Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-01-2009, 06:46 AM
LeeBowman LeeBowman is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 9
Default Re: Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
"Glancing at some of the comments though made me want to say something ahead of time. Even if I believe someone is wrong, I will not lose respect for a person for being mistaken or having a take I think completely off."
Would not a better approach be to rebut their arguments?

"If that is all it takes to lose your favor or support, you were never very supportive or respectful to begin with. Such a fickle nature some of you have."
That's putting it mildly.

"Anyway, I can tell from the trajectory of the talk thus far that I will probably disagree with the conclusions of Behe, but I am NOT the kind of remove him from the stage type who seeks only to silence those he thinks profoundly wrong. I am more the type that likes to see where someone is coming from, then if I still think they are wrong attempt to explain where I think they went wrong."
To use the 'hook' to pull them from the stage, or to disallow them any discourse 'up front', only impunes the credibility of the detractors. If the current ND synthesis was credible, why would they want to stoop to those tactics? It smacks of being a dead giveaway ...

"This is not useless, I never have and never will understand the argument of not giving time to people with a religious take or explanation to physical phenomenon. And if the arguments truly are poorly reasoned, then show that."
Agreed. But in Behe's case, religion is a non sequitor.

"I once went to a debate between a typical biologist and a proponent of ID on campus with this group called ASS (Associated Secular Students). I thought it was pretty interesting. I heard the argument about irreducible complexity and it was somewhat persuasive at the time.

Did that make me a believer? No. The God of the gaps will never be enough to supplant a scientific explanation for me, or a lack of one on every minute detail about the nature of reality. But encounter did not weaken my take on the issues discussed, it strengthened them."
Which is the way that reason and logic work. In the end, truth will out. *Unless* you have an agenda, and it's obvious that some in the science community are so invested (grant money, indoctrinaion and peer presure to tow the mark).

"Exposed me to critiques on the mechanism of natural selection I had never heard before, and the answer to those critiques increased my knowledge, not the reverse."
And to hear pro and con regarding its efficacy for novelty and complexity does no harm. Unless .... the evidence fails to substantiate its claims. If not, then why limit discourse?

"Weak minds, at least that is my judgement to any that think such things have no place to be discussed in this type of forum."
Weak minds, or could it simply be weak evidence(s) to fall back upon. NS is 'proven' with regard to minor heritable traits that offer a selective advantage (adaptive evolution), but NOT with regard to the building of complex structures, novelty and aesthetics, however many eons you may assign to the task.
Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.