Casey Luskin posts on the Discovery Institute’s blog Evolution News and Views. He’s always got something vacuous to say. Earlier this week, he posted that a bicyle was irreducibly complex.
I like to explain the “irreducible core” using the analogy of a bicycle: A bicycle has an irreducible core that requires a frame, two wheels, a motor mechanism (like legs on pedals), and a steering mechanism (like handle-bars attached to the front wheel).
Which led Carl Zimmer to post this video:
Yeah. A bike’s friggin irreducibly complex.
Anyways…EN&V is now posting a series of posts which basically say ‘If u tiltz ur hedz n blink ur eyez, Behe winz’. He’s still upset over a trial which dates back to 2005 when Judge Jones ruled that ID was an unconstitutional attempt to push religion into schools in Kitzmiller VS Pennsylvania. In the trial, Behe testified about the supposed ‘Irreducible Complexity’ of the blood clotting cascade and eventually ended up sitting behind a pile of evidence taller than he was (literally) which disproved his point. He claimed to have read none of this stuff-big suprise.
Anyways…the saga continues over at the Loom where Ken Miller again demolishes the Discovery Institute.
There’s a lot of folks who’d like to claim there’s a dichotomy between evolutionary biology and religion. Ken Miller is a devout Christian who’s able to reconcile those beliefs. I have a lot of respect for the guy, although I definitely don’t agree with his religious views.
Check it out!
Filed under: Blag, Epic Fail, Evolutionary Biology, Science, The Interweb | Tagged: Anti-Creationism, Anti-Intelligent Design, Blog, Blogroll, Epic Fail, Intelligent Design, Ken Miller, Science
Yeah, but does anyone go riding around on a two-wheel bike missing the front wheel? Obviously not. Miller’s supposed refutation is purely argumentative and has no substance in reality.
I.E., any protein found in the flagellum that the cell ‘could’ use for other purposes means diddly squat. The cell will not put that protein to work as bushings in anticipation that a rod and a shaft will someday be co-opted from a mutation to make a flagellum. Remember ND can’t anticipate. It doens’t have the foresight to do it, it can’t afford the energy cost of storing the protein by setting it in a position that will someday function as the base of the flagellum.
IC is real and Miller’s attempted rebuttals are extremely weak when taken apart. Logic is definitely not ID strong suit.
Keep up the good work! It can only help ID.
I just gave you a great comeback with that mistype.
Have at it.
“ID waxing, ND waning.”