"Irreducible Complexity"--intellectual laziness or what?

Setanta wrote-



Doubt away. It's a free country.



I presume you mean neither. But it doesn't matter anyway because you don't have a soul and that's a scientific fact.

Can you take me through that a little slower? You soul-less need to make allowances for those of us that have been well-endowed by the Creator.

Wait a minute, now you're tryin' to tell us you're well-hung because you suck up to Jeebus ? ! ? ! ?

What could that possibly have to do with the topic ? ! ? ! ?

Who said anything about Jeebus? Jeebus ain't got nuthin' to do with this.

Well, its allus good to seethe boys havin a little fun. However, Im afraid spendi is havin another **** hemmorhage. Spendi, believe it or not, I hadnt even thought of you until you showed up with whatever that was about on page 1.
SLOWLY, I shall reprise
You are as welcome as anyone to contribute to this thread but Im after more important
game than to entertain your paranoid illusion that everything on A2K is about you. Now relax and have another cold one.

As far as Irreducible Complexity stands, It is the key feature of ID, remove it and ID falls of its own smurfy weight. There is nothing in it with which to provide any evidence that ID is even science (which it loudly claims that it is).
Irreducible complexity is a logical absurdity, deve

loped primarily as a tool to confuse a fairly straightforward issue.
Behe states that "minimal functionality" is required for IC. That is, for something to embody IC, it must be the simplest form of that bodily element in which no precursors could be found. Recently, his discussion of flagella and blood clotting have been in the news and have been satisfactorally been dismissed by scientists. The method scientists have used to discredit the blood and flagella arguments is "Homology" wherein not exact but biologically similar functional elements of the IC example are found in totally different organisms. This catches Behe and others with their pants at their ankles, and is the point where I begin to collect my data to consider the IDers as "lazy".
When depantsed by Judge Jones The entire ID movement had lost its only piece of something that even approximated evidence. Doug Futuyama , a well known worker in evolution, said "I wish I wrote that opinion" It was better than hed seen from evolution researchers.

fm=

You do seem a bit in thrall to these famous bozos.

IC is the "unknowable". I'm not arsed what these guys call it in order to get a living without working.

I never said IC was a key feature of ID.

Nice little rant though. Perhaps you might read more slowly and not be in too much of a rush to put your 78 Evidence album on again. And never,ever entertain any preconcieved notions about anything. It's fatal for intellectuals.

spendi, once more trying to keep a thread focused on himself said

Of course you didnt dear,why would you think Ive accused you of such insight.

Re: "Irreducible Complexity"--intellectual lazines


I would call it more of a pipe-dream than laziness. It might also be considered dis-intellectual opportunism (taking advantage of misinformation to promote their own agenda).

It's like hoping to find a leprechaun to get at the pot of gold (or convincing someone to pay you to look for the leprechaun). They're working hard to find the leprechaun, to the point of claiming every shadow they see is one, but there are no leprechauns, and most of us know it.

They will never find anything which is irreducibly complex. They will never find a leprechaun. Meanwhile, they are asking everyone else in the world to "just consider the possibility" that leprechauns exist (IC is real). What if, what if, what if...

fm wrote-



Oeooh dahling I did not.

I might have said ID proponents fix their sights upon the unknowable. I never said what I fix my sights upon.

I wouldn't say IC was a key feature of ID anyway. I would say it is THE key feature.

Is everybody who comes on your thread going to be accused of a trying to make the thread about themselves or are you just referring to those who don't agree with you. That's getting totalitarian. It's a good job its confined to a small area. We couldn't have a thing like that spreading.

You tell me how science is going to leap the asymptote to the unknowable and unless you can the IDers are never going to go away. Other factors on a human level will come into play and they will make sure of that.

What does that have to do with me. I'm not in that sentence. I don't do being in sentences. I don't know where you get such daft ideas from. The thread is about ideas. What difference does it make who put them out.Can't you dissociate a person from an idea?

A thread about me would get banned.

Anyway-pubbypub time.

Dont wanna keep you from your colleagues.

PS, at 3.5%, whats the point?

Hey fm-

Listen to this-

It's from Dr Runciman's The Eastern Schism.

"The two great powers of central and eastern Europe were Moravia and Bulgaria,both of them pagan lands whose rulers were toying with the idea of conversion to Christianity."

"Toying" notice. Which will line our pockets best is the translation.

And this gem which wande's quotes are at the other end of the galaxy from-

"Photius was not a narrow minded man.(Mild tittering)He held that every Church had the right to follow its own usages, so long as it showed respect to those of other Churches.(Less mild tittering) At the same time he relished (as in Thanksgiving turkey with cranberry sauce) a good discussion on theology. In his secular days (laughter),when he heard that Ignatius disdained the use of logic,(tittering and laughter), he had invented a little heresy (sliding down in seat) just to see how the worthy Patriarch would deal with it without the use of such aids.(sides beginning to ache).He now discovered that Formosus was not only showing an un-Christian intolerance in Bulgaria,but was advocating an addition to the Creed which was,he considered, theologically erroneous and historically and ecclesiastically unwarranted,(bm with involuntary urination),and which represented the victory of German influences at Rome.He eagerly took up his pen to inform the Eastern Patriarch of these enormities." (Send out for oxygen and a rib salve).

But I can see why atheists wouldn't know that Runciman's Waynfleet lectures at Oxford were stand up comedy.

I have conceived the notion in the pub that aggressive self-assertion in America has reached such a pitch that everything anybody says or does is coming from somewhere; has a personal interest behind it like Hofstadter warned.

Spendi, if you cant add anything of value, why not start your own thread . Why must you be a pest on mine. ? Im just goona ignore you like a few other folks already do(even though I find this practice really shallow,I think that you arent playing with an entire bag of shooters).

Well fm-

I consider your response to be a classic case of intellectual laziness. It is as if you wish to use a WWW forum to have a jolly little meeting-house get together of the converted on a ticket only basis.

There are others reading these threads and possibly my exposure of Steven Runciman's stylish and expert prose (highly peer-reviewed) to their view may cause a few to check it out and thus partially partake of an Oxford education. If no one does so much the worse for them. My bracketed inserts were merely to emphasise words like "toying" which can so easily be slurred over in casual reading and cause the import of them to be missed. Why you would wish to deny them such an opportunity speaks volumes for your general position and is a powerful argument on its own to be wary of allowing anti-IDers to set the agenda.

IC is not intellectually lazy. To blandly assume that it is is a manifestation of insufferable arrogance and anti-intellectual to the core.

I agree that my contribution may have no value to some but that is a long way from saying that it has no value full stop. You might just as well say that Runciman is of no value.



The Eastern Schism has similarities with this debate about IC/ID/Science and a study of it has high intellectual value to those who wish to understand the deeper currents underlying the superficialities of the dogmas being fought over in this modern manifestation. To deny that those currents exist and that they are the crux of the matter is also anti-intellectual and to turn away from them because of an inability to get to grips with them is an admission of IC operating even here.

I chose the passage because it was short and elegantly conveyed the general intellectual tone of Runciman's lectures and my inserts were merely a device to try to bring in some of his body language which are partially lost on the printed page.

You claimed earlier to be after more important "game". It seems to me that you are more interested in preaching your own view to an awestruck classroom full of cowed thickheads which is something you definitely have not got in front of you on A2K.

It makes no difference to me if you ignore my contributions. They are not written for you anyway. You seem to fail to appreciate the nature of a public forum.Possibly you should consider asking,or rather ordering,the moderators to pull the plug on opposition to your views so that you can get what you seem to desire which looks to be something like a mutual love-fest of scientifics.

I don't underestimate our readers however small a number they are and I certainly would never refer to them as "game".

IC is intellectually lazy. It all boils down to "I can't understand how it could happen, so therefore God must be responsible". If that's not intellectually lazy, I don't know what is. My main argument against ID has always been that it's intellectually lazy and IC seems to be the core issue within it.

Instead of actually finding out how something could have overcome Irreducible Complexity, Behe merely states that some possibly imaginary supernatural creator must be responsible.

Can you imagine the derision Behe would get if he had instead of using the word, God, had used Flying Spaghetti Monster or Naomi Campbell?

God is not a plug to fill in holes in theories and explain things away.

Furthermore, Spendius, you always seem to make posts that are irrelevant to the topic or a very obscure side issue at best. Why don't you create your own topics on these side issues you have concern with? It's not that difficult and you can ensure that people will focus on the issue you have issues with.

Ive always found it a bit sad that the issue of IC had been originally developed by a lawyer and followed by a select group of scientists. If you read Behes "Black Box" book, you see, throughout, that hes almost apologetic in his presentations. His entire argument is based upon biochemical means. He states, without doing any exhaustive comparative research, that beetles, blood, and bacterial flagella are all so complex that these describe an origin about which Behe states that "its proof of design" I believe that Behe himself, determined that he would NOT go any deeper and try to find out similar , yet simpler methods that accomplish the same ends as his key examples.Im sure he regrets it today because hes been discredited recently by a number of haemotologists and evolutionary biologists whove concentrated on just those points .

Wolf wrote-



It doesn't boil down to that at all Wolf. To those who it does then I agree it is intellectually lazy. If they have purloined the phrase "irreducible complexity" and capitalised it as a label that's just how things go. People do that. They take "democracy" or " socialism" and use them as labels Democracy and Socialism.

Irreducibly complexity is the unknowable. Copernicus refers to it.So does Einstein and so does Darwin. In fact Darwin sometimes used the word "unimagineable" by which he presumably meant areas which we don't even know there is something to know and never will. As far as I know no scientist does not recognise it.



That's what fm wants. That I leave the room so that a certain view can be brayed over young A2Kers without hindrance.Ayatollahs are like that. I feel quite confident that the moderators would let me know if they felt I was interfering gratuitously in the debate.

I think you make the same mistake in both your main points. You underestimate A2Kers and seek a debate with the LCD with whom I have little doubt you would shine. That isn't my style and experience on A2K has shown me that it isn't the style of this site which is located in a very high powered scientific area of the world. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.

I agree that the Runciman quote was a bit obscure but if you caught the pass and ran with it I think you would eventually be grateful. In fact I don't see how you wouldn't be.

spendius, you are certainly an arrogant one. I think Ive been polite with you up to a point. Ive actually welcomed dissension. And to claim that Im preaching to the converted is hardly accurate.
If your comments arent to me, who then?
You are somewhat impressed by your writing and prose, for reasons I cant yet understand. You should spend some time working on relevance and brevity.

Dont go away mad...

The Burrow volume is an annotateed first edition (Not A first edition but he edited the first and he feels that it was the most interesting--thats debatable)
HEres a link to the MAazon site (there is also a downloadable version). I downloade and stuck the 3rd edition on a DVD and use it once and a while .COMPLETE REVIEW OF DARWINS FIRST ED (JW BURROW)

It does in the case of Michael Behe.



Then what is your issue? Why is it that you consistently succeed in confusing people with issues that are never fully explained or ones that are made more complicated than usual?

Everytime I think I understand what you're getting at from what you describe, you then contradict me when I state what your position is.



No. You're welcome to make your viewpoint known, but can't you make another thread? What you're concerned with most of the time isn't even relevant to the subject.



LCD? Who the Heck are... You mean Lowest Common Denominator, right? No. Not really.

I agree with FM, because I think it's a good idea. Your points aren't very well explained. They're in another person's thread which is usually about something entirely different. Why not create a separate topic? It's logical. It's a good idea and it doesn't cause diversions into whatever you want to talk about.

And frankly, I really don't see what the Great Eastern Schism has to do with all this.

Anyone persuaded by IC has never studied engineering....