In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
The most famous example of irreducible complexity is the flagella of
various bacteria (as I'm sure you're aware). Now, recent scientific
advancements have suggested that the flagella could be broken into a
smaller sub-system. So let's say there are 30 pieces working together
that are irreducably complex rather than 40. To falsify ID, you would
have to show that the flagella (or at least one of its subsystems)
could have gradually evolved to its present state. Each previous
incarnation would have to perform a useful function, and each change
would have to be beneficial. If that can be shown, then this example of
ID would be shown to be false. Now I don't know how to do that
experimentally (not my field!), but just because you can't think of an
experiment to disprove something doesn't make it non-science.

It's dead easy to set up straw man arguments. except that you are (again) on a
loser. Your creationist friends always used to quote the eye as the example -
until scientists pointed out that every stage along the way to an eye as
complex as the mammalian or squid eye could serve a useful purpose and
examples of every stage could be found in animals alive today. You are quoting
the example of the flagella only because one of your friends found it after
much searching as a complex system with no apparent possible sub-division -
just as the eye was once thought to exemplify. The reason he found this
example was that scientists hadn't done much work in the area and the
scientific literature was sparse. You are now betting all on scientists not
doing that research before Creationists get their feet into more schools and
damage more learning. Except that you aren't betting all. Once research has
shown that the flagella example is just as empty for you as the eye exemplar
you will move on to something else. If you watched the Horizon program you'll
have seen that it is already in tatters so your friends need to find another
backwater that hasn't yet received funding for modern scientific research.

I could level the same question back at you. What experiment or
observation could be done that would falsify evolution by natural
selection? Very difficult to observe, and very difficult to experiment
in.

That really is a lie. Evolution is happening all around us. I mentioned the
flu virus above. Another common example that we should all know about and
that's related to the problem of anti-biotics. There never has been any
question about evolution - Darwin put it very clearly after much
experimentation and observation that evolution under domesticity (have you
never wondered about all those pigeons!?) was well understood and his
contribution was to natural selection. Once you appreciate that parents of the
next generation are a very small percentage of the potential then natural
selection is obvious, evolution can be observed happening now - and you can
see evidence for it in the past literally 'in the rocks'.

And I think there is a case for arguing that if a pretty unprovable
theory (such as evolution) is held as unquestionable truth, that
qualifies as faith.

If it were then it would be. It isn't in the slightest unprovable. It can be
done and has been done for millennia - which is why we have pigs, cattle,
sheep, pigeons, goldfish, dogs, wheat, flowers, &c far different from their
ancestors and - in some cases - different species. It can be seen happening
today (but best in living things with short generation times of course), and
it can be seen to have happened in the past. I'll accept that you don't like
the idea and you can go and believe what you want. just don't force your nutty
ideas on other people and demand equal time for pseudo-scientific quackery
that literally could be the death of us.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing