Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
This is a lot stronger case for irreducible complexity than you might think. If you try to use the eyeball as an example of irreducible complexity, you can easily refute it by producing examples of eyes in nature in various stages of complexity across many different organism. I don't think there are any examples of bacteria flagellum in different stages of complexity. It occurs in nature in all its complexity or not at all.
Yep, I would say most everyone here is making that logical fallacy. The attitude in this forum is "ID hasn't been proved true so it must be false therefore it doesn't belong in science class(especially since I find the idea distasteful)"
Even if it's true that "irreducible complexity" falsifies non-theistic evolution, it still doesn't follow that ID is science.
Suppose, for example, that Einstein nor anyone else had figured out General Relativity yet. If in the meantime we precisely measure the orbits of certain planets such a Mercury, we find that Newton's Law of gravitation does not fully predict the complexity of that orbital trajectory. Thus this observation of "complex orbits" falsifies Newton's Laws.
As an alternative "explanation," suppose someone suggests that an "Intelligent Mover (IM)" must actually be directing the motion of the planets. Would IM be a valid candidate scientific theory? Of course not. A scientific theory must be cast in terms of previously integrated knowledge, as well as make testable predictions, at least in principle. The "IM theory" totally fails in both respects, as does ID. In fact neither posits any coherent theory at all.
Now let's consider the converse (which I believe is historically accurate). Suppose Einstein proposes GR, but there is no evidence yet which supports it. Should it be considered a (speculative) scientific theory, appropriate to teach at the advanced university level? Of course it should, since it provides a coherent theory, integrated with the rest of physics, and which can be tested. The theory of plate tectonics is another example of an initially speculative theory which became strengthened by subsequent evidence.
String theories also fall into the latter category. It is a coherent, mathematically rigorous theory, which can in principle be tested. It is science. ID is a vague "argument" from incredulity no different than my IM example. It hasn't been proved because it proposes no theory other than: "Goddidit... er, no,.. I mean an intelligent designer did it." That is NOT science, even if it's true.
You are the only one making logical fallacies here.