Argument by technobabble?
If you want a laugh, go see today's update on "The Panda's Thumb" called Behe vs the Sea Squirt, the best place to see that rare and endangered species the red-faced angry evolutionist blogger. Today's theme is an attempt to discredit Michael Behe's proven facts that the mamalian clotting sequence is Irreducably Complex.
When I read their pathetic attempt at a rebuttal I almost fell off my chair with laughter. Consider the following paragraph, which is unfortunately typical of the pompous and heavy handed style of the Panda's Thumb site:
"Activated Factor VII and Factor X both activate PAR2 [5,7] . This receptor is also activated by trypsin released by damaged epithelial cells, and other serine proteases released from mast cells and white blood cells during injury or inflammation [8]. Activated Factor X and thrombin (and trypsin) turn on PAR1, which amongst other things, activates neutrophils and causes aggregation of platelets [5,7,8]. In protovertebrates without a clotting system, wounds are plugged with haemocytes, primordial versions of the white blood cells and platelets that are activated by thrombin and trypsin. Trypisn or trypsin-like enzymes leaking from damaged cells attracting haemocytes to plug a wound would be the start of a protoclotting system."
I'm sure I do not have to dignify this obviously absurd technobabble with a rebuttal. Anybody with the most basic qualification in biology can see that they are making up this zany nonsense as they go along.
I do wonder where they are getting their so-called facts? Has anybody been watching too much Star-Trek recently?
One of the great things about Intelligent Design is that it simplifies things. Unlike the theory of evolution it passes the test of Occam's razor the universally true scentific axiom that given a choice between a complex theory and a simple one, the simple one has the greatest probability of being right. It's another way of saying that tall-tales and just-so stories are usually false. ID is so simple that even people who are un-trained in biological sciences can make great and astounding progress. What could be a greater indicator of it's truth than that?
And the theory they use to "disprove" IC - it's the most absurdly complex idea of all: They claim that irreducable things are not irreducable because the components have other uses in other possibly unrelated structures in life. Of course the fatal and obvious flaw in this argument is that the other structure must by definition be also IC. Instead of having just one IC structure the darwinists have actually proved that there are two! There is the precursor IC structure and also the originally observed newer IC structure. If only they taught that in schools!
As we keep simplifying things and reaching a wider audience, lets let the darwinists keep their crazy technobabble and flawed logic. In the meantime, I've got a question for any evolutionist friends who might drop by and read this:
Anybody want to buy a 2nd hand warp-phase modulator anti-gravity sensor array? One careful lady owner, it's never been past Alpha Centuri. Only $1000 to you.
I've heard they just cannot resist sci-fi technobabble, lets just see how gullible they are!
HaEris
Declaring something "technobabble" isn't a response...giving a reasoned response is. At the same time it's rarely worth responding to anything coming out of PT/TO. And if it is worth mentioning then Behe (or whichever ID proponent being challenged) will likely find the time to write a thorough response.
The article wasn't technobabble. Each one of the terms used has a clear definition. You only had to make the effort to look them up. I know the language is complex, and not what you're used to in every day speech, but the language of science necessarily becomes technical at times.
I love it when folks invoke Occam's Razor. Why? Because it works so powerfully against Darwinism and in favor of ID.
We're still not able to show how natural, unintelligent and un-guided processes can produce the novel genetic information that's necessary to increase biological complexity… create new organ systems, new structural features, new body plans. Of course, the claim is made that NS+RM accomplishes this, and yet the only thing we can actually observe NS+RM doing falls under the category of destroying information, not increasing it. From this it appears obvious that any attempt to conjure up a way for NS+RM to do that which has never been observed, is going to be far more complicated and convoluted than a much simpler, straightfoward explanation which we know, from our own experience and observation, can produce novel information: Intelligence.
Intelligent Design is the simplest explanation which best fits the data and to try to contrive some un-intelligent cause for novel genetic information actually defies Occam's Razor.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Huh? Who invoked Occams razor?
Rogerk wrote:
"Who invoked Occams razor?"
Somebody did. Their comment must have been deleted.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Strange. Could a Moderator look into this? It's most disquieting. I read the earlier post, and there was no intemperate language, but much emotional content!
What if...
“One of the great things about Intelligent Design is that it simplifies things. Unlike the theory of evolution it passes the test of Occam’s razor the universally true scentific axiom that given a choice between a complex theory and a simple one, the simple one has the greatest probability of being right. It’s another way of saying that tall-tales and just-so stories are usually false. ID is so simple that even people who are un-trained in biological sciences can make great and astounding progress. What could be a greater indicator of it’s truth than that?”
But what if the complex explanation fits the data, and whatsmore, it can explain it, make predictions and be tested? If the simpler explanation cannot match the complex in these perspectives, it can be brushed aside.
All I'm saying is that you can't ignore the PT''s long list of techojargon by appealing to your lack of understanding it. I get only the basics of blood clotting (started to read about it after finishing Darwin's Black Box).
And, suppose I dismiss nuclear physics because it is full of hard-to-remember words, long reaction chains and mind boggling math. Surely it would be easier to think that its all done by magical pixies? It's simpler!