Joined: Jan. 2006
My background - I am not a biologist but I can spell it.
My bias - Intelligent Design to me is complete nonsense.
My comments and question -
Irreducible complexity (especially as it relates to flagella of certain bacteria) is the so-called "scientific" center piece and foundation of intelligent design creationism. As far as I can tell without Behe they have no theory and Dembski own ideas are completely dependent on Behe's so they have a lot to lose if they lose the IC "war".
Ken Miller has refuted IC on several occassions, yet the IDers continue to claim Miller's ideas are mistaken. See Dembski making such a claim here
Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller
1) Who else has refuted IC besides Miller?
2) And if IC can be disproven/refuted, IDC collapses no? If this is true why isn't the entire scientific community pounding IC with a sledge hammer?
I don't see anyone in the science community taking the Disco or Dembski to task for claiming Miller is mistaken. Nor do I see anyone other than Miller talking about how nutty Behe's IC is. Or maybe I am missing something.
Sorry if my questions are naive, I said I was not a biologist and I meant it :-)
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson