This is part 2 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh. This material is related to material that was presented at a church that I attend. It has been presented other places as well.
For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIwh6-KEe0
Note that this exact slide was not presented at the local event. Where it fits into McIntosh's argument against atheism can be seen in the video. I presume it was omitted due to time. If there is another reason and I am notified, I may withdraw this article.
For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIwh6-KEe0
Note that this exact slide was not presented at the local event. Where it fits into McIntosh's argument against atheism can be seen in the video. I presume it was omitted due to time. If there is another reason and I am notified, I may withdraw this article.
Note
Andy McIntosh has notified me that the flagellum he presented is different than the flagellum discussed in the court case. This is true, and it was not my intent to suggest otherwise.
Bacterial Flagellum
Around 41:00, the bacterial flagellum is discussed. McIntosh goes on to discuss more complicated versions, eventually getting to the coup-de-chart:
McIntosh states, around 42:50, "... and you say that's not indicating design?"
Who says this? Per evolutionary theory it is designed by variability and natural selection. This is a bottom-up design process that selects for advantage.
McIntosh states, around 42:50, "... and you say that's not indicating design?"
Who says this? Per evolutionary theory it is designed by variability and natural selection. This is a bottom-up design process that selects for advantage.
On Trial
A court case was held, Kitzmiller v. Dover, where Michael Behe and Kenneth Miller discussed this at length.
From the (republican-appointed judge’s) opinion (the document published by the judge discussing his findings and the case), Honorable John E. Jones III writes:
“Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.“
“First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer-reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8-20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor.”
Miller discussing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4
Trial Transcripts: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts
Decision: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
This attempts to say that since we don't know how it happened, it didn't happen. This is an appeal to ignorance which invalidates the argument.
Decision: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Logical Issues
Apart from the evidence that shows this not irreducibly complex - that shows it can be made by evolutionary processes - there is a more fundamental flaw.This attempts to say that since we don't know how it happened, it didn't happen. This is an appeal to ignorance which invalidates the argument.
Comments