Talk:Evolution/Creationism/DLR

Moved out of main talk:evolution namespace.

---

I'll make this brief. Among scientists, the theory of evolution is evaluated as critically as any other theory. When scientific theories are presented to high-school students, they generally aren't presented in a critical light. Creationists have singled out evolution for special scrutiny. Anything that suggests that Creationists are treating evolution like any other theory is false, and will be removed. AdamRetchless 13:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let me ask you (or other proponent of theory of evolution) one question. Are there any known issues, flaws, discrepancies, or areas of doubt in the theory of evolution as it currently stands? Respectfully - DavidR 22:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are. Every field of science has "known issues, flaws, discrepancies, or areas of doubt". There are some "black boxes" in evolutionary biology, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence supporting it. AdamRetchless 22:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any of these discussed on the page with the article. In any other Wikipedia article there is discourse presenting "the other side", I see one link (and it's just that, a bare link, no context, no discourse) to one "question" that I know of and the scholar who asks the question is tarred with the brush of Creationist. I know for a fact that this scholar holds a secular viewpoint. Oh and there is a reference to another issue with a link, but the text of the link makes no reference to what problems this issue may or may not pose to the theory of evolution. Respectfully - DavidR 23:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You said "When scientific theories are presented to high-school students, they generally aren't presented in a critical light." Does that mean that it is OK to take information that has been proven incorrect and teach information that as the current state of knowledge? Astronomy teachers don't teach that the Earth is the center of the universe, nor do geology teachers teach that the Earth is flat. Yet information that is known to be incorrect is routinely taught as the state of current knowledge. Some of this has been out of date for around 100 years, can you tell me why is it still being taught in our schools? Respectfully - DavidR 12:56, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mate. 1- Don't be a troll; you are being respectful. Let's keep it that way. I presume you are being ignorant rather than deliberately troll-like. Astronomy teachers don't teach that the earth is the centre of the universe because that particular hypothesis has been falsified. There are several groups of people who will deliberately mislead people because of their own religious beliefs. Evolution by means of natural selection remains the best scientific paradigm for origins. Would you care to provide a scientific theory of creation to challenge that? Would you care to provide examples of things that are taught that is "100 years" out of date? The talk.origins archive has several informative articles. [1] (http://www.talkorigins.org) [2] (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html). Remember Wikipedia has a policy of NPOV, particularly NPOV#Pseudoscience. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not trolling, I am asking legitimate questions. I am sorry if this offends you. Yes, I am comparing information in modern biology text books to outdated cosmological theories because these biology texts contain information we know is outdated or just plain wrong. My comments were a reply to AdamRetchless and I am very interested in his response.

However, let me pose the same question to you and I did to Adam. Since "Every field of science has 'known issues, flaws, discrepancies, or areas of doubt'" I would like to know why these issues are discussed in other Wikipedia articles yet almost completely glossed over in this one?

And on a more personal note, I am not trolling, nor am I being abusive. Kindly refrain from name calling and references to pseudo-science. I am discussing your belief system, not Intelligent Design, Creationism or any other theory like the Earth being seeded by space aliens. I am interested in the facts and only the facts. Respectfully - DavidR 15:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are not being abusive, and that is good. However, you are poorly informed. The appropriate place for the is under the creationism article. The social effect should be mentioned. Discrepancies (and you have yet to point any out should go into the subpages, as they are unimportant to the overall theory until one looks at the details. Until there is a paradigm shift away from a scientific theory of evolution, towards a scientific theory of creation, or a scientific theory that hasn't been thought up yet, then that should be mentioned. As for pseudoscience, see philosophy of science, and an explanation why ID or other forms of creationism are pseudoscience.

I have written a shed load on the peppered moth, if you're interested in some minor contradictions in research, and the way in which it was blown up to be something more than it was by the community. (and which I, erm, need to finish). Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Evolution is a broad scientific topic with considerable importance to modern biology, and I've always felt that the science in this article played second fiddle to the Creationist debate, which is really rather unfortunate. If in the current form Creationism is not strongly emphasized, that is as it should be - the Creationist critique should not be primary or even very prominent.

In any event, as far as presenting information that is incorrect in educational contexts, this is done all the time. The obvious example would be Newtonian mechanics - not strictly correct according to the current relativistic paradigm, but far simpler to present to schoolchildren and a reasonable approximation of most mundane phenomena. The same applies to biology.

In a larger sense, every scientific model is obviously imperfect. It is a model, the best available description we can make of the workings of the universe. But it is never an exact description, because our knowledge is incomplete. Nevertheless, this is no reason to scorn it; greater understanding is built on these incomplete blocks. Graft 15:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am talking about deliberate misrepresentation of material in text books and all you can do is chant is the same tired mantra of "Creationist, creationist". Can you please try to be objective and treat this as the science you claim it is? I haven't mentioned Creationism once other than to tell you (again) that it's not the subject.

I have a minor family crisis and probably won't be posting for a day or so, but in the meantime can you try to consider if a deliberate misrepresentation in a text book is desirable? Respectfully - DavidR 17:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry; let me be clear. It's simply a fact that no biologist challenges the validity of evolution, especially now in the era of comparative genome analysis. The weight of evidence this has given supporting common descent and selective effects is towering, and I have not seen any challenges of it. No one would dispute, for example, chimp/human common ancestry given the draft chimp genome (soon to be published in full) and the human genome. The only people that do are those motivated by their other beliefs, i.e. Creationists. I assume that you fall into this camp, whether you have stated it or not, from your choice of words and your inclination. If I am wrong, please correct me; however, there is no reason to be disingenuous and pretend that this is about anything other Creationism.

Furthermore, since you haven't given me any examples of deliberate misrepresentations of material in text books, I can only speak from my own experience of elementary education on evolution (which was actually quite limited). If you would provide examples it would do a great deal towards demonstrating your point; otherwise, you leave me at sea. Graft 18:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Response to David) Specific complaints would be helpful. I'm really not clear what you are talking about or what it has to do with this article. This discussion began because you wrote that "CREATIONISTS in the United States have succeeded in convincing some state governments...that the theory of evolution should be subject to critical evaluation of the same sort as that given to any other scientific theory." That statement is what we are discussing here, and I don't know how anything you have said applies to this statement. I'll repeat what I said at the beginning: Scientists evaulate the theory of evolution as critically as they evaluate every other theory (I have done it myself and see it constantly). High school text books generally just relate the findings of professional scientists. In this sense, any inaccuracies in text-books relate to the failure to explain evolutionary theory properly, and not to anything dealing with creationism.

Partly in response to this discussion, I made sure to discuss the unsettled questions in the "history of life" section. I also looked at the article for the big bang, thinking that it could be analagous to evolution, and provide some insight on to how address gaps in evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, I don't think that it is much help since physics is much more clear-cut and quantitative than biology. There are no simple predictions that emerge from evolutionary theories, such as "there should be monopoles". This could be that evolutionary theory is too broad, and not really analagous to the "big bang", but more analagous to cosmology. It could also be that life is a complex phenomenon and that the details of its history are incredibly important, so we can't make any big predictions about life. We can make a bunch of little predictions when we try to reconstruct lineages and speciation events, and scientists do that all of the time. As a result, we can see the general structure of the "tree of life", but there are places where we can't figure out the details of what happened. After all, we don't even know all of the details about living organisms, for example 20% of the genes in E. coli still don't have assigned functions, and many of those current assignments are vague and untested. (FYI, E. coli is by far the most completly studied organism on Earth) AdamRetchless 18:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The vague insinuations that David is mentioning suggests that he has in mind the content of Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells. Unfortunately, the scientific community has rejected Wells' findings, and basically called Wells a liar (albeit a very clever one; which in academia is serious mudslinging). There are some links in the article on the book that I wrote. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and I am familiar with this book. The author is a proven liar who shamefully twists facts, so as try to convince people of his religious beliefs. That man is an embarassment. RK 03:41, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, several comments here.

1. I have made no "vague insinuations", I have flat out stated that data that has been known as fraudulent for roughly 100 years is published in high school text books as valid. (To the best of my knowledge there is only one datum that fits that description. If there are more please accept my apologies.) Since the theory of evolution is constantly criticized, as you have so emphatically stated, I would like to know how (or perhaps why) such a glaring error has not been corrected?

2. I haven't read Icons of Evolution, but thanks for the link. Have you read it?

3. The title of this section is "Critical evaluation of Evolution", so I mistakenly believed that was what we were discussing. If you wanted to discuss something else you should have put a different title on this section. However changing it now, with all the discussion that has already taken place, would seem futile.

4. Obviously not all biologists agree that the theory of evolution is the undeniable fact you seem to think it is, or else there wouldn't be several books by, and several professional institutes with, degreed bio-scientists in them questioning the theory of evolution. Credential wise I know of at least a Ph.D.. in Molecular Biologist and a Ph.D.. in Vertebrate Embryology, oh and Cyril Clarke has a degree in the life sciences too, but I don't recall what it is exactly at the moment. I haven't done any research into the issue of "Individuals with Degrees in Life Sciences who Question the Theory of Evolution" , this is just what's cropped up in my reading.

5. If the theory if evolution is the absolute fact that you imply it is, why are you (2nd person plural) so adamant about not presenting any dissenting opinion on the article page? As we agreed earlier, every science has areas of uncertainty. If those areas exist then why not publicize them in the article, just like every other article on Wikipedia has the opposing viewpoint. Respectfully - DavidR 19:21, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your creationist religious beliefs. There is nothing even remotely scientific about them. RK 03:41, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

RK, could you please detail exactly what Creationist beliefs I'm pushing? Please quote me when you do so. So far all I have done is ask questions about the theory of evolution. Questions which, I might add, should be welcomed if the theory of evolution were treated like any other science. Yet, after researching a little about Icons of Evolution I see the author has been villified with countless personal attacks and relatively little critique of his work. I'll make up my own mind after I read the book. Respectfully - DavidR 12:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Replies (we need to move this to a subpage)

1. You are "vague" because you are mentioning no specifics.

2. I have not read Icons of Evolution, but there is a pdf file linked to it which is a short summary, which appeared in a Christian magazine, as well as Well's peppered moth essay, which is on the "true origins" archive. I have also read reviews of it in the scientific journals and Nik Tamzek's Obfuscation piece.

3. Cyril Clarke was a medical doctor with an interest in lepidoptery. Most of his work I think was in the area of medical genetics and lepidoptery; his contribution to evolutionary theory was minimal (compare Hamilton and Maynard Smith. And anyway, if we want to get into argument from authority, which one of us do you suppose has a biology degree?

4. Perhaps we could draw up a list to compare the number of biologists who believe and those who, like Wells, ahem "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism". [3] (http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm). It's called Project Steve and currently has 434 signatories. All called Steve.

5. You're not really pushing any creationist beliefs because you appear not to have a clue what you're talking about. You claim not to be a creationist, yet you jump at the chance of being told where you can read their propaganda.

6. So please provide an alternate scientific theory which is compatible with all that Popper and Kuhn said about philosophy of science. uniformitarianism? Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:01, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I think the replies need to stay right here where everyone can see them. After all, you have nothing to hide since evolution is treated like every other science.

1. I have not mentioned any specifics, yet I have given you enough information to pinpoint exactly what I am talking about. I have given you (again, 2nd pers. pl.) a chance to see if you will admit it was fraud. In short I have given you a chance to display some intellectual honesty. I don't see anyone jumping at the bait yet. But don't worry, there will be plenty of other opportunities later.

2. Well I look forward to reading the original and determining for myself if it has any merit. You might try the same instead of letting someone else tell you what to think.

3. I am not the one who started the arguments from authority, I was merely responding to an inaccuracy in a blanket statement. In addition to that let me add that I was unaware that valid science is determined by vote. Last I heard a fact was a fact, even if the majority fail to recognize it.

4. I am aware of Wells quote. I found out about it shortly after I found out about his book. Just because the man has a motivation doesn't automatically invalidate his work, it just means it need to be checked over more carefully. So far most of the reviews I have read seemed more interested in making personal attacks against Wells than dealing with the questions he has brought up.

5. "Don't be a troll; you are being respectful. Let's keep it that way." Read those words before? Try applying them personally. I know what I'm talking about, but I seem to be in a room of people who are pretending they don't understand. I'll bring it out in the open soon if one of you doesn't care to, but I truly want to give all of you every chance to do the right thing (see #1 above). Nevertheless I plan to keep it respectful, regardless of your attempts to bait me.  :) And speaking of baiting me, I haven't claimed not to be a creationist, or ID proponent, or believer in space aliens seeding the Earth with life or anything else. Nor have I claimed to be one of the aforementioned. That's because I'm not here discussing the article on the theory of evolution to talk about anything but the theory of evolution. No hidden agenda, imagine that! If you want to know my position on this matter you can ask privately, but so far no one has. They've all just pointed at me and chanted "creationist". However none of that has any bearing on my questions or the intellectually honest answers I expect to get from them.

6. This is not about any theory but the theory of evolution, see #5 above. Do you really feel so threatened that you have to misdirect my inquiry at every step? Respectfully - DavidR 21:51, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not a game, and this is not Usenet. If you have a constructive point to make about the article, please make it clearly and not obliquely. We've been dancing around this for a week. What is your point? I haven't the faintest clue what it is you want "all of you" to do, so please be clear and say it here. Graft 22:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I want to know is why Ernst Haeckel's embroyo drawings are still published in high school text books as if they prove something? They have been proven fraudulent since 1890. Thanks in advance for your courteous and well thought out reply. DavidR 01:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking the publishers of the textbooks. I have no idea, and probably no one else here does either, since we don't work for the publishing companies. My guess would be ignorance on the part of the publishers. In any event, I don't see how this amounts to a critique of evolution; unless you're suggesting that they were deliberately included despite knowledge of their flaws because there is scant evidence for evolution. If this were true, I think it would merit inclusion in the article. Graft 14:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many text book publishers have been notified of this "mistake" yet it still remains in print. I can supply a list from 2003 Biology Textbook Hearings by the Texas State Board of Education if you wish. Respectfully - DavidR 16:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so you've been reading the recommended propaganda, eh? See the talk.origins FAQ for a reply on this matter (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html) should answer questions, or atleast give answers to them (and if you're not trolling you perhaps should take a few hours to look at it). Some other people here might be more knowledgable than me in this area. There is also a reply by whatsisname that wrote the book that was wrong on his website, somewhere (Brown University chap?). If there is anything wrong with Wikipedia's article on Haeckel's embryos or Ernst Haeckel then that should be discussed there. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, haven't gotten my copy yet. I read things and critically evaluate them for myself. Thanks for the link, I'll be checking it out. Respectfully - DavidR 16:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dunc_Harris,
To quote from the link you posted "Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory."

And further down "Furthermore, Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. It was wrong both in principle and in the set of biased and manipulated observations used to prop it up." ...skipped section explaining Haeckel's theory... "Unfortunately, it was also completely wrong."

So I'd say I have my answers, in part. Even proponents of the theory of evolution recognize that A) Haeckel's drawings were exaggerated (at best) and B) Haeckel's drawings have no place in a modern biology text.

What this doesn't explain is why numerous biology text book publishers fail to correct this egregious error. That however, is a subject for another time and place. Respectfully - DavidR 19:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What this doesn't explain is why numerous biology text book publishers fail to correct this egregious error. That however, is a subject for another time and place. Respectfully - DavidR 19:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is it you fear from this conversation, Dunc_Harris, that you must keep trying to hide it? If the theory of evolution is science then welcome the expanded knowledge that honest research brings. If the Theory of Evolution is true what do you have to hide? It will stand or fall on it's own merits. This conversation will remain here, and I will replace it every time you try to hide it again. Respectfully - DavidR 02:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other sources I've read on the subject point out that Haeckel's drawings appear in only two of the ten textbooks Wells reviews, and I'm not sure that they haven't changed them already under criticism, so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Anyway, this is hardly about the theory of evolution, which is not going to fall or stand based on the veracity of Haeckel's drawings or what decisions textbook publishers make. Agreed? If so, what bearing does this discussion have on this article? Graft 05:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My original comment (long since reverted) was that the theory of evolution is not treated like other sciences. This is the first part of my argument to show that it is indeed not treated like other sciences. Public schools are used to indoctrinate young minds rather than to teach them. And if you followed the discussion that was swept under the rug you'd know I haven't read Wells book yet. (I got it in the mail last night, along with 2 others, and I'll get to it as I have time.) This is more about the 2003 Biology Textbook Hearings by the Texas State Board of Education, and their choice of books. Errors in other science books, or indeed non-evolution errors of the biology text books are corrected quickly. So why not this error? Because the theory of evolution is treated differently than other sciences.

Actually here are some of the real reasons biology textbooks (mostly undergraduate one's) aren't always correctly as quickly as they should:

1. publishing is big business and publishers are often lazy in getting around to incorporate changes from authors (I know because I know faculty who often complain about it), and are always trying to get out the latest overpriced (often >US$100) edition so they can obsolete the old edition as quickly as possible. (This is a great argument for Wikibooks by the way).
2. undergrad texts are often published by committees and often the evolution sections get short shrift (see #3) or are assigned to more junior colleagues not trained as evolutionary biologists. Many authors just copy from each other's textbooks (not verbatim of course) and perpetutate the same errors
3. such texts often emphasize cell and molecular biology at the expense of evolutionary biology because they assume that many, if not most, of the undergrads taking an intro biology class are pre-med students and believe (however erroneously) that evolution is not as directly relevant to them (this is short-sighted, just witness the growth of antibiotic resistance).
4. a very sorry fact is that for working research scientists, that textbooks just don't count as publications for promotion, tenure etc. and hence don't get the same kind of scrunity as journal papers.

For more details on this see the excellent Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science by Massimo Pigliucci (ISBN 0878936599). --Lexor|Talk 13:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lexor, I know you missed the early part of this discussion. I am talking about high school biology books. DavidR 16:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My next question is, how fast will the actual article be reverted if I make that change again? Respectfully - DavidR 12:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your comments were not reverted, they were archived to /Creationism/DLR. --Lexor|Talk 13:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, the article was reverted when I stated that evolutionary science is not treated like any other science. This entire discussion (and the discussion leading up to it) was "archived". BTW, archiving is what you do with something that is no longer active. As you can see from the timestamps on all our comments this discussion does not qualify for archiving. Respectfully - DavidR 15:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nice job. Someone changed the entire paragraph so that it would have to be almost completely rewritten to state that the theory of evolution is not treated like other sciences. Well that's ok, I'll work on a rewrite of that paragraph that has some more facts and less rhetoric. Respectfully - DavidR 13:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've given up speaking to you. I pointed you to the direction of the appropriate material but you're either bigoted, stupid or (despite protestations to the contrary) you're trolling, in which case I'm not going to feed you. If you want and are willing to have a sensible conversation, email me. If you haven't got anything to say about the article then stop trolling. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have accused me of trolling 3 times now. Yet all I have done is attempt to remain focused on the issue. Yes, I got offended when you tried to sweep these issues under the rug. I feel it was less than honest to do that to an ongoing discussion. I have attempted to develop this conversation slowly because I am trying to keep outright hostility to my comments at a low level. Yet you continually and consistently set up straw men, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks rather than deal with the issues here. For my part, your input is welcome in my discussions, you have given me several links with interesting information, and I appreciate that. I like having both sides of the story and recognize that I am more familiar with one side than the other. The only thing I really resent is your attempts to not have this discussion. These issues are real and they're not going to go away. Respectfully (and I do mean that) - DavidR 17:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David, this conversation is proceeding far too slowly. Everyone's tempers would be greatly eased if you merely said what you wish to say succinctly, we could all evaluate it, and decide how to change the article appropriately. As it is, you are merely infuriating because of the obtuseness with which you drag the conversation along. This has been a week-long conversation, and not a single substantial change to the article has resulted. Graft 17:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Graft, Yes, I see that moving so slowly was a mistake. I feel we have had some good communication here since I just came out and said what I had to say. Since I'd rather be direct anyway it'll be easier on me, too.

The bottom line is that what I'd like to see added to this article is a reasonable discussion of known issues with the theory of evolution without hanging any "anti evolution" labels on it. I am more than willing to discuss these issues in here first and work on the wording so that we can craft an article that can be informative and respectful to other viewpoints, yet still factually accurate. Respectfully - DavidR 19:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perfectly fine - what known issues do you wish to include? Graft 01:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I feel that a section on why the Cambrian Explosion and Irreducible complexity are problems for the theory of evolution would be a good place to start. I'd also like to see almost all references to Creationism removed since they tend to be used as epithets rather than descriptors.

And, on a related note, the article on Ernst Haeckel need to be completely rewritten since it's copied verbatim from another Web page. I posted a link on the Talk page but no one has responded yet. I bring that up because I feel certain that this page (Evolution) links to it. Respectfully - DavidR 15:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is not a copyvio, it's a legal copy of the GFDL.

No examples of Irreducible complexity in biology are recognised by the scientific community. [4] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html) [5] (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html) [6] (http://www.google.com/custom?q=irreducible+complexity&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org). They should be discussed in the appropriate anti-evolution section.

The Cambrian explosion can be explained by speciation into vacant ecological niches, see punctuated equilibrium [7] (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html) [8] (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html). Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your civil discourse sir. And I agree with your decision to trim this down since the other issue had largely been resolved. As always I appreciate the links and will review them as my time permits.

My understanding is that these are issues among scientists doing the actual research (not just M. Behe in the case of Irreducible complexity) that are not being extensively covered in the popular press. I will of course research that further as well. Graft covered the Haeckle article on it's talk page, and I replied to him there.

And if I may comment briefly on your writing style, blanket statements are generally not accurate. I suspect that when I point out small items like the fact that Dr. M. Behe is part of the "scientific community" you cite above it makes you think I am trolling. I am not. If I made a comment like "All evolutionists are _____" you should be quick (and rightly so) to come back with examples that are an exception to my blanket statement. I believe this misunderstanding is the cause of our miscommunications. Hopefully this will clear the air between us a bit. Respectfully - DavidR 17:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Though Behe may be part of the scientific community, he hasn't (as far as I am aware and can determine by perusing the literature) had the wontons to publish his claims regarding irreducible complexity in any scientific journals, since they're pure conjecture and can't be demonstrated at all. Graft 18:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, that means that in general, no one argues in scientific literature that any system is irreducibly complex - to do so requires an extremely high burden of proof, since irreducible complexity necessitates a designer. The far more likely scenario, given the other evidence and lack of any other evidence for design, is lack of imagination. There's no such thing as irreducible complexity, you're just too stupid to figure it out. Since both of these are equally unproveable (until someone does demonstrate how X evolved, or Jesus comes down and tells us He left that archaeopteryx in Bavaria to test our faith), we should proceed on the other evidence, which overwhelmingly rejects design. Graft 21:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a huge problem with how "irriducible complexity" is supposed to fit into scientific philosophy; although it is quite easy to show that a particular trait isn't irriducibly complex, it is impossible to prove something is. You can't prove a positive; only falsify negatives, this is what Karl Popper said what he said all swans are white. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)