The author’s speculations are precisely what science is not. How ironic, that in an attempt to demonstrate that ID is not science he spouts utterly unsupported speculative silliness to demonstrate what real science is all about.
His speculation is the old co-option fantasy. This particular Darwinian fantasy demonstrates a complete lack of any, even the most trivial, analytical scrutiny. I wrote the following on this topic:
1) In order for co-option to produce a bacterial flagellum (for example) all of the component parts must have been present at the same time and in roughly the same place, and all of them must have had other naturally-selectable, useful functions. There is no evidence whatsoever that this ever was the case, or that it ever even could have been the case.
2) The components would have to have been compatible with each other functionally. A bolt that is too large, too small, or that has threads that are too fine or too coarse to match those of a nut, cannot be combined with the nut to make a fastener. There is absolutely no evidence that this interface compatibility ever existed (between all those imaginary co-opted component parts), or that it even could have existed.
3) Even if all the parts are available at the same time and in the same place, and are functionally compatible, one can’t just put them in a bag, shake them up, and have a motor fall out. An assembly mechanism is required, and that mechanism must be complete in every detail, otherwise incomplete or improper assembly will result, and no naturally-selectable function will be produced. The assembly mechanism thus represents yet another irreducibly complex hurdle.
4) Last, and perhaps most importantly, assembly instructions are required. Assembly must be timed and coordinated properly. And the assembly instructions must be complete in every detail, otherwise no function will result. This represents an additional irreducibly complex hurdle.
Co-option is a demonstrably fantastic story made up out of whole cloth, with absolutely no basis in evidence. And it doesn’t withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny. There is not a shred of evidence that this process ever took place, or that it even could have taken place. Worst of all, it requires blind acceptance of the clearly miraculous.
There is a great irony here. This verifiably ridiculous co-option fantasy is presented as “science,” while a straightforward and reasonable inference to design is labeled pseudoscience. The real state of affairs is precisely the reverse.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Yup.
Well stated by Gil Dodgen in a comment here:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"Darwinists" like to assert that they are rational and that anti-Darwinists are irrational. In truth, "Darwinists" are not rationalists, but rather are rationalizationists.
One might note that neither side has the ability to clear a table top and create life.
Intelligent Design fails simply because it cannot explain how life occurred.
The Darwinists fail on multiple accounts. Their theory requires an ongoing process which is not in evidence. They cannot reproduce how life was created. Even if they could create life from inanimate elements, they cannot state with any certainty that this is how life was created here. Finally, even if they could meet the previous objections, they have not settled the issue that there cannot be someone behind the process. I accord this discussion the same relevancy as the medieval discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"... I accord this discussion the same relevancy as the medieval discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
There were no such debates; that's just more atheistic mythology.
You also seem to be overlooking the fact that "Darwinism" currently has a stranglehold on biology -- and, as "Darwinism" is false, that stranglehold amounts to one of those famous "science-stoppers."
SO, even IF intelligent design can't show how living organisms originated, it *can* help people see the irredeemable falsity of "Darwinism." And, that stranglehold is finally broken, perhaps biology can finally make some progress currently being held up by "Darwinism."
For instance:
Does it really matter how living organisms originated? Will possession of this knowledge help us to understand living organisms that actually exist now? Does the lack of this limit our ability to study and understand living organisms that actually exist now?
OR, might it be that the intellectual resources being thrown at an issue which can never indeed be known are being wasted? Might it be that this OOL obsession is one of those "science-stoppers" which follow from “Darwinism?”
Post a Comment