On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:43:48 +0000 (UTC), wedgebuster@hotmail.com (Wedge Buster) wrote:

> http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf
>
> Irreducible Complexity Revisited
> William A. Dembski
>
> ABSTRACT: Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, and in
> particular his use of this concept to critique Darwinism, continues to come
> under heavy fire from the biological community. The problem with Behe,
> so Darwinists inform us, is that he has created a problem where there is no
> problem. Far from constituting an obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism of
> random variation and natural selection, irreducible complexity is thus
> supposed to be eminently explainable by this same mechanism. But is it
> really? It's been eight years since Behe introduced irreducible complexity
> in Darwin's Black Box (a book that continues to sell 15,000 copies per year
> in English alone).

Hubbard's abortion-woman-torture-beating fantasy, called "Dianetics," sold around 150,000 copies. Therefore Dembski would have us believe Hubbard was a greater "scientist" than Behe.

> I want in this essay to revisit Behe's concept of
> irreducible complexity and indicate why the problem he has raised is, if
> anything, still more vexing for Darwinism than when he first raised it.

Creationists saying "irreducible complexity" is a problem for evolutionary scientists is much like claiming flying reindeer is a problem for air traffic controllers.

IC isn't a problem for evolutionary theory, nor science, nor scientists. (It certainly isn't a problem for "Darwinism," what ever the heck that is.)

> The first four sections of this essay review and extend material that I've
> treated elsewhere. The last section contains some novel material.

... read... read read.... read.... readreadread....

Okay, so his chief argument is "It could not possibly have happened, therefore there is no life on Earth."

His secondary argument is "I do not know how it could have happened, therefore magic was involved."

His tertiary argument is "Scientists ignore the issue, claiming ID doesn't exist and is therefore not a problem, therefore they are incompetent and cowardly."

Creationists have failed to produce anything in the biosphere that is "irreducibly complex." This is why most scientists ignore them. If, and only if, Creationists come up with evidence that something is "irreducibly conplex" will science and scientists take note of their claims---- so far, Creationists have not done so, and it appears they never will be able to do so.

-- "To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl

Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride a unicycle.