tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post4431926958649450950..comments2024-02-29T20:00:59.902-08:00Comments on Cartago Delenda Est: Person 1: I'm Not Arguing For A, Because What Really Matters Is B. Person 2: His Argument For A Fails. So Probably His Argument For B Is Bad, Too.Matteohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-51915246333198346072007-08-28T09:12:00.000-07:002007-08-28T09:12:00.000-07:00Thanks for the link. It's encouraging when people ...Thanks for the link. It's encouraging when people manage to a) understand the point I'm making and b) recognise it to have some correspondence to the real world. I'm not sure that I can say the same for some of my commenters, either!<BR/><BR/>PaulExile from GROGGShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00520118288960599976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-86631261918173025872007-08-27T09:48:00.000-07:002007-08-27T09:48:00.000-07:00Michael, it seems to me that you have just illustr...Michael, it seems to me that you have just illustrated the entire point of the post I linked to. Behe is not arguing on the level of entire eyes or spider webs, but on the level of biomolecules. I am quite aware that Behe's arguments have been countered. In my estimation, the counterarguments have been successfully answered by Behe, rendering those counterarguments unsuccessful. And that is why Behe stays at it, why ID continues to gain adherents, and why it continues to grow in the public consciousness (witness Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled").<BR/><BR/>Michael, we have an honest difference of opinion. Notice I have not referred to your arguments as tripe, nor yourself as a loser. This results from a little thing generally known as peaceful confidence. I'm always open to hearing arguments against ID, but so far I have been unswayed, despite the strenuous and vociferous objections of Dawkins, Coyne, et al. High dudgeon and towering moral indignation are unimpressive to me, and that seems to be the essence of what's on offer.<BR/><BR/>I suggest a close reading of "The Design Revolution" by Dembski, in which he answers the most common criticisms point by point. I think he does a fine job. If you're going to sway me, you'd have to specifically address the contents of that book. If you take a look on Amazon, you'll find all kinds of negative reviews. If you read the book, you'll find that those reviews are woefully inaccurate (if you read the book, you're a big step ahead of those reviewers). That fact is itself a strong argument against the general credibility of ID critics.<BR/><BR/>If my opinion makes me an "IDiot" or a "creationist moron", then so be it. I take no deep offense (nor do I modify my opinions) due to the epithets hurled by tantruming toddlers, and I hold the usual Darwinist vitriol and taunts in the same regard. <BR/><BR/>If my opinion does not make me these things in your eyes, then I thank you for your tolerance.<BR/><BR/>In either case, thanks for commenting!Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-19225888389128727162007-08-27T05:28:00.000-07:002007-08-27T05:28:00.000-07:00The funny thing about Behe is that he keeps using ...The funny thing about Behe is that he keeps using the same examples of allegedly irreducibly complex systems. For every example I have seen him cite, I have seen convincing (and well-documented) explanations of the system it is either reducibly complex or a reduction from a larger system that was reducibly complex.<BR/><BR/>The mammalian eye is reducibly complex. The bolo spider's hunting snare is irreducibly complex but was reduced from a more traditional (and reducibly complex) web.<BR/><BR/>Behe's IC arguments have been countered before, but he keeps proffering them without change. That is one large reason that recent debunkings of Behe's tripe do not go into great detail on why IC (much less Behe's claimed examples of it) is a lousy argument.<BR/><BR/>In a lot of ways, Behe reminds me of a variant on the old saying: winners never quit and quitters never win, but only losers never quit and never win.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16280712722729721396noreply@blogger.com