Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Thoughts in a Haystack
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Religion & Law
: Thoughts in a HaystackWhen In Doubt, Punt
By John Pieret
Ohhh!Can I get my official Dr. Strange Junior Seer badge now?
I predicted that Casey Luskin study would soon be attempting -- at interminable length -- to refute the recent article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that shows that protein-transporting systems in eucaryotic cell are not irreducibly complex.
Well, now he has posted an article running to 4600+ words that makes such arguments as: 'we never claimed it was all irreducible;' repeating Behe's demand at Dover for an unreasonable degree of evidence in the form of a 'step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis' of the pathway to the protein-transporting system, while offering no empiric evidence whatsoever themselves; and the "objection" that the various parts of the system would have had to evolve separately be available for adaptation to protein transport by "sheer dumb luck" (otherwise described as contingency viewed after-the-fact, like the highly unlikely sequence of cards that makes up any hand of bridge).
My favorite of all his arguments (of the bits I skimmed -- I didn't have enough migraine medicine to attempt to read it all) is one that may sound familiar:
[W]hen evolutionists are forced to resort to such goal-directed and teleological language and mechanisms [using words such as "machined" and "engineered"], this shows that inherently, blind and unguided materialist explanations are not sufficient to produce irreducible complex systems.
So, I guess we have to accept that football, with all its military terminology (blitz, bomb, field general, trenches, etc.) really is war and we will have to call in the UN to try to stop the NFL season.
But, as always, there is no such thing as a new argument that IDeologists can trot out in the defense of their religion, while science just goes on discovering.
.
Full post as published by Thoughts in a Haystack on September 04, 2009 (boomark / email).

Use Of Me Too Evidence In Employment Discrimination
Epstein: NAMUDNO and the Dilemma of Observational Equivalence
Rubinstein on "Me Too" Evidence








