A few weeks ago, I was asked by someone privately about my “position” regarding Intelligent Design. It just so happens that at Outside The Beltway Steve Verdon helped to set up my answer with a post titled “Why Irreducible Complexity Isn�t Really A Big Deal”.
There are graphics;
Steve expanded his post, responding to “Joe” in the comments;
In other words, I was writing that removing A, B, B’, C, or C’ renders the pathway non-functional. In short, I did not “miss the point”. However, I think it is fair to say that Joe has missed the point as he has left the main conclusion completely intact; that the evolution of IC systems is not impossible.
My position on the Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate?
I’ve concluded that it’s one of those realms of scientific debate where holding the wrong view is probably harnless. The rise and fall of species has marched along quite nicely on its own for a few millenia without our consensus. It will, in all probability, continue to do so.
However, the notion of arguing for and against either side reminds me of my fondness for singing along with Italian opera. Though I do it with some authority, I don’t actually know the words, much less what they mean … and neither does anyone else.
Though, if you ask them for their opinion, most will be convinced I’ve got it wrong.
I’ve seen very effective critiques of Dembski, by the way, but yours is nonsense. He routinely uses a pocket watch as an example of a phenomenon too complex and structured to be natural.
Yeah, and guess what not a single proponent of evolutionary theory argues a pocket watch came about via natural processes. Perhaps if you could find such an example you and Dembski might be onto something.
And no offense, but teaching 9th grade science is totally insufficient to give you the kind of understanding necessary to grasp Dembski’s arguments and see their problems. I seriously doubt you can even articulate the Likelihood Principle without googling it.