Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Irreducible complexity (view source)
Revision as of 13:22, April 4, 2007
, 13:22, April 4, 2007balance needed
10 minute telephone calls do not constitute peer review. Of the other claimed reviewers, others suffer similar problems. For example, Morrow, another reviewer, in fact labeled the book as pretty close to worthless and as a result the book was not published by the initial publisher. This does not constitute peer review and to claim otherwise does a disservice to Conservapedia and its readers. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:27, 26 February 2007 (EST)
10 minute telephone calls do not constitute peer review. Of the other claimed reviewers, others suffer similar problems. For example, Morrow, another reviewer, in fact labeled the book as pretty close to worthless and as a result the book was not published by the initial publisher. This does not constitute peer review and to claim otherwise does a disservice to Conservapedia and its readers. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:27, 26 February 2007 (EST)
==Flaws==
Cut from intro:
:Such examples have been showed to be flawed, for example precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/ode_to_the_flag.html Ode to the Flagellum</ref> Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> <!--Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance.-->
This section makes an argument. It would be better if it merely described facts and reported conclusions.
Say, rather, that Dr. A argues that ionic channels serve as precursor's to the flagellum's motor. Verbiage such as ''shown to be flawed'' implies that Dr. A's version is correct and that ID proponents are incorrect.
A balanced article would present both sides and draw no conclusions. How about this?
:Behe's argument is disputed by Dr. A & Dr. B on the grounds that ...
Can we work together on this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)