam for over 23 years.-a Not a single rube that has tried to teach the ID science ever got any from the ID perps.-a You should know this because you don't see a single example of
any creationists ever getting the promised ID science from the ID perps.
-aThey still claim to have a scientific theory of ID that can be taught
in the public schools, but the bait and switch still goes down.-a The
last example was West Virginia in 2024.-a The legislator was forced to
drop the claim that ID could be taught in the West Virginia public
schools from her legislation and she had to replace it with switch scam language.-a The act passed and even though she had to remove ID from the
act she still claimed that ID could be taught in the public schools. She
was too stupid to understand that the bait and switch had gone down, and Luskin had to tell her that the Discovery Institute did not support
teaching ID in the public schools.-a Luskin is coauthor of the current
teach ID scam propaganda that tells the rubes that ID is a scientific
theory that can be taught in the public schools, and that even though ID failed in federal court, that it is still legal to teach ID outside of
Dover PA.-a The Discovery Institute is the only organization that I know
of that still claims to be able to teach ID in the public schools, but
that claim is only bait, and has been bait for over 23 years.-a The creationist obfuscation and denial switch scam has been their only way forward for their Wedge goals for over 2 decades.
ID Perp teach ID propaganda:
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
Since their loss in Kitzmiller they have updated this bait around every
3 years.-a There was a 2021 version, but they subsequently reformated
their web page and seem to have reverted to their 2018 version.-a It
doesn't matter because it hasn't changed much since it was first
published in 2007.
This is all ID has been for decades.
Mark didn't say that IC systems did not exist.-a He only stated what Behe has acknowledged.-a IC systems can evolve by natural means.-a Behe acknowledged this around 25 years ago.-a What Behe has continued to claim
is that his type of IC systems cannot evolve, but he has never been able
to demonstrate that.-a Eventually Behe dropped the interacting parts ploy and now claims that if 3 neutral mutations occur to produce a new
function in one of the parts of his IC system, within a given period of time, that would make the system his type of IC.
This has pretty much destroyed IC as a scam topic for the anti-evolution IDiots because Behe has noted examples of 2 neutral mutations occurring
that he claims is on the edge of evolution, but still expected to
routinely happen in a population of around 100 million.-a These examples demonstrate that there was an ancestral protein sequence that duplicated
and one copy had 2 neutral mutations occur that changed the function of
that protein.-a This means that biological evolution is a fact of nature, and however the designer does things he takes existing structures and
alters them a bit in order to get them to do something new.
When the Top Six was put out by the ID perps, some ID perps did not like them.-a Sewell dropped out IC and the Cambrian explosion, placed them out
of their original temporal order, and made two gaps out of fine tuning
and human evolution in order to keep it as the Top Six.-a Seth Miller dropped out the Big Bang from Sewell's list to make it the Top 5.-a Seth Miller is supposed to be a physicist, and that tells you what kind of Biblical IDiotic creationists Miller is.-a A lot of Biblical creationists continue to want the universe created more recently to look like the Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago.
As I mentioned before most of the TO IDiotic creationist supporters of
the ID scam quit supporting the ID scam when the Top Six rubbed their
faces in the fact that they had never wanted the ID perps to accomplish
any valid ID science.-a It would just be more science to deny.-a MarkE
could not give up on the gap denial, and just started taking them as independent events so that he could lie to himself about using them to support his religious beliefs.-a Just try to get MarkE to give you a straightforward explanation of how filling the origin of life gap with a
non Biblical god would affect his Biblical religious beliefs that are
the reason for him continuing to wallow in the gap denial.
On 02/09/2025 19:46, sticks wrote:
On 9/2/2025 11:08 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are >>>>> resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an >>>>> example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it >>>>> in their new Culture category instead of their Science category,
and it is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it >>>>> was just something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
[...]
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows
the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .
Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence
*for* evolution and *against* ID.-a There are multiple common
mechanisms by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such
complexity violates engineering principles of keeping things as
simple as possible and of having backup systems.
Just learning how things work here in T.O.
So things really are not irreducibly complex, but if they are it is
evidence for evolution.
Got it.-a Thanks
---snip
Behe may have thought that he had an objective means of identifying
systems that could not have evolved, but he was wrong; using the
original definition of an irreducibly complex system as one which
requires all of its parts to function, there are at least three broad classes of paths by which irreducibly complex systems can evolve.
An additional issue is finding objective definitions of system, part and function. Divide a system into few parts, and it's more likely to be irreducibly complex; divide a system into many parts, and it's less
likely to be irreducibly complex. Consider an eukaryote cell as composed
of the nucleus, the cytoplasm and the cell membrane; looking at it in
that way it seems irreducibly complex (until you notice that mammalian erythrocytes and thrombocytes lack nuclei). But consider it as an
assemblage of nucleic acids, proteins and lipid membranes; then many
parts can be removed, and it continues to function, i.e. is not
irreducibly complex.
A third issue is that suitably defined a system may be irreducibly
complex in one species but may not have the same set of parts as the
same system in another species. The clotting cascade is an example of
this; it puzzles me why Behe thought that was a good poster system for
his argument.
As for the more general argument from complexity - the "it's oh so
complex, it must be designed" - that an argument from incredulity. I
look at the Heath-Robinson Rube Goldberg nature of life, and my reaction
is "there's no way that's designed". (Why should you incredulity be more dispositive that mine?)
(I think Dawkins is wrong when he writes that "life has the appearance
of design".)
You can get over the evolutionary argument from complexity by
postulating an unconstrained designer. The problem with that, epistemologically, is that you're no longer explaining the observations; instead you're explaining them away.
On 9/2/2025 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
---snip--->
You are coming very late into the ID creationist scam.-a The IDiots
perpetrating the scam have never produced any valid ID science.-a All
they have used their ID science claims for is as bait to sucker the
rubes into trying to teach the junk in the public schools so that the
ID perps can tell them not to do that, and the ID perps bend them over
and try to force them to take their obfuscation and denial switch scam
that the ID perps tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID nor
creationism, when the switch scam is just the same obfuscation and
denial that the scientific creationists used to use to claim that
their creation science had enough merit to be taught in the public
schools.-a Nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the bait and
switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of bending over for
the switch scam.-a Biblical creationists want to teach the kids their
religious beliefs, and if they can't tell the students why they are
lying to them, they do not want to teach them enough science for them
to be told what to deny.-a The ID scam has been a classic bait and
switch scam for over 23 years.-a Not a single rube that has tried to
teach the ID science ever got any from the ID perps.-a You should know
this because you don't see a single example of any creationists ever
getting the promised ID science from the ID perps. -a-aThey still claim
to have a scientific theory of ID that can be taught in the public
schools, but the bait and switch still goes down.-a The last example
was West Virginia in 2024.-a The legislator was forced to drop the
claim that ID could be taught in the West Virginia public schools from
her legislation and she had to replace it with switch scam language.
The act passed and even though she had to remove ID from the act she
still claimed that ID could be taught in the public schools. She was
too stupid to understand that the bait and switch had gone down, and
Luskin had to tell her that the Discovery Institute did not support
teaching ID in the public schools.-a Luskin is coauthor of the current
teach ID scam propaganda that tells the rubes that ID is a scientific
theory that can be taught in the public schools, and that even though
ID failed in federal court, that it is still legal to teach ID outside
of Dover PA.-a The Discovery Institute is the only organization that I
know of that still claims to be able to teach ID in the public
schools, but that claim is only bait, and has been bait for over 23
years.-a The creationist obfuscation and denial switch scam has been
their only way forward for their Wedge goals for over 2 decades.
As far as the court cases go, I am not surprised at the end result,
though I would differ with you on the intent, and the correctness and
effect of the verdict.-a I simply don't care what a court ruled about teaching ID in school, nor what any of the individuals involved say or believe.-a Even if you tie them all to the discovery.org or the science
and culture people.-a What I am interested in is their work, just as I am
in the work of the evolution crowd.-a It is the interpretation of results that always gets interesting and is often controversial.
With academia controlled almost completely by people on the left with Marxist ideology, I wouldn't want my kid to be taught anything about ID
by them.-a That would be my job.
ID Perp teach ID propaganda:
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
Since their loss in Kitzmiller they have updated this bait around
every 3 years.-a There was a 2021 version, but they subsequently
reformated their web page and seem to have reverted to their 2018
version.-a It doesn't matter because it hasn't changed much since it
was first published in 2007.
This is all ID has been for decades.
Mark didn't say that IC systems did not exist.-a He only stated what
Behe has acknowledged.-a IC systems can evolve by natural means.-a Behe
acknowledged this around 25 years ago.-a What Behe has continued to
claim is that his type of IC systems cannot evolve, but he has never
been able to demonstrate that.-a Eventually Behe dropped the
interacting parts ploy and now claims that if 3 neutral mutations
occur to produce a new function in one of the parts of his IC system,
within a given period of time, that would make the system his type of IC.
This has pretty much destroyed IC as a scam topic for the anti-
evolution IDiots because Behe has noted examples of 2 neutral
mutations occurring that he claims is on the edge of evolution, but
still expected to routinely happen in a population of around 100
million.-a These examples demonstrate that there was an ancestral
protein sequence that duplicated and one copy had 2 neutral mutations
occur that changed the function of that protein.-a This means that
biological evolution is a fact of nature, and however the designer
does things he takes existing structures and alters them a bit in
order to get them to do something new.
I certainly am not claiming that genetic mutations, and even selection cannot make changes.-a I believe it is to be expected, actually.-a Perhaps the changes are not viable to me in the way they are to you, but I do
enjoy reading the efforts to show it in the various experiments.-a But
the problem for me often lies in following one claim that has a
proceeding claim, and so on, where the details gets softened and
suggested as having been proven when in reality they are still problems needing to be addressed.
For example a recent post here: Message-ID: <108onr4$13rgv$3@dont- email.me>-a Subject: Chemists show how RNA might have started to make proteins on early EarthAs I noted in that thread the paper was unnecessary and was not solving
Though the paper and the post does correctly state, "proteins cannot replicate or produce themselvesrCothey require instructions. These instructions are provided by RNA."-a It then for the most part ignores
the information part.-a I know most of the RNA world work is
hypothetical, but I also know to me the real problem is finding how RNA could generate the information in its coded form in the first place.-a I don't think anyone is actually close to that.-a Research is fine, but I don't think it is an argument from incredulity to believe that coded information can arise from physical matter ignores the fundamental laws
of information.-a Yet, most here at T.O. somehow think this is untrue.
If you look at some of the associated links, you come to this page: <https://futurism.com/scientists-origin-life>
where study coauthor Matthew Powner says, "In a scenario where you have amino acids, where you have RNA molecules, if you have thiols rCo sulfur molecules rCo this is, I think, almost inevitable that this kind of
process can happen,".-a This is an example of what an ID person would say
is to be expected.-a It's better than organizing crystals, but it's not
the real problem.
He goes on to say this, "The catch is that as far as we can tell, the pantetheine crucial to making this all happen wouldn't have been found
in high enough concentrations in the Earth's primordial oceans, where
many scientists believe life may have originatedrCo only in smaller bodies of freshwater, where it would be less diluted."
And Nick Lane weighs in with this:-a "(he) further cautioned to Science
that the amino acid chains being produced are random and chaotic, unlike
the orderly arrangements produced by ribosomes."
So what on the cover sounds like an amazing new finding is really not.
They found what would be an expected chemical result in a place they
don't believe OoL happened, and what it actually produced was not useful chains.-a Those would require the proper order to be introduced with information somewhere along the way.-a As far as we know, information
cannot come from matter, only a mind.
I am not dismissing the work, just noting it isn't really much, and for
me it takes too damn much time to track down the realities to make sense
of it all.-a This happens often, IMO.
When the Top Six was put out by the ID perps, some ID perps did not
like them.-a Sewell dropped out IC and the Cambrian explosion, placed
them out of their original temporal order, and made two gaps out of
fine tuning and human evolution in order to keep it as the Top Six.
Seth Miller dropped out the Big Bang from Sewell's list to make it the
Top 5.-a Seth Miller is supposed to be a physicist, and that tells you
what kind of Biblical IDiotic creationists Miller is.-a A lot of
Biblical creationists continue to want the universe created more
recently to look like the Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago.
You are correct that I'm new to T.O. and I have not read all the FAQ
pages as of yet.-a I do intend on working on that.-a I read the page you linked to above <https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/> and did not find it unreasonable.-a Your history of how this has all played out is also interesting, but not something that changes how I view these issues. The scientific theories and interpretation yes, the drama of how you say it played out and what it means not so much.
As I mentioned before most of the TO IDiotic creationist supporters of
the ID scam quit supporting the ID scam when the Top Six rubbed their
faces in the fact that they had never wanted the ID perps to
accomplish any valid ID science.-a It would just be more science to
deny.-a MarkE could not give up on the gap denial, and just started
taking them as independent events so that he could lie to himself
about using them to support his religious beliefs.-a Just try to get
MarkE to give you a straightforward explanation of how filling the
origin of life gap with a non Biblical god would affect his Biblical
religious beliefs that are the reason for him continuing to wallow in
the gap denial.
MarkE is in a similar spot as the above scenarios and I have no
intention of trying to figure out what he believes or attack him for anything he says either.-a It's irrelevant to me.-a Though, I will pay attention to how you view his posts and go from there.-a I really intend
on posting little, and absorbing as much as I can.-a For example I am not entirely sure of what you mean in the above paragraph, but figure it
will be spelled out a bit if I can find more time to get more posts read.
On 9/3/2025 5:01 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/09/2025 19:46, sticks wrote:
On 9/2/2025 11:08 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps
are resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling >>>>>> it an example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they >>>>>> put it in their new Culture category instead of their Science
category, and it is a talk given at their Science and Faith
conference, so it was just something to fool the religious
creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
[...]
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows
the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an >>>>> experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .
Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence
*for* evolution and *against* ID.-a There are multiple common
mechanisms by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such
complexity violates engineering principles of keeping things as
simple as possible and of having backup systems.
Just learning how things work here in T.O.
So things really are not irreducibly complex, but if they are it is
evidence for evolution.
Got it.-a Thanks
---snip
Behe may have thought that he had an objective means of identifying
systems that could not have evolved, but he was wrong; using the
original definition of an irreducibly complex system as one which
requires all of its parts to function, there are at least three broad
classes of paths by which irreducibly complex systems can evolve.
An additional issue is finding objective definitions of system, part
and function. Divide a system into few parts, and it's more likely to
be irreducibly complex; divide a system into many parts, and it's less
likely to be irreducibly complex. Consider an eukaryote cell as
composed of the nucleus, the cytoplasm and the cell membrane; looking
at it in that way it seems irreducibly complex (until you notice that
mammalian erythrocytes and thrombocytes lack nuclei). But consider it
as an assemblage of nucleic acids, proteins and lipid membranes; then
many parts can be removed, and it continues to function, i.e. is not
irreducibly complex.
A third issue is that suitably defined a system may be irreducibly
complex in one species but may not have the same set of parts as the
same system in another species. The clotting cascade is an example of
this; it puzzles me why Behe thought that was a good poster system for
his argument.
As for the more general argument from complexity - the "it's oh so
complex, it must be designed" - that an argument from incredulity. I
look at the Heath-Robinson Rube Goldberg nature of life, and my
reaction is "there's no way that's designed". (Why should you
incredulity be more dispositive that mine?)
(I think Dawkins is wrong when he writes that "life has the appearance
of design".)
You can get over the evolutionary argument from complexity by
postulating an unconstrained designer. The problem with that,
epistemologically, is that you're no longer explaining the
observations; instead you're explaining them away.
Yes, but you're still left with explaining where the information to
build anything originated.-a Evolutionists don't have to worry about
being accused of arguing from incredulity because they insist they will continue looking.-a The fact they cannot consider ID is a big asset that
ID folks don't have.-a For example my two biggest difficulties are the initial conditions before the Big Bang and where everything came from,
and this information origination problem within OoL.-a Now both places I come up with my conclusion using logic, philosophical/metaphysical, and scientific law.-a Yet, both scenarios I would be accused of simple incredulity and dismissed.-a It doesn't matter to me that happens, and
I'd be open to be shown how I am wrong in my conclusions, but using deductive reasoning and the methods above is not incredulity.-a It is an unfair characterization.
I'm not denying things suggested as or considered IC can be show not to be.-a I just found the blanket statement that "irreducible complexity is evidence *for* evolution and *against* ID" is a little absurd, or funny.
With academia controlled almost completely by people on the left with Marxist ideology, I wouldn't want my kid to be taught anything about ID
by them.-a That would be my job.
On 9/3/2025 5:01 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/09/2025 19:46, sticks wrote:
On 9/2/2025 11:08 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps
are resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling >>>>>> it an example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they >>>>>> put it in their new Culture category instead of their Science
category, and it is a talk given at their Science and Faith
conference, so it was just something to fool the religious
creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
[...]
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows
the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an >>>>> experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .
Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence
*for* evolution and *against* ID.-a There are multiple common
mechanisms by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such
complexity violates engineering principles of keeping things as
simple as possible and of having backup systems.
Just learning how things work here in T.O.
So things really are not irreducibly complex, but if they are it is
evidence for evolution.
Got it.-a Thanks
---snip
Behe may have thought that he had an objective means of identifying
systems that could not have evolved, but he was wrong; using the
original definition of an irreducibly complex system as one which
requires all of its parts to function, there are at least three broad
classes of paths by which irreducibly complex systems can evolve.
An additional issue is finding objective definitions of system, part
and function. Divide a system into few parts, and it's more likely to
be irreducibly complex; divide a system into many parts, and it's less
likely to be irreducibly complex. Consider an eukaryote cell as
composed of the nucleus, the cytoplasm and the cell membrane; looking
at it in that way it seems irreducibly complex (until you notice that
mammalian erythrocytes and thrombocytes lack nuclei). But consider it
as an assemblage of nucleic acids, proteins and lipid membranes; then
many parts can be removed, and it continues to function, i.e. is not
irreducibly complex.
A third issue is that suitably defined a system may be irreducibly
complex in one species but may not have the same set of parts as the
same system in another species. The clotting cascade is an example of
this; it puzzles me why Behe thought that was a good poster system for
his argument.
As for the more general argument from complexity - the "it's oh so
complex, it must be designed" - that an argument from incredulity. I
look at the Heath-Robinson Rube Goldberg nature of life, and my
reaction is "there's no way that's designed". (Why should you
incredulity be more dispositive that mine?)
(I think Dawkins is wrong when he writes that "life has the appearance
of design".)
You can get over the evolutionary argument from complexity by
postulating an unconstrained designer. The problem with that,
epistemologically, is that you're no longer explaining the
observations; instead you're explaining them away.
Yes, but you're still left with explaining where the information to
build anything originated.-a Evolutionists don't have to worry about
being accused of arguing from incredulity because they insist they will continue looking.-a The fact they cannot consider ID is a big asset that
ID folks don't have.-a For example my two biggest difficulties are the initial conditions before the Big Bang and where everything came from,
and this information origination problem within OoL.-a Now both places I come up with my conclusion using logic, philosophical/metaphysical, and scientific law.-a Yet, both scenarios I would be accused of simple incredulity and dismissed.-a It doesn't matter to me that happens, and
I'd be open to be shown how I am wrong in my conclusions, but using deductive reasoning and the methods above is not incredulity.-a It is an unfair characterization.
I'm not denying things suggested as or considered IC can be show not to be.-a I just found the blanket statement that "irreducible complexity is evidence *for* evolution and *against* ID" is a little absurd, or funny.
On 9/2/2025 4:57 PM, RonO wrote:
---snip--->
You are coming very late into the ID creationist scam.-a The IDiots
perpetrating the scam have never produced any valid ID science.-a All
they have used their ID science claims for is as bait to sucker the
rubes into trying to teach the junk in the public schools so that the
ID perps can tell them not to do that, and the ID perps bend them over
and try to force them to take their obfuscation and denial switch scam
that the ID perps tell the rubes has nothing to do with ID nor
creationism, when the switch scam is just the same obfuscation and
denial that the scientific creationists used to use to claim that
their creation science had enough merit to be taught in the public
schools.-a Nearly all the creationist rubes that have had the bait and
switch run on them have dropped the issue instead of bending over for
the switch scam.-a Biblical creationists want to teach the kids their
religious beliefs, and if they can't tell the students why they are
lying to them, they do not want to teach them enough science for them
to be told what to deny.-a The ID scam has been a classic bait and
switch scam for over 23 years.-a Not a single rube that has tried to
teach the ID science ever got any from the ID perps.-a You should know
this because you don't see a single example of any creationists ever
getting the promised ID science from the ID perps. -a-aThey still claim
to have a scientific theory of ID that can be taught in the public
schools, but the bait and switch still goes down.-a The last example
was West Virginia in 2024.-a The legislator was forced to drop the
claim that ID could be taught in the West Virginia public schools from
her legislation and she had to replace it with switch scam language.
The act passed and even though she had to remove ID from the act she
still claimed that ID could be taught in the public schools. She was
too stupid to understand that the bait and switch had gone down, and
Luskin had to tell her that the Discovery Institute did not support
teaching ID in the public schools.-a Luskin is coauthor of the current
teach ID scam propaganda that tells the rubes that ID is a scientific
theory that can be taught in the public schools, and that even though
ID failed in federal court, that it is still legal to teach ID outside
of Dover PA.-a The Discovery Institute is the only organization that I
know of that still claims to be able to teach ID in the public
schools, but that claim is only bait, and has been bait for over 23
years.-a The creationist obfuscation and denial switch scam has been
their only way forward for their Wedge goals for over 2 decades.
As far as the court cases go, I am not surprised at the end result,
though I would differ with you on the intent, and the correctness and
effect of the verdict.-a I simply don't care what a court ruled about teaching ID in school, nor what any of the individuals involved say or believe.
[...] Research is fine, but I
don't think it is an argument from incredulity to believe that coded information can arise from physical matter ignores the fundamental laws
of information.
On 02/09/2025 19:46, sticks wrote:
[re irreducible complexity]
Behe may have thought that he had an objective means of identifying
systems that could not have evolved, but he was wrong; [...]
[...]
Yes, but you're still left with explaining where the information to
build anything originated.
[...]
I'm not denying things suggested as or considered IC can be show not to be.-a I just found the blanket statement that "irreducible complexity is evidence *for* evolution and *against* ID" is a little absurd, or funny.
On 9/3/25 3:01 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/09/2025 19:46, sticks wrote:
[re irreducible complexity]
Behe may have thought that he had an objective means of identifying
systems that could not have evolved, but he was wrong; [...]
I recently read the following:
Science:
If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't correct those mistakes, you're doing it really wrong.
If you don't admit those mistakes, you're not doing it at all.
Behe is now solidly in the third category.
Either an uncaused (though QM does have, in some degree, uncaused
events) universe, or an eternal universe, or an infinite regression of causes, runs contrary to common intuition. But postulating a cosmogen doesn't get you out of the bind. It doesn't add to the explanation -
it's another way of explaining away the data. One might as well apply Occam's Razor, and say "I don't know the origin of the universe" than
say "the cosmogen created the universe, but I don't know the origin of
the cosmogen".
On 02/09/2025 19:46, sticks wrote:FWIW Dawkins writes that in recognition of the teleological argument's
On 9/2/2025 11:08 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-
example- of-irreducible-complexity/
Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are >>>>> resurrecting that old creationist argument.-a They are calling it an >>>>> example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it >>>>> in their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and >>>>> it is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was >>>>> just something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.
That's a hell of a way to begin a post.
---snip---
[...]
He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows
the example is irreducibly complex.-a I'm sure someone would have an
experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .
Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence
*for* evolution and *against* ID.-a There are multiple common
mechanisms by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such
complexity violates engineering principles of keeping things as simple
as possible and of having backup systems.
Just learning how things work here in T.O.
So things really are not irreducibly complex, but if they are it is
evidence for evolution.
Got it.-a Thanks
---snip
Behe may have thought that he had an objective means of identifying
systems that could not have evolved, but he was wrong; using the
original definition of an irreducibly complex system as one which
requires all of its parts to function, there are at least three broad >classes of paths by which irreducibly complex systems can evolve.
An additional issue is finding objective definitions of system, part and >function. Divide a system into few parts, and it's more likely to be >irreducibly complex; divide a system into many parts, and it's less
likely to be irreducibly complex. Consider an eukaryote cell as composed
of the nucleus, the cytoplasm and the cell membrane; looking at it in
that way it seems irreducibly complex (until you notice that mammalian >erythrocytes and thrombocytes lack nuclei). But consider it as an
assemblage of nucleic acids, proteins and lipid membranes; then many
parts can be removed, and it continues to function, i.e. is not
irreducibly complex.
A third issue is that suitably defined a system may be irreducibly
complex in one species but may not have the same set of parts as the
same system in another species. The clotting cascade is an example of
this; it puzzles me why Behe thought that was a good poster system for
his argument.
As for the more general argument from complexity - the "it's oh so
complex, it must be designed" - that an argument from incredulity. I
look at the Heath-Robinson Rube Goldberg nature of life, and my reaction
is "there's no way that's designed". (Why should you incredulity be more >dispositive that mine?)
(I think Dawkins is wrong when he writes that "life has the appearance
of design".)
You can get over the evolutionary argument from complexity by--
postulating an unconstrained designer. The problem with that, >epistemologically, is that you're no longer explaining the observations; >instead you're explaining them away.
On 4/09/2025 10:09 pm, Ernest Major wrote:The above is an example of Lennox begging the question by resorting to
Either an uncaused (though QM does have, in some degree, uncaused
events) universe, or an eternal universe, or an infinite regression of
causes, runs contrary to common intuition. But postulating a cosmogen
doesn't get you out of the bind. It doesn't add to the explanation -
it's another way of explaining away the data. One might as well apply
Occam's Razor, and say "I don't know the origin of the universe" than
say "the cosmogen created the universe, but I don't know the origin of
the cosmogen".
I'm with John:
Professor John Lennox argues that the question "Who created the
Creator?" is based on a faulty premise, as his Christian belief is that
the God who created the universe is inherently uncreated and eternal.
Lennox contends that asking about the creator of God is like asking
about the creator of the concept of creation itself, a question that
doesn't logically apply to an uncreated being but is a logical fallacy
when applied to a being outside the universe.
THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS UNCREATED:
Lennox's position is that the God described in the Bible is not a
created being but is eternal and uncreated.
LOGICAL FALLACY:
The question "Who created the Creator?" assumes that the Creator is like
a created thing within the universe, which Lennox says is the mistake.
RICHARD DAWKINS'S ARGUMENT:
Lennox addresses the question in the context of Richard Dawkins'
argument in The God Delusion, which suggests that explaining the
universe with a creator leads to an infinite regress of questions.
COUNTERING THE INFINITE REGRESS:
Lennox argues that if one accepts the existence of something eternal,
then positing an eternal, uncreated Person (God) is not a logical >difficulty. Conversely, if one believes the universe and its finite
matter came into being, the question "who created that?" can be asked
about it.
CREATED VS. UNCREATED:
He differentiates between a created god, which he calls a delusion or an >idol, and the uncreated, eternal God of Christianity.
On 9/3/25 10:46 AM, sticks wrote:
[...]
Yes, but you're still left with explaining where the information to
build anything originated.
Have you ever looked at limestone cave formations such as stalactites, flowstone draperies, soda straws, cave pearls, etc.? Where does the information to build them come from? Do you think their origin is supernatural?
[...]
I'm not denying things suggested as or considered IC can be show not
to be.-a I just found the blanket statement that "irreducible
complexity is evidence *for* evolution and *against* ID" is a little
absurd, or funny.
The idea for irreducible complexity in microbiology was first advanced
in 1918 by Hermann Muller (although he called it "interlocking
complexity"). He did not present any examples, but he pointed out that
it would arise *as a result* of evolutionary changes. When a theory is
used to make a prediction, and that prediction is borne out, that counts
as evidence for the theory.
Muller, Hermann J. 1918. Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors. Genetics 3: 422-499.
Muller, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society 14: 261-280.