Right On The Right

Name calling doesn't get very far. I believe a better response would be to point out that intelligent design (offered as an alternative to evolution) has a "defect" (among other problems) as admitted by Behe (I believe one of the original proposers of intelligent design) as noted and documented in the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science). Further Behe has been unable (at least in four years) to offer a solution to this defect.

I would encourage anyone interested in the debate between evolution and intelligent design to read the rest of the link provided above as there are a number of other misconceptions about science that were discussed in the trial (and are well documented in the judge's decision).

Here is the relevant part from the judge's decision for my previous assertion:

We initially note that irreducible complexity as defined by Professor Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box and subsequently modified in his 2001 article entitled “Reply to My Critics,” appears as follows:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional . . . Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. P-647 at 39; P-718 at 694.

Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an alreadyfunctioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;” however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. Id.; 22:61-65 (Behe).

Do you really think evolution is a bunch of "bullcrap"? Are you actually that incompetent?

Do you really think that evolution is a bunch of "bullcrap"?