Joined: Oct. 2007
|Quote (Tomato Addict @ Feb. 13 2016,13:51)|
|Oh good, I do still have an account here. :-)|
I did a lot of work putting that together, checking out any other possible interpretations, because it was difficult to believe Dembski would write anything so incredibly wrong. On top of that, no one else seems to have mentioned it.
It may be that Michael Behe has committed an even more egregious error than the one of Dembski's which you
In Darwin's Black Box, Behe defined a limited subset of evolutionary processes, to which subset he gave the label "direct Darwinian processes". This is not the error I speak of, 'cuz you can invent whatever new terminology you like, and as long as you're clear about what your new term means (and Behe was clear about his new term), it's all good.
Behe went on to demonstrate that that limited subset of evolutionary processes was incapable of producing an "irreducibly complex" system. This, too, is not the error I speak of, 'cuz the inability to produce a Behe-type "irreducibly complex" system follows logically from the way Behe defined his term "direct Darwinian process".
Having done the two things I listed above, Behe concluded… not that there might well be "indirect Darwinian processes" which could produce a Behe-type "irreducibly complex" system… but, rather, that absolutely no evolutionary process whatsoever could produce an "irreducibly complex" system, and because of this, any "irreducibly complex" system must necessarily have been produced by an Intelligent Designer.
That error of Behe's strikes me as being in the same order of magnitude as the Dembskian error you exposed…