Young lady-- Its generally agreed in the scientific community that in order to be considered a scientific theory, as you stated earlier in your lecture, you have to be able to disprove it. You said Darwin said "My theory is wrong if you can find something irreducibly complex." Well, potentially there has to be a way for you to disprove it. How can one potentially disprove ID?
Dembski-- Well I, you know I, I think ehhh, if you look at some of these systems that again I, I, I, ID people have identified, theyre just a backbone. Eh. Eeeeeh. When Richard Dawkins says biologists study these complicated things that give the appearance of being designed with a purpose, he means to deny that there is any actual design there. At best what youre seeing is an APPEARANCE of design. Theres no actual design that exists. So the burden of the Intelligent Design person is not to show that EVERYTHING is designed in biology. Its enough to show that SOME things are designed in biology. So if Michael Behe can show that some structure in one of your cells is designed, then that cell is designed and you are designed! As it applies up.
So, so, so you, this is one of the STRENGTHS of Intelligent Design Theory, is that you can tease apart the effects of design in principle. No Intelligent Design person is denying that Darwins theory has no scope of applicability. What we are denying is that it is a total account of all biological diversity. So what we're doing is finding individual systems which were designed, and argue for them.
What would it take to knock down the biggest icon of Intelligent Design? A detailed, testable, fully articulated, step-by-step pathway to the flagellum. And not just by pointing to a type 2 secretion pathway, show HOW... you dont actually, you dont actually have to reproduce the history... but show how it might have happened. But its gotta be DETAILED. And TESTABLE. I mean that, if you could show a Darwinian path to get there, I think that would be devastating for Intelligent Design.
I mean to say Intelligent Design is not testable, it doesnt ring up at all...
**THE MASKED MAN INTERJECTS**
DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN!
to be continued...
- Dembski is full of shit. People have disproved Behes crap over and over and OVER and EVERY time they add a new 'pathetic' level of detail that must be attained before theyll accept evolution. Its a facade for the Creationists-naive-- "Hey, ID is falsifiable, but I guess scientists havent falsified their claims yet..."
- But just wait, Dembski screws up fantastically later in the Q&A-- This was just an appetizer turd. There is still a big meal and dessert Q&As where this theme pops up again :)
- So if a 'molecular motor' is 'designed', but everything else in the cell looks like it evolved, the cell is designed. Humans carved Mt. Rushmore, therefore, humans made South Dakota. Fantastic. What a lovely bit of slither-logic for Creationists! All they have to do is show that one teensy-tiny something is designed, and all of evolution is falsified! HURRAY! This would work out great for them if they could establish something was designed...
** SERIOUSLY you guys, I didnt notice it being this bad while I was there, but trying to transcribe every stutter and bumble and eeeeeeeeermehehmehem of Dembski is frustrating! He does it for like 30 seconds straight sometimes!! What the hell is his deal????