Expelled

[shagdrum]

i simply ask you state where the proof of mechanism is. evolution has it's mechanism of change stated, and has some pretty strong evidence in it's favour. i suggest you actually read my link, as it does give answers. not complete, but enough of a hint for evidence.

Since fossten rebutted your 1st point, I will touch on the second part...

ID doesn't claim a mechanism for the creation of species (and doesn't need to), it simply states that darwinian evolution is not a valid mechanism, and that the verifiable evidence currently available more accurately implies some intelligence behind the creation of new species rather then random mutation (or "decent with modification"). Darwinism has two mechanisms for change in it; adaptation and evolution. Adaptation does have extensive evidence to back it up and the process can be tested (and it lines up with both ID and evolution). Evolution cannot be tested. The typical "evidence" of evolution is an "example" of the "result" of evolution (based only on an assertion). Weather or not darwinian evolution resulted in the new species cannot be proven, either way. Simply put; The process of darwinian evolution cannot be tested.

Even if your 1st point [the Miller experiment] were accurate [instead of a rigged experiment with false and exagurated claims implied in its findings], it in no way even attempts to test or prove the process of darwinian evolution. It is more geared toward proving how life occurred naturally without some intelligence influencing the creation of life.

To prove the process of darwinian evolution, you need to be able to test and verifiy the process that creates a new species from a pre-existing one. If all species started out independently (as the experiment you cite seems to imply), then darwinian evolution is disproven.

 

[fossten]

You shot yourself in the foot with your own article. You don't even understand that you are constantly making the argument that because evolution within species, or adaptation, exists, therefore neoDarwinian evolution, or one species evolving into another species, must also be true. It's such a non sequitur and you do it all the time. Your own article blows your entire argument out of the water.

And your article about transitional fossils is baloney. You really need to stop using talkorigins as a good source for evolutionary information. It's easily discreditable, and most of the "claims" made by writers (few and far between that they are in that website) have been thoroughly answered and debunked.

Rebuttal

Please read it carefully, as it answers your article point by point. I seriously doubt you have enough of an open mind to even click on it.

What do the Experts Say?

In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:


"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

 

[shagdrum]

excuse me shag, but what is evolution but life occuring naturally?

This is nothing more then an attempt to obfuscate through equivocation; redefine what the word evolution means. The definition of evolution in question is very specific; darwinian evolution. I have accurately defined it numerous times and in numerous threads, and you know it. Your "definition" is vauge and simply and underhanded rehetorical tactic that is used by darwinists all the time. Attack or defend the definition being used, don't attempt to reframe the debate by redefining the term in the middle of the debate.

the middle of your reply makes no sense.

What part is that?

if life can't start on it's own, evolution doesn't happen.

Wrong. Darwinism (which is what is being debated) doesn't say anything about how life started on this planet, as part of it's theory. There is some speculation by Darwin, but that is all it is, and not part of the theory. If life starts on its own, or is put here by God (or Aliens) that doesn't say anything about darwinian evolution. Darwinism is only concerned with how the diversity of life came about from one little spark of life.

This is part of the reason why darwinism isn't a threat to the belief in God, BTW.

you seem to be confused in what you are arguing against.

No, you are trying to confuse the issue. I know you know better then what you are saying. You are attempting to distort the issue through:

• 
  Equivocation: (redefining evolution to something more acceptable, and

• 
  red herring argument: ( focusing on how life started, which is irrelevant to the process of darwinian evolution

here's a little article i thought interesting

"The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science.
Overview
By Barbara Forrest

WOW. You can find an op-ed peice that supports your view.
Impressive.
Never mind the fact that the article is nothing more then a hit peice on ID that has to distort and propagate at least one lie to make it's argument.

The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory.

I have lived in Kansas all my life. I grew up in it's school system. Not suprisingly, in 1999 I bought into evolution (I was 19 at the time). Also, not suprisingly, I followed this issue very closely. The claim that the KS BoE deleted references to evolution from science standards is a flat out lie.

The Kansas School Board did a number of things:

• 
  The Board ruled that teaching evolution wasn't mandatory, put also was permissible

• 
  Actually increased the space in the science standards devoted to evolution, but included only "microevolution"

The fallout from this was very interesting. Kansas Darwinists conducted a campaign to distort the the ruling and misinform the media. They claimed that the board eliminated evolution entirely (which is probably where this articles author got that claim from) and told the MSM (who largely repeated it without checking the facts) that Kansas prohibited the teaching of evolution and/or mandated the teaching of biblical creationism. All of these claims by Kansas darwinists are lies.

...its [ID's] proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community.

Because the scientific community won't give them a forum. If someone won't listen to your ideas or agrument, then you go around them. It is not because of any intellectual dishonesty on the part of IDer's, but instead on the part of the athiests who have a stranglehold on the scientific community that keeps ID from being considered by the scientific community. The film documents this very well, and it has been documented on this forum too.

Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log — meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of “atheistic naturalism.”

This is all true. Athiests have a stranglehold on the scientific community, which is why there is a huge effort to supress ID and avoid debating it.

Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims.

Another 180 degree distortion. It is hard to get scientists on board with an empirical research program when they know that the scientific community will blackball you and you will lose your livelyhood.

Again, the dishonest and disingenuous aspect come from the athiest side.

In 1996, Johnson declared: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.”

That quote is blatantly taken out of context. What was the bigger point Johnson was making? What ideas or claims was it attached to?

The athiests in and through the scientific community are distorting this issue. The won't allow it to be about science. Instead they make it about religion and philosophy, usually in regards to the IDer's.

It is obvious that this article is distorting the truth here. It is cherry picking "evidence" for it's argument and then attributing the causes most convenient for it's argument (either through impilcation, or direct claims). The is no intellectual integrety in that article. It's sole purpose is to mischaracterize the debate, and the IDer's position. It is looking at cherry picked effects and (though implication) ascribing it's own cause. In many of these examples, circular reasoning is used to imply the authors point.

...and shag, if you claim no mechanism, then you don't have a theory, or you have evolution.

More equivocation. You don't get to redefine what makes a scientific theory. There is no basis for your claim that a mechanism is needed for a theory.

Again, here is what a scientific theory is:

• 
  The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.
  darwinian evolution has not and cannot be tested or in anyway verified to be true or false. ID trumps darwinism in this critieria
  ​

• 
  It is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense
  The testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID.​

• 
  It is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
  Again, the testible or verifiable evidence to support darwinism (usually in the area of testing for adaptation, or looking at fossil records) also supports ID​

to claim an intelligent design, you must know what the intelligence is, or at least have some thought of what it is to pursue it.

Further attempt at equivocation. You don't get to redefine what things do or do not mean; especially in the middle of a debate. You don't need to know what the intelligence is or isn't for ID.

This claim and the last one is simply you attempting to impose more standards on the definition of ID and what a scientific theory is. More "moving of the goalpost" logical fallacies.

that is why there are no published articles on their work.

You know better then that. The scientific community intentionally supresses ID (through internal politics, blackballing scientists, etc..). That is why there are no per-reviewed articles.

So, in this post alone we have:

• equivocation (at least three times)
  red herring argument
  circular reasoning
  cherry picking
  quoting out of context

I might have missed a few...

Are you even capable of having an honest debate?

 

[shagdrum]

and for transitional fossils, they exist.

Did anyone ever say transitional fossils don't exist in this thread? I know I didn't.

Transitional fossils don't prove anything about darwinian evolution. All it says is here is point "A" here is point "B" and here is point "C" . "A" would be an early fossil, "B" would be a transitional fossil and "C" would be the modern creature.

If those fossils are of the same species then darwinian evolution isn't even being discussed; adaptation is.

If those fossils are from different species, the evolution can be suggested as a cause, but it doesn't prove anything. You would first need to prove (not just assert) that there is a connection between the fossils. Then you would need prove (not just assert) that darwinian evolution is the process by which the changes that differenciate the fossils occurred. the simple existance of fossils doesn't prove that.

peruse through the whole article.

That is your job. To expect the reader to follow that link and read it is rude and imposing.

It is your job to convince me, not my job to be convinced.

make your argument and use the article to strengthen it. Otherwise, you are wasting my time.

 

[shagdrum]

You haven't broken this post up, so I am assuming it is one continuous piece, and not a few different ideas pasted together by you.

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

That is a lot of unneccessary writing to define evolution. The end result [The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved] is still very vauge. Darwinian evolution is very specific in what it claims. Let me clarify here...

Darwinian evolution is a three step process:

• 
  Random mutation of desirable attributes

• Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" creatures

• Leading to the creation of a new species

Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over the course of many years. In fact, evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get new species, not a taller version of the same one. Evolution is not proved by genetic similarities among living things, the heritability of characteristics, or the age of the Earth.

What the article is doing is a very quick version of an underhanded tactic that Darwinists do to distort critics and their claims.

Eugenie Scott recommends: "define evolution as an issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understand change through time. The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on...I have used this approach at the college level". Scott says that once she gets agreement on that idea, she gradually introduces them to "the Big Idea", that all species are related through descent from a common ancestor. "Darwin called this 'descent with modification' and it is still the best definition of evolution we can use." This underhanded tactic is known as "equivocation"; changing the meaning of the term in the middle of an argument.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Interesting that this portion asserts the lack of falsifiable predictions in creationism, but ignores the fact that darwinian evolution in and of itself is not verifiable and therefore not falsibiable. It is also somewhat vauge on what constitutes a scientific theory. It doesn't specifically spell out the criteria that qualify a scientific theory as such. By the definiton given [a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena], biblical creationism is a valid scientific theory.

The author then adds his own qualifications to the definiton given of what a scientific theory is, under the premise that it is "implied" in the definition. The last one (usefulness) is not implied (as he redefines it) in the original definition given [a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena]. The original definition given only implies usefulness in regards to an explanation for a class of phenomena, not in a predictive manner. The author is using equivocation of the given definition to discredit creationism.

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris.

Here he is setting up a straw man argument to knock down. The argument he is making is a mischaracterization of the argument against darwinian evolution by ID. ID argues that there is a lack of ability to prove darwinian evolution, which is true. You cannot test the process of darwinian evolution, and therefore cannot prove it. Lack of proof is merely an indication of the lack of testability of the evolutionary process.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it.

This point is based on the overly broad [and innaccurate] definition given to evolution in the begining of this point through equivocation. Only under that broad and vauge definition of evolution can you say there is evidence to support evolution. Darwinian evolution is very specific and has no evidence to prove the process. The best that can be done is tangental findings that are spun to be examples of darwinian evolution simply because the fit under into the theory. Basically, because we have finding that aren't inconsistant with darwinian evolution, they prove darwinian evolution. That is a huge stretch, and a non sequitur.


So in this post we have:

• equivocation

• Straw man argument

• mischaracterization

did I miss anything?

All the points made in this post are invalid because they are based on at least one logical fallacy.

 

[fossten]

Shag, due to your superhumanly fastidious thoroughness, I have but two short comments.

1. hrmwrm has not yet seen the movie.

2. I do not believe hrmwrm is deliberately trying to obfuscate the two different definitions of evolution. I really believe he does not understand that one definition does not prove the other to be true. In other words, like most people, he has been faked out.

 

[Kbob]

2. I do not believe hrmwrm is deliberately trying to obfuscate the two different definitions of evolution. I really believe he does not understand that one definition does not prove the other to be true.

That may be true, especially since even I'm having a hard time just with the word "obfuscate".

 

[TheDude]

That is an exaguration that distorts what ID says. ID doesn't say there is a God and doesn't depend on a God; it simply doesn't reject the baseless assumption that there isn't a God (which darwinism subscribes to). It only goes as far as Darwinism does in attempting to explaining life on Earth.

Your question of who "Itelligently Designed" the aliens [who supposedly seeded the earth with life, according to one theory] is flawed; a bit of a red herring because it goes beyond the scope of ID, or Darwinism for that matter.

You seem to be looking at this as a attempt by "fundamentalist" Christians to "inject" God into the debate, which is in fact, 180 degrees out of wack. It is Athiests in the darwinist community who are trying to keep the possibility that God might exist out of the debate, which proving Darwinism wrong would allow.

A perfect example is to look at which side is trying to have a reasonable debate and which side is trying to avoid it. Darwinists are doing everything they can to keep ID from even being considered, and won't debate it objectively; instead using underhanded and illogical tactics to distort the debate, and illogical arguments to support their position. One side wants to make an attempt to state and prove its argument, and the other side is working to prevent that from happening.

Where are Christian's trying to "force God" into the debate?

If ID is true, Darwinian evolution is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. Thus, advocacy for atheism is a huge motive to suppress ID. When atheists can't supress they obfuscate, distort, demonize and personally attack the IDer's.

Both Darwinian evolution and ID only theorize on how life developed on earth. The difference is that Darwinism makes, as one of the assumptions inherent in it's metaphysical worldview [which dictates how evidence is interpreted], that God and the supernatural doesn't exist, in as far as creation of species here on earth is concerned. ID doesn't make that assumption, as there is no way to prove it.

The debate between ID and Darwinism does boil down to God, at the moment, but this is due to the Athiests in the Darwinist community, not the IDer's. The athiests have made it about the rejection of God vs. the possibility that he might exist.

No, I am not. "Intelligent Design", is by it's very name, "An Intelligent Designer". It ultimately relies on an omnipotent creater at the end.

E.G. Aliens created humans/life on Earth, other Aliens created those aliens, yet another group of aliens created those aliens etc. etc. etc. when you finally get to the beginning of it all, you must have an "intelligence" and this intelligence must be omnipotent as nothing could have "designed" it, since we're at the beginning of it all. I.E. God. Otherwise, ID is flawed by it's very name if "randomness" is a possibility. No?

Not all Evolution supporters are Athiest (I only know 2, yes it's anecdotal), despite how many times you try to press this. Find me a sizeable amount of ID'ers that don't believe in God?

Also, if you're going to continually accuse "Darwinist" of having some malicious agenda, you should really respond to what TommyB brought up about Jonathon Wells and his destroying Darwin agenda.

Edit: WTF is up with you people using "obfuscate", just use something more common like "unclear" or "confuse". You're not impressing anyone with your thesaurus skills.

 

[fossten]

Not all Evolution supporters are Athiest (I only know 2, yes it's anecdotal), despite how many times you try to press this.

Maybe not, but all atheists are evolutionists. There might be a wacky few that believe in aliens, but that would be a statistical equivalent to zero.

 

[shagdrum]

"Intelligent Design", is by it's very name, "An Intelligent Designer". It ultimately relies on an omnipotent creater at the end.

Talk about a non sequitur! Unless you are very ignorant on what the theory of ID is (and isn't), the conclusion here obviously doesn't follow the premise.

ID (and for that matter, darwinism) is only concerned with how the diversity of life developed here on Earth. It says nothing about the rest of the universe. The basic theories of ID and darwinism don't even say anything about how life started on this planet, only how it developed into the diversity of species we have on the planet now.

What you are claiming is well beyond the scope of either ID or darwinism. If we were talking about the theory of the Big Bang and some ID-like challenge to that theory, that might be a different thing, but we are not. While darwinism and ID are both rather broad is scope, they are still limited to this planet. You can't ignore that fact.

E.G. Aliens created humans/life on Earth, other Aliens created those aliens, yet another group of aliens created those aliens etc. etc. etc. when you finally get to the beginning of it all, you must have an "intelligence" and this intelligence must be omnipotent as nothing could have "designed" it, since we're at the beginning of it all. I.E. God.

ID and darwinism are both theories based only on the evidence we have here on this planet; they can't (and don't) say a thing about the rest of the universe. Again, that is beyond the scope of either view.

All ID is saying is that the verifiable evidence we have supports the idea of some intellegence guiding the development of species on this plant more so then it does random mutation; darwinian evolution.

Now, with those points in mind, lets run with this hypothetical sci-fi idea you laid out...

Darwinian style evolution could have very well dictated how a diversity of life developed on other planets, no one knows. However, on this planet, all verifiable evidence suggests that an intellegence designed how life developed on this planet, or it least that is what ID is asserting, and that is all it is asserting. It this hypothetical, no God is needed for the theory of ID to work.

Not all Evolution supporters are Athiest (I only know 2, yes it's anecdotal), despite how many times you try to press this. Find me a sizeable amount of ID'ers that don't believe in God?

Where are you guys getting this?! I know I never said all darwinists are athiests, and I don't recall anyone else saying as much in this thread. In fact I have said the opposite.

Whether darwinists are athiests or IDer's are believers in God is irrelevant in and of itself because a bias alone doesn't negate judgement, objectivity or intellecual integrety. How (or if) they let their bias effect their intellectual integrety is relevant. Basically if judgement, objectivity or intellectual integrety is compromised by their bias, it will be evident in their actions (the way they debate, intellectual honesty, rhetorical tactics, reasoning, application of logic, critical thinkin, etc...)

You need to understand, with any debate, the most agressive and vocal side "set the table" for the debate. In this debate, that is the athiests in the darwinist communities. The problem is, the athiests are going out of their way to make sure that there is no place set at the table for IDer's.

Athiest use underhanded rhetorical tactics, demonization, obfuscation (sorry, confusion), and many logical fallacies in their arguments against ID when they actually debate it. Many times they refuse to acknowledge ID at all, instead "boycotting" hearings, blackballing scientists and professors who are even remotely open to ID, protests, etc...

The actions of the darwinist community, which is dominated by the athiests in it (remember, most vocal and agressive), shows that the bias of the athiests tends to compromises the intellectual integrety of the darwinist community as a whole.

Also, if you're going to continually accuse "Darwinist" of having some malicious agenda, you should really respond to what TommyB brought up about Jonathon Wells and his destroying Darwin agenda.

TommyB wrote:

...Jonathan Wells...has openly declared that, prior to going to Yale to study evolution "my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism". Scientific objectivity be damned.​

This is typical Tommy; because someone has a bias, they have no intellectual integrety, objectivity, in short, no credibility. As I pointed out in my reply to the last point, bias by itself says nothing about any of that. It is what is done with that bias. Wells is a prime example of having a bias and intellectual integrety at the same time.

When you have a bias (as all of us who frequently post on this part of the forum do) you can do one of two things.

You can let that bias cloud your judgement and ruin any chance of objectivity or intellecual integrety. You only look at the info that supports your view and ignore or illogically dismiss out of hand any other arguement. Basically, you reject intellectual integrety in favor of your bias. The arguments by people like this are usually dominated by intentional use of logical fallacies, underhanded rhetorical tactics, demonization, personal attacks, etc. Usually they are practically incapable of any honest debate. Michael Moore is a prime example of this.

The second option is to study the opposing argument and make yourself an expert on it. This way, you know the position of your opponent at least as well, if not better then they do. With any honest debate (everything else being equal) the more knowledgable person will usually win. Basically, your bias doesn't cloud your judgement, because you value your intellectual integrety, which is why you study the opposing view so closely and make an effort to balance your knowledge; so you don't need to fall to the temptation of making a dishonest argument that judgement clouded by bias would dictate. With this option, you will already have considered most, if not all the arguments and evidence for the other side and honestly rejected it (if it can honestly be rejected) or honestly accounted for it. While your bias causes you to study the other side, your intellectual integrety and balanced knowledge will force you to dismiss any bias that is based in ignorance, and alter your views accordingly. This is assuming that your own bias isn't formed from uninformed ignorance to begin with.

These two options are really a discription of the opposite ends of the spectum. Most people are somewhere in between the two options. Even someone who is tremendously objective will occasionally let their bias cloud their judgement, and the most intellectually dishonest, and biased person in the world will still have moment where their judgement isn't clouded by their bias and unobjective.

Anyway, back to Dr. Wells...
Wells chose the second option. What Tommy forgot to mention was that, when Wells decided to attack darwinism, he was already a college graduate. His views on darwinism going into that decision were hardly uninformed or ignorant. Wells finished his doctorate in Religious Sudies at Yale in 1986, then went to UC Berkeley where in 1994 he was recieved a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology. Wells worked to make himself an expert on Biology and darwinism.

I can't say conclusively weather Wells allows his bias to cloud his judgement for the most part or not. I have read some of his stuff and I don't see any indication of that, but you would have to judge for yourself. What you can't do is reject him out of hand simply because of his bias; that would be ad homenum reasoning. You should judge his credibility by the actions he takes, namely in regards to the arguments he makes. Is it an honest argument (regardless of weather you agree with it or not), or is it dishonest in any fashion?

WTF is up with you people using "obfuscate", just use something more common like "unclear" or "confuse". You're not impressing anyone with your thesaurus skills.

..what's a "thesaurus"? Some type of dinosaur?

 

[TheDude]

Talk about a non sequitur! Unless you are very ignorant on what the theory of ID is (and isn't), the conclusion here obviously doesn't follow the premise.

ID (and for that matter, darwinism) is only concerned with how the diversity of life developed here on Earth. It says nothing about the rest of the universe. The basic theories of ID and darwinism don't even say anything about how life started on this planet, only how it developed into the diversity of species we have on the planet now.

What you are claiming is well beyond the scope of either ID or darwinism. If we were talking about the theory of the Big Bang and some ID-like challenge to that theory, that might be a different thing, but we are not. While darwinism and ID are both rather broad is scope, they are still limited to this planet. You can't ignore that fact.



ID and darwinism are both theories based only on the evidence we have here on this planet; they can't (and don't) say a thing about the rest of the universe. Again, that is beyond the scope of either view.

All ID is saying is that the verifiable evidence we have supports the idea of some intellegence guiding the development of species on this plant more so then it does random mutation; darwinian evolution.

Now, with those points in mind, lets run with this hypothetical sci-fi idea you laid out...

Darwinian style evolution could have very well dictated how a diversity of life developed on other planets, no one knows. However, on this planet, all verifiable evidence suggests that an intellegence designed how life developed on this planet, or it least that is what ID is asserting, and that is all it is asserting. It this hypothetical, no God is needed for the theory of ID to work.



Where are you guys getting this?! I know I never said all darwinists are athiests, and I don't recall anyone else saying as much in this thread. In fact I have said the opposite.

Whether darwinists are athiests or IDer's are believers in God is irrelevant in and of itself because a bias alone doesn't negate judgement, objectivity or intellecual integrety. How (or if) they let their bias effect their intellectual integrety is relevant. Basically if judgement, objectivity or intellectual integrety is compromised by their bias, it will be evident in their actions (the way they debate, intellectual honesty, rhetorical tactics, reasoning, application of logic, critical thinkin, etc...)

You need to understand, with any debate, the most agressive and vocal side "set the table" for the debate. In this debate, that is the athiests in the darwinist communities. The problem is, the athiests are going out of their way to make sure that there is no place set at the table for IDer's.

Athiest use underhanded rhetorical tactics, demonization, obfuscation (sorry, confusion), and many logical fallacies in their arguments against ID when they actually debate it. Many times they refuse to acknowledge ID at all, instead "boycotting" hearings, blackballing scientists and professors who are even remotely open to ID, protests, etc...

The actions of the darwinist community, which is dominated by the athiests in it (remember, most vocal and agressive), shows that the bias of the athiests tends to compromises the intellectual integrety of the darwinist community as a whole.




TommyB wrote:

...Jonathan Wells...has openly declared that, prior to going to Yale to study evolution "my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism". Scientific objectivity be damned.​

This is typical Tommy; because someone has a bias, they have no intellectual integrety, objectivity, in short, no credibility. As I pointed out in my reply to the last point, bias by itself says nothing about any of that. It is what is done with that bias. Wells is a prime example of having a bias and intellectual integrety at the same time.

When you have a bias (as all of us who frequently post on this part of the forum do) you can do one of two things.

You can let that bias cloud your judgement and ruin any chance of objectivity or intellecual integrety. You only look at the info that supports your view and ignore or illogically dismiss out of hand any other arguement. Basically, you reject intellectual integrety in favor of your bias. The arguments by people like this are usually dominated by intentional use of logical fallacies, underhanded rhetorical tactics, demonization, personal attacks, etc. Usually they are practically incapable of any honest debate. Michael Moore is a prime example of this.

The second option is to study the opposing argument and make yourself an expert on it. This way, you know the position of your opponent at least as well, if not better then they do. With any honest debate (everything else being equal) the more knowledgable person will usually win. Basically, your bias doesn't cloud your judgement, because you value your intellectual integrety, which is why you study the opposing view so closely and make an effort to balance your knowledge; so you don't need to fall to the temptation of making a dishonest argument that judgement clouded by bias would dictate. With this option, you will already have considered most, if not all the arguments and evidence for the other side and honestly rejected it (if it can honestly be rejected) or honestly accounted for it. While your bias causes you to study the other side, your intellectual integrety and balanced knowledge will force you to dismiss any bias that is based in ignorance, and alter your views accordingly. This is assuming that your own bias isn't formed from uninformed ignorance to begin with.

These two options are really a discription of the opposite ends of the spectum. Most people are somewhere in between the two options. Even someone who is tremendously objective will occasionally let their bias cloud their judgement, and the most intellectually dishonest, and biased person in the world will still have moment where their judgement isn't clouded by their bias and unobjective.

Anyway, back to Dr. Wells...
Wells chose the second option. What Tommy forgot to mention was that, when Wells decided to attack darwinism, he was already a college graduate. His views on darwinism going into that decision were hardly uninformed or ignorant. Wells finished his doctorate in Religious Sudies at Yale in 1986, then went to UC Berkeley where in 1994 he was recieved a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology. Wells worked to make himself an expert on Biology and darwinism.

I can't say conclusively weather Wells allows his bias to cloud his judgement for the most part or not. I have read some of his stuff and I don't see any indication of that, but you would have to judge for yourself. What you can't do is reject him out of hand simply because of his bias; that would be ad homenum reasoning. You should judge his credibility by the actions he takes, namely in regards to the arguments he makes. Is it an honest argument (regardless of weather you agree with it or not), or is it dishonest in any fashion?


..what's a "thesaurus"? Some type of dinosaur?

For someone that loves to accuse others of fallacies, you sure do Argumentem Ad Nauseam (or Proof by assertion, pick your flavour) at every chance, just saying.

I was following ID to it's probable conclusion. If ID is just about saying 'okay, an intelligence had a hand in life on Earth' and truly nothing else, then what have you? Great, an unidentifiable entity did something, but lets leave it at that and not take it further. Yeah, let's all rejoice.

You also love to accuse "Darwinsint" (and Athiest by default it seems) of having a selfish agenda, yet you absolutely refuse to point that accusing pendulum on ID proponents, not even a possibility of it, eh... could it be bias on your behalf? Na, not you.

Yes, a dinosaur that ancient humans once rode, never heard of it?

 

[fossten]

and, since you blow off my links and don't like to read.

hrmwrm, you're acting like a c/p troll. Nobody's going to read that horrific wall of text. The fact that you didn't even edit it tells me that you're just trying to be a d!ck.

Shag's already admonished you to summarize and make your own (succinct) arguments. You've demonstrated that you are intellectually lazy because you will only either link or copy/paste. You're wasting everybody else's time and you aren't convincing anybody.

And we know you haven't seen the movie.

 

[shagdrum]

hrmwrm, you're acting like a c/p troll. Nobody's going to read that horrific wall of text. The fact that you didn't even edit it tells me that you're just trying to be a d!ck.

Shag's already admonished you to summarize and make your own (succinct) arguments. You've demonstrated that you are intellectually lazy because you will only either link or copy/paste. You're wasting everybody else's time and you aren't convincing anybody.

And we know you haven't seen the movie.

I think you pretty well said it.

 

[shagdrum]

For someone that loves to accuse others of fallacies, you sure do Argumentem Ad Nauseam (or Proof by assertion, pick your flavour) at every chance, just saying.

The Ad Nauseam thing? I could see where you could think that, though I am just trying to be clear and thorough. If you wanna challenge one of my points, I try to break it down (maybe too much) and show you where your critique is wrong. Ad nauseam is somewhat subjective, really. Either way, I am not doing it as a means of proving my point; it simple happens in an attempt to make my point clear. For contrast, look at hrmwrm's two previous posts, which I think unquestionably qualify as an example of an intentional and dishonest attempt to prove a point through an ad nauseam argument.

The proof by assertion thing....not so much. Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. If someone critiques my claim, I address it and attempt to counter it; I don't just ignore it, which would be neccessary for my argument to be proof by assertion.

I was following ID to it's probable conclusion. If ID is just about saying 'okay, an intelligence had a hand in life on Earth' and truly nothing else, then what have you? Great, an unidentifiable entity did something, but lets leave it at that and not take it further. Yeah, let's all rejoice.

I understand your thinking; following it to is probable conclusion and all. But is wasn't a logical conclusion. ID is simply one piece of the puzzle in the bigger picture, just the way darwinism fits with the big bang. You can't get the entire picture from one piece of the puzzle.

You also love to accuse "Darwinsint" (and Athiest by default it seems) of having a selfish agenda, yet you absolutely refuse to point that accusing pendulum on ID proponents, not even a possibility of it, eh... could it be bias on your behalf? Na, not you.

Never claimed I didn't have a bias. I have one as do you, and most likely everyone else who has posted in this thread.

Your statement isn't exactly what I was saying, or what the film says for that matter (kinda a straw man argument, actually); let me correct it:

The Darwinist community (which is dominated by the Athiests in it) is conducting a dishonest smear campaign against ID (refusing to debate, personal attacks, blackballing professors and scientists, etc..) that is influenced by its bias.

It isn't a refusal to point an accusing finger at IDer's and their bias, it is simply judging how that bias effects their judgement based on their actions. Have you heard the phrase "actions speak louder then words"? That is basically my view. The actions you take in the debate (what argument is being made, honest or dishonest tactics, etc.) demonstrate how your bias does or doesn't effect your intellectual integrety.

If you take out (or ignore) the basis for judgment in how darwinists and IDer's argue and frame the debate [actions], then you are mischaracterizing my position.

I made my position on this clear in my previous response to you, I thought.

 

[shagdrum]

I kinda wonder if hrmwrm even understands 70% of what he posted in his last two posts.

 

[fossten]

"The Darwinist community (which is dominated by the Athiests in it) is conducting a dishonest smear campaign against ID (refusing to debate, personal attacks, blackballing professors and scientists, etc..) that is influenced by its bias."

it's not a smear campaign. when id uses true scientific methods, and not some self created scientific methods, it might stand a chance of investigation.
even the atom had to have proof of existence before it could be quantified.

id's outside intelligence just is. kinda like god just is. that is it's stumbling block. even the alien angle has the same drawback. until some snippet of evidence comes along amongst the fossils, it will stay that way. id is not being discriminated against unfairly. there is no evidence anywhere of other intelligence, especially a life creating one. if you bothered to read any of my other post, you would have come across the fish with lungs. now what intelligence would have made a fish with lungs?

but you don't like links, so i feed it to you, and you still whine. anyways, lungs are the obvious precursor to land population and a divergence to amphibians. not a sudden change to land animals, just evolution. you have stated in other threads about no half specimens. i don't think you could find one any clearer than a fish with lungs.

and fossten, editing it may have left out some important part in the chain of trasitional fossils. but then i didn't think that you would look at it anyway.
you don't have to read all of it, just perusing through parts of it can give you a good idea of the order. i didn't paste the other 2 pages.

get the boy's from discovery institute to come up with some better science and they might have a chance at their claim. and nobody have anything to say about phillip e johnson, the creator of id? the man who wanted to put a creator back in creation?

you can word id however you like, it's still another god myth.

I read enough of the WALL O' TEXT to know that it's a bunch of crap. I suppose you didn't bother reading my link, did you? I guess not. Keep on hiding behind that bunker of denial.

 

[shagdrum]

it's not a smear campaign. when id uses true scientific methods, and not some self created scientific methods, it might stand a chance of investigation. even the atom had to have proof of existence before it could be quantified.

• straw man argument ("self-made scientific methods")

• false analogy (an atom is nothing like a potential intellegent designer)

• 
  Moving the goalposts (no one ever said an intellegent designer ever had to be quantified, let alone even proved)

id's outside intelligence just is. kinda like god just is. that is it's stumbling block. even the alien angle has the same drawback. until some snippet of evidence comes along amongst the fossils, it will stay that way. id is not being discriminated against unfairly. there is no evidence anywhere of other intelligence, especially a life creating one.

• Cherry picking (ignores the fact that the absense of God is assumed in darwinism, and never questioned, as is randomness being the driving force behind the creation of new species, and that darwinian evolution is the process by which that change occurs)

Besides, intellegence doesn't have to be proven, in fact quite the opposite. Randomness needs to be proven (usually by logically ruling out all other possibilities, including intellegent design), not just assumed (as it is in darwinism). When you find some complex ancient mechanical device (similar to finding a fossil), you don't automatically assume it has been made through random changes. You assume an intellegence behind it's design unless and until all possible intellegence can be ruled out. The exact intellegence doesn't need to be known for an intellegent design to be shown. In every other aspect (outside of evolution), intellegence is assumed unless shown otherwise. Why should that be changed for the developement of life?

if you bothered to read any of my other post, you would have come across the fish with lungs. now what intelligence would have made a fish with lungs?

• 
  Moving the goalpost (anything designed under ID now has to be perfect and can in no way be imperfect, like a fish with lungs is implied to be here)

A fish with lungs only proves...a fish with lungs. At best, it may imply certian things, but you are spinning it to imply things it doesn't.

Your two previous posts were exceedingly unneccessary. You could have read the info your self and summarized it, pulling a few quotes from the article to strengthen your argument and putting a link to it as a footnote. Instead, you chose to throw up a huge wall of text that no one has time to read, let alone go thru, point by point, and counter. I seriously doubt you even understood a good chunk of that post, yourself. You have done this before in other threads; post or link to things to make your argument without any summary, which suggests that you are either too lazy to, or can't summarize the argument. IMO, it is a bit of both. In at least one instance that I recall, you posted "proof" for your point that ultimately worked against your point. I am not gonna read any of your childish ad nauseaum post. You make the argument, don't have someone do it for you.

...lungs are the obvious precursor to land population and a divergence to amphibians. not a sudden change to land animals, just evolution. you have stated in other threads about no half specimens. i don't think you could find one any clearer than a fish with lungs.

• correlation proves causation logical fallacy (a correlation between a number of species is, on it's own, said to prove causation, in this case through the darwinian evolutionary process)

get the boy's from discovery institute to come up with some better science and they might have a chance at their claim. and nobody have anything to say about phillip e johnson, the creator of id? the man who wanted to put a creator back in creation?

• more straw-man mischaracterization (needing "better science")

• Red herring argument, namely ad hominem reasoning through an appeal to motive (Johnson supposedly wanting to "put a creator back in creation" is somehow "relevant" to the debate of ID vs. darwinism)

The fact is that the scientific community has no interest in looking at the science behind ID, regardless of weather that science is flawless or flawed. You know that.

In addition, the Johnson stuff is irrelevant to this issue (we are debating ID vs. darwinism, and the movie Expelled, not Johnson), and doesn't say anything about the truth value of of ID or darwinism.

 

[fossten]

Ouch, baby. Very ouch.

That was some serious pwnage.

Somebody's been boning up on his critical thinking skills.

 

[shagdrum]

Thanks for the complement...
I'm sorry, those teeth are just awful!!

Basil: Did we get Dr. Evil?
Radar Operator: No, sir, he got away in that big spaceship that looks like a huge...
Teacher: Penis. The male reproductive organ. Also known as tallywhacker, schlong, or...
Friendly Dad: Wiener? Any of your kids want another wiener?
Friendly Son: Dad, what's that?
Friendly Dad: I don't know, son, but it has great big...
Peanut Vendor: Nuts. Hot, salty nuts. Who wants some?...
Peanut Vendor: Lord Almighty!
Woman: That looks just like my husband's...
Circus Barker: ONE-EYED MONSTER. Step right up and see the One-eyed Monster!
Cyclops: RARRR.
Cyclops: Hey, what's that? It looks like a...
Fan: Woody. Woody Harrelson. Could I have your autograph?
Woody: Sure. Oh, my Lord! Look at that thing!
Fan: It's so huge.
Woody: No, I've seen bigger. That's...
Dr. Evil: Just a little prick.
​

 

[TheDude]

Shag...

"A fish with lungs only proves...a fish with lungs. At best, it may imply certian things, but you are spinning it to imply things it doesn't."

Name some positions of ID that prove an "Intelligent Designer" without implying, spinning or any of the fallacies you love to claim hrmwrm is pulling?

 

[fossten]

Shag...

"A fish with lungs only proves...a fish with lungs. At best, it may imply certian things, but you are spinning it to imply things it doesn't."

Name some positions of ID that prove an "Intelligent Designer" without implying, spinning or any of the fallacies you love to claim hrmwrm is pulling?

You sure you want to play that "prove" game again? Evolution can't prove anything it says. All it can do is offer suggestions followed by evidence, and then let people make up their own minds.

By the way, did you ever see the movie? You said you wouldn't be back until you had.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag...
Name some positions of ID that prove an "Intelligent Designer" without implying, spinning or any of the fallacies you love to claim hrmwrm is pulling?

There's a loaded question! You can't use implication to prove ID? So inference (a type of implication) is out, which means all the "evidence" for darwinian evolution is out too. Also, what do you mean by "positions" of ID? It isn't a political philosophy (or a philosophy at all, for that matter). It is a scientific theory that looks at the evidence and draws conclusions. You look at claims make, not positions taken. Your question is very unclear in what it is asking for (scientific theories have claims, not "positions").

Tell ya what i will do...

I will assume you are asking the following:

Show a claim of ID that proves an intelligent designer.​

and, under that assumption, I will attempt to prove this basic claim of ID:

...there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence​

When talking about any theory that tries to tell us what happened in an unseen, unobservable, unrepeatable past, you have to use inference. All the "evidence" for darwinian evolution is based on inference; "the fossil record leads to this inference", "a fish with lungs implies this", etc. The question is; is this inference logical?

The evidence cited for darwinian evolution only implies evolution if an unproven and irrational premise is assumed. You take that away, and the evidence for darwinian evolution breaks down. this assumtion is called methodological naturalism. Basically, an assumption that all phenomenon in nature have a natural (i.e. random chance) cause. It inherently rules out any other possible explanation, including design and the supernatural.

An example of how illogical this assumption is...
assume you see a painting in a cave from thousands of years ago. You didn't see it being created and and have no idea who created it. Under the assumed false premise of methodological naturalism, you could only logically infer that it was created by random chance.

Darwinism assumes natural causes and skips over the whole process of logically ruling out any other possibilities, which is neccessary for any evidence to logically infer darwinian evolution.

Still that doesn't point out what is neccessary to infer ID. The man who spelled that out pretty well was mathematician and philosopher William Dembski. Dembski wrote:

Whenever explaining an event, we must choose from three competing modes of explanation. These are regularity [necessity], chance and design...To attribute an event to design is to say it cannot be reasonably be referred to either regularity or chance. Thus, these two moves-ruling out regularity, and then ruling out chance-constitute the design inference.​

So what is neccessary to rule out regularity and chance? When we see something that is exremely improbably (usually due to being extremely complex) and corresponds to an independent pattern, you get what Dembski calls "specified complexity", which leaves only design as a viable explanitory option.

A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.​

Dembski states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, including the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA. If specified complexity can be found in nature, then it must also be due to an intelligent design.

So, what phenomenon in nature illustrate specified complexity? DNA, cells (and the various systems and processes cells are a part of), cilium, eyes and bacterial flagellum among many others...

In The Origin of Species Charles Darwin stated: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Michael J. Behe has a PhD in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania, and is professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. As Behe points out, an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

Irreducible complexity...mean(s) a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.​

something that is irreducibly complex meets darwins own standard to disprove his theory and also shows specified complexity, which infers an intelligent designer.

Cells, cilium, eyes and bacterial flagellum are all irreducibly complex, in addition to showing specified complexity. There are many other examples...

Have you seen the film yet?

 

[fossten]

Argument from banana

Yes, yes, I know this video has been mocked by evolutionists, but it's still a pretty compelling argument.

 

[fossten]

You're getting even sloppier in your post structure, if that's possible. You don't bother encasing quotations anymore, making it difficult to understand your posts. You're lazier than I thought.

The logical fallacy to your argument of having 100 years to come up with evidence is that you admit that you're coming from a worldview of presuming there is no intelligence behind creation. You cannot throw out any evidence that there is a creator while you're looking for evidence that there is not.

On one hand you say there is no proof of God. In the same paragraph you say that you're finally coming up with some evidence that there is no God. Yet you offer none.

You're suffering from a delusion and a presupposition problem. You keep digging; it's obvious you are hoping there is no God, even before the 'proof' is uncovered. You better be right, because if you're wrong, you'll meet Him one day and have to answer to Him for your life.

 

[shagdrum]

More bile, from the irrational one! This should be fun.

put 2 fords in a room together overnight and what do you get 9 months later? 2 older fords.(we'll assume the opposite sex)

Interesting that you cite a car, which is another example of specified complexity. According to darwinism, you would have to assume that the car was created by random chance, and not intellegently designed.

put 2 any biological things together (opposite sex), wait for the gestation period required for the genus, and new life.

Another red herring argument (to set up a straw man)' that has nothing to do with what is being discussed and is thus, irrelevent. You can prove procreation. That doesn't say anything about ID or darwinian evolution.

if there was a god, this miracle could be performed with the fords.

So, because you can't show a miracle in your hypothetical, ID is disproven?!

Talk about huge logical leaps that are irrelevent and go no where. another red herring argument...

I can make an irrelevent point an claim it disproves your thesis; "I ate pizza last night". There, your thesis is now disproven.

that's about as much sense as your arguements make.

What?! where are you getting that? Your "example" makes no sense and is in no way similar to my argument. Can you say false analogy? And a sloppy attempt at that.

of course mechanical things are created.

Example? And relevance?

you can't compare these same things to biological entities.

Ah, so we must have a different standard for judging biological creations then for any other creation? Double standard? More moving the goalposts it seems...

we've had god myth's for how many years? and not any proof of existence. i think it would have surfaced in more than just tradition texts.

Misdirection. You are the only one making this about God (or a "God" myth). That is only relevant, in any way, to ID in a discussion of motives. IDer's motives and bias don't discredit their point of view (as I have spelled out earlier in this thread). This is an ad homenim attack through appeal to motive.

You are also ignoring the point I made about bias in this thread and continuing your attack using the whole "God myth" thing as if it is somehow relevant. An example of proof by assertion.

we've truly only had less than 100 years to look into options, and the evidence is coming up

Its been much more the a hundred years...

Anyway, you are looking at things from the wrong direction. Here is the assertion, now lets find the evidence. Science shouldn't work that way. You go where the info leads, not the other way around (which is what darwinism does)

and shag, behe has been shot down on his theory of irreducible complexity before.

Hardly. You are just latching on to any attack of behe and unquestionable buying it, more likely.

How likely is it that in whatever you have read that "shoots down" behe's argument, or whatever argument you would make, methodological naturalism is assumed?

Unless and until you can make an argument that doesn't assume that (which all your arguments have assumed), your whole argument is invalid because it is based on an unproven (and therefore false) premise.

This has been pointed out a few times in this thead too, and you simply ignore it. Which indicates that most of your arguments have an element of proof by assertion.

his flagellum arguement is a good example. take away any parts, and it won't work.

...which proves his point.

yet another bacterium was shown to have the same structure with less parts, and it injects poison from a syringe at it's tip.

Which is tangental at best...

I assume you are talking about the whole Miller, TTSS thing. Here, I will lay out his argument for you.

Kenneth Miller, a well-known evolutionary biologist from Brown University, points out that certain subsystems of the bacterial flagellum would still be in working order if other parts were removed. The overall flagellar motility system requires around 50 different types of proteins (and underlying genes to code for them). However, it is quite interesting to note that 10 of these genes and the resulting structure within the flagellar motility system also code for what is known as a type III secretory system (TTSS). The TTSS is used as a toxin injector by some especially nasty bacteria that attack both animals and plants. Therefore, Kenneth Miller argues that it is mistaken to use the flagellar system as an example of a truly irreducibly complex machine since around 40 different parts could be removed from the machine without a complete loss of function. Miller also points out that the majority of the protein parts of the flagellar system have other functions as parts of other systems within bacteria.​

Basically, Miller is arguing that, because the TTSS resembles part of the flagellum but has a different biological function, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. "What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed".

Behe already acknowledges this in his book. Just because an irreducibly complex systems has certian parts that can perform other functions doesn't disprove Behe's point, in fact, it confirms it. Behe wrote that Miller was...

...switching the focus from the funtion of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport proteins actross a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destrys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex​

Lets use your car analogy...
Basically, removing the engine from a car and putting it in a boat (where it works fine) doesn't change the fact that the motorless car doesn't work.

Miller intentionally ignores that fact; instead focusing on the fact that the motor works for a different purpose now; driving a boat. That fact is irrelevant to irreducible complexity.