tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post4087306109119544342..comments2023-09-02T07:14:49.753-04:00Comments on Atheism And The City: Irreducible StupidityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-417288513402197682013-08-07T22:05:17.661-04:002013-08-07T22:05:17.661-04:00I like your line of thinking here.
One thing tha...I like your line of thinking here. <br /><br />One thing that I've pondered for awhile is that many atheists (like myself) are content with merely discovering the flaws in theistic arguments, whereas I think we should also consider an obligation to effectively communicate to others those same flaws in ways that are quickly understandable (pithy, etc.). <br /><br />Those atheist commenters I suppose I admire the most are the ones who are not merely fluent in the many disciplines brought up, but also able to point out the flaws in ways that are admirably succinct and effective. <br /><br />So, yeah, kudos to you for adding to the quiver of effective rhetoric. Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-21949215627533305582013-08-07T22:04:08.948-04:002013-08-07T22:04:08.948-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-35393685639388668672013-08-07T14:52:14.505-04:002013-08-07T14:52:14.505-04:00Ken Miller famously uses a mousetrap with parts re...Ken Miller famously uses a mousetrap with parts removed as a tie clip, in order to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of ID claims.<br /><br />I think to refute the arguments, all you need to do point out the equivocation :-)<br /><br />Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-77102576516007668942013-08-07T14:40:30.980-04:002013-08-07T14:40:30.980-04:00I've seen the definition of irreducible comple...I've seen the definition of irreducible complexity change. The version I use above is actually an updated version from the original. Although it is true that the same function cannot be made if parts are removed, just like removing the wheels of a car, as you correctly mention, the other parts can have other uses. <br /><br />ID proponents who use IR as an argument are all using it under the assumption that these intermediate steps and uses cannot exist and that's how the argument is refuted. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-83132657713308571932013-08-07T13:04:22.728-04:002013-08-07T13:04:22.728-04:00The thing is, given Behe's definition of Irred...The thing is, given Behe's definition of Irreducible Complexity above, many biological systems are irreducibly complex - the definition assumes that the SAME function must be maintained.<br /><br />Behe's definition of Irreducible Complexity (and that I've seen used by others) also seems to ignore the fact that a biological system can be arrived at by not just adding, but also subtracting and mutating "parts" - slight modifications and scaffolding are available, but ignored.<br /><br />A large part of the problem with the terms used by Intelligent Design proponents is that they have no clear definition, and so the proponents can slide back and forth between definitions depending on which is being refuted. Another problem with ID proponents is that many of their claims are not biologically relevant (such as ignoring subtraction and mutation of parts above, and Demski's continued view of evolution as a "search" algorithm on a simple, unchanging, jagged fitness landscape - something which does not correspond to biological reality).Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-91094229326045983912013-08-07T12:59:50.645-04:002013-08-07T12:59:50.645-04:00It's dishonesty with an agenda.It's dishonesty with an agenda. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-75774134359343020952013-08-07T12:00:10.208-04:002013-08-07T12:00:10.208-04:00That's pretty funny. Often I wonder to myself ...That's pretty funny. Often I wonder to myself if it really is stupidity or if it is simply dishonesty. Does he not understand that his argument has been refuted (stupid) or does he not care because it will still be a compelling argument to the uninformed (dishonest)? Either way, it is completely ridiculous.Hausdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01690401058367596952noreply@blogger.com