Intelligent design and modern Nazis

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What is the antecedant of 'they'?

'They' are the theoretical underpinning of ID

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
'They' are the theoretical underpinning of ID

Does the novel pairing of a plural pronoun with a singular antecedant require intelligent design, or could it possibly arise serendipitously?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Does the novel pairing of a plural pronoun with a singular antecedant require intelligent design, or could it possibly arise serendipitously?

Are you alluding alliteratively accidentally? Paired plural pronouns pine for perfect punctuation.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Are you alluding alliteratively accidentally? Paired plural pronouns pine for perfect punctuation.

Shouldn't that be "Paired plural pronouns pine phor perfect punctuation"?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Irreducible complexity is fallacious on these grounds:

The blood clotting process in humans is said to be irreducibly complex because it requires the interaction of ten proteins. Ten protein all of which interact, must be too complex to happen by chance and there usually follows some maths demonstrating that had there been a large pile of amino acid ...[text shortened]... no levers but they catch mice. Along with blood clotting, mousetraps are not irreducibly complex

Ah, sounds like the intelligent design advocates are conspiring against rational thinking.
I agree with you 100% that M. Behe overstated his case in his book Darwin's Black Box. Absolutely, it is not in fact impossible to explain a vague outline of the evolution of the blood clotting process. Did he do this purposely like some sort of propoganda? Hahahaha, I doubt it. Secondly, this evidence cannot simply be discarded altogether as "rubbish". It cannot be denied that this is one of multiple "problem areas" for TOE. It remains that any such way around these complex mechanisms are HIGHLY improbable by currently known processes.
You say, Behe was wrong in claiming disproof of evolution. I say, he was wrong in that statement, but he has brought some very strong evidence to the table for something other than TOE.
Also, a reminder: can we explain away the complexity of the flagellum, etc.?

Originally posted by kingdanwa
Dr. Michael Ruse, sir.

besides taking him out of context and blowing even that out of proportion, what else you got?
Btw the context was that SOME evolutionists see evolution in a way that he would construe as a "secular " religion
( contradiction in terms) he himself is like MOST evolutionists in that he see it as science.

Originally posted by yousers
Ah, sounds like the intelligent design advocates are conspiring against rational thinking.
I agree with you 100% that M. Behe overstated his case in his book Darwin's Black Box. Absolutely, it is not in fact impossible to explain a vague outline of the evolution of the blood clotting process. Did he do this purposely like some sort of propoganda? Hahahah ...[text shortened]... ng other than TOE.
Also, a reminder: can we explain away the complexity of the flagellum, etc.?

As a response to a Supreme Court ruling I'd say that ID was indeed some sort of propaganda. Furthermore, highlighting interllectually complex aspects of science does not proove supernatural intervention, it merely highlights nterllectually complex aspects of science.

There are problems for many aspects of science. They are opportunities for research rather than proof of ID

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Irreducible complexity is fallacious on these grounds:

The blood clotting process in humans is said to be irreducibly complex because it requires the interaction of ten proteins. Ten protein all of which interact, must be too complex to happen by chance and there usually follows some maths demonstrating that had there been a large pile of amino acid ...[text shortened]... no levers but they catch mice. Along with blood clotting, mousetraps are not irreducibly complex

First of all, it does not follow that nothing is irreducibly complex because something isn't irreducibly complex.

And second, it would appear that good old Chuck D. was much more intellectually honest about his scientific adventures. Let me quote Mr. Darwin for you briefly, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. New York: New York University Press, 1988, page 154).

Therefore my friend, although you may own a number of devices to help with your rodent problem, Mr. Darwin suggests that any single rebuttal would displace his theory. I again present to you my basic mousetrap and its biological equivalents.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
I again present to you my basic mousetrap and its biological equivalents.

Please say more about the biological equivalents of the mousetrap.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Please say more about the biological equivalents of the mousetrap.

As this is not a propre arena for detailed scientific discussion, allow me to offer you two examples, followed by an opportunity for further sincere research. The cilia in human lungs and the standard bacterial flagellum. For further reading, consult "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" written by Michale Behe. Although I do not agree with all of Mr. Behe's religious beliefs, his science in this particular area is both clear and sound.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
As this is not a propre arena for detailed scientific discussion, allow me to offer you two examples, followed by an opportunity for further sincere research. The cilia in human lungs and the standard bacterial flagellum. For further reading, consult "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" written by Michale Behe. Although I do n ...[text shortened]... of Mr. Behe's religious beliefs, his science in this particular area is both clear and sound.

Is Behe's hypothesis rooted in quantum chemistry?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Is Behe's hypothesis rooted in quantum chemistry?

just a couple of views that answer Behe fairly nicely:


http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/complexity.html

Originally posted by frogstomp
Is Behe's hypothesis rooted in quantum chemistry?

I humbly confess that I am not familiar with quantum chemistry; how does your question relate to irreducible complexity and our mousetrap?

Originally posted by frogstomp
just a couple of views that answer Behe fairly nicely:


http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/complexity.html

Let's assume that your links gloriously refute all misconceptions that the flagellum is in fact irreducibly complex. But, like the various mouse traps that our hosts owns, crushing this particular example does not defeat the position that a single example of irreducible complexity would overthrow Darwin's idea of gradual, unguided, random, purposeless change.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
I humbly confess that I am not familiar with quantum chemistry; how does your question relate to irreducible complexity and our mousetrap?

That's answered in the sites I posted in the follow-up post