REVISE THIS:Two sides of the irreducible complexity argument (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 02:03 (5545 days ago) @ David Turell

Here they are:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111102.html
> 
> 
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/reducible_versus_irreducible_s.html
&#... 
> Plesse read both, as the second article is a refutation of the first; then make up your own mind.-David, it is clear to me that when I asked some months ago for you to google "Wedge Document" you didn't do so.-The Discovery Institute is an organization who has a political goal and as you should be well aware of with issues like global warming--science based on political agendas is bad science. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/wedge-document
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html-The goal of the Discovery Institute is (quoting from their document) 
"5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:- * Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
 * Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
 * Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
 * Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God"-The second bullet point should be particularly alarming as to quote it again it says "...defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation..." -Most disturbing is the last bullet-tick, all of us here should ask "What does that have to do with origins?"-Their goal is NOT the "Intelligent Design" you purport, but the Intelligent design of evangelical Christianity. I have stated before that Behe and Dembski have both been shown that they solved important and key equations wrong in their books; if they were about the discussion you and I have been about, they would have fixed these equations in subsequent printings or in errata. They have not. This means that their goal is also equally political, which considering that they are both mouthpieces for this organization... so be it. You should choose your sources more carefully. Accepting arguments from them is like getting your news from Anne Coulter. -I'd be more interested in hearing from scientists like the ones I worked with that are theists and evolutionists--which if you see, they are considered "enemies" in that section of the "Wedge."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"