Gotcha, I was doing thisÃ‚Â Ã‚Â when I read this first line but after reading your post it makes sense to me now.
I thought it might throw yah! I'm glad what followed made sense.
Okay you really needed to say this at the beginning of the thread I wouldn't have needed to hop in here at all Ã‚Â
The problem is "the controversy" is generally seen as a political issue about whether Creationism or Evolution is science or not. And in the process, a lot of scientists from both sides spend too much time arguing the science of the matter. Some argue the philosophy too, but it tends to be overlooked, particularly the creationist position.
In fact the Philosophy of Biology paper I'm currently doing in a secular university spends a lot of time ripping apart Dawkins' The God Delusion
because he really doesn't make very good philosophical arguments. We have also looked at the scientific basis for Darwin's The Origin of Species
. Very little attention has been given to Creationism, which is why I am here.
And the way things are shaping up, there is very little philosophical analysis of Creationism from both sides, especially creationists. Almost every question I've asked in this forum, probing the philosophical basis of Creationism has been unanswered. And those questions that have been answered were insufficiently addressed.
Even finding the material is difficult. The Discovery Institute provides an obscure article on falsifiability. It looked more like a discussion paper on media strategy to deny that Intelligent Design is not a falsifiable theory, rather than a clear statement of how it is falsifiable.
So far, what I have pieced together indicates a Creationism is based on a completely different metaphysics from science. Creationism appears to use an understanding of "science" similar to Ancient Greeks, particular Plato and Aristotle, which is to be expected given the foundations of Christian thought. And that's not necessary a bad thing. But it does reveal the fundamental problem with "the controversy" philosophically.
So just to make sure I understand the issue then.Ã‚Â Within the concept of ID if an important part, such as the S cones in the eye, or the holder arm of the mouse trap is missing then it is no longer that "thing" anymore.Ã‚Â But if the 'part' is not important, like the left CTRL button on a keyboard is missing then it is still the keyboard, although slightly damaged.
Did I miss anything?
No, you pretty much got it.
As I said in another thread, missing parts means the function changes. The eye with missing S Cones becomes color blind to violet hues, so its function differs in terms of the type of visual images that will be constructed within the brain. Just as an eye without a lens would still send colour to the visual cortex, but not sharp images, shows that the eye still functions, but in a different way. The question for irreducible complexity; Is the eye still to considered a human eye?
In the case of the mouse trap... if it was missing the trigger arm, the next best function I can see for it, is a door stop. The weird thing is friends would still ask why I have a "mouse trap" jammed under my door. My answer would be, "Are you stupid? Its not a mouse trap, why would you even think that it was? Can't you see the door stop design
The missing CTRL button. That would be like the missing S cones. The object still can carry out most of its functions, but cannot do everything a fully functional object would do.
The problem for Irreducible Complex is that it relies on a static interpretation of the world. That is, a mouse trap is only a mouse trap if it has all its parts (essentialism). So even if a mouse did get caught in a "mouse trap" without a trigger arm, we cannot say the mouse was caught in a mouse trap. Maybe we would say the mouse is trapped in a door stop.
ROFLOLÃ‚Â Thank you Loungehead this made me smile.Ã‚Â See the thing is I don't take anything that Ryyker says personally.Ã‚Â I just do my best to point out when I feel that someone is being abrasive.Ã‚Â He might think he has a valid reason for being this abrasive.
I disaprove of the way Ryyker was belittling you. And wanted to express it.
"All evil needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson.
And this was the first time I can think of that I was accused of having sophisticated arguments Ã‚Â I wasn't too sure how to take it at first, but I appreciate it.Ã‚Â I know I over-think a lot of things.
I have a similar problem. A tendency to know how the sentences I write connect logically (in my head) but overlook that fact the expression does not always carry it through.