Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
irreducible complexity is not based on science...
|
How do you know that an object that is at rest will remain at rest until acted on by another force?
Is this science? Or is this not science? (I will give you all several minutes to contemplate this.)
Science, because it can be reproduced in a lab? If that was your answer, then you are correct, and you advance to the next round.
If I have this text string, ACTP ATPC AACC ATPC ATTC ACCP and i change any one of those letters in that string, in any way, and the subject is no longer viable. How could any mutation, be more successful? If I add a sequence, or change a sequence, the subject dies. On first mutation, the whole line of succession collapses. Even if I had 1,000,000,000,000 copies of ACTP ATPC AACC ATPC ATTC ACCP and due to the environment, a mutation occurs to change the string to ACTP ATPC AACC ATPC ATTC ACCC. That copy dies before it can reproduce. Its a genetic dead end. With very small organisms, if you stop any one component from working the way it should, the organism dies. When you start with only one, and they reproduce into a trillion, then you must factor in food sources and waste material. Was the primordial ooze a whole eco system ready-made for all of the self destructive behavior of consuming organisms? When that first single celled organism evolved, did it have a gene sequence that could immediately benefit from the world around it? How did it do that? Does a protein have life? No. Does an ameba have life? Yes. Can we create life with materials only? No. So how does it happen by accident outside of a lab?
Its not that I can't describe the nature of Hale Bop, so I automatically attribute its qualities to something supernatural.
But when I can't explain how a fully assembled 747 is sitting in my back yard, I can safely draw some conclusions.
All IC says, is that if there is a "machine" then there has to be a designer. Why isn't that a valid assumption? If you saw a completely black, square, 1000ft long rectangular oblisque floating on a intercept path with the moon, and it changed course to match the moon's rotation around the earth, you would have scientists celebrating that we have discovered incontrovertible that intelligent life is currently going to be contacting earth.
So, in my opinion, the suggestion that IC is not science, is like saying logic is not science. Deductive reasoning AND inductive reasoning are both used in science all the time.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, many people say that evolution must be true. But tomorrow, we could find a modern human's bone inside of a frozen T-rex's stomach and all your assurances go out the window. Science would be scrambling to figure that one out. But, just because they have not figured it out, yet, doesn't mean that they wont rush to dismiss with the fervor of a ravenous wolf.
Irreducable complexity is a scientific concept, because the premis is repeatable in a lab. It says, "If you take away any one component, the whole organism will stop being viable." Its the biological lowest common denominator. How can that not be science? I don't get it.