Re: Reply to Brian Harper

Brian D Harper (
Thu, 27 May 1999 17:44:55 -0700

At 02:59 PM 5/27/99 -0400, Paracelcus wrote:
>Hi Y'all!
>Brian Harper wrote:
>Since you choose to remain anonymous, then you should refrain from making
allegations that you cannot sustain in view of said anonymity. Surely you
don't expect anyone to accept without evidence spectacular claims from an
anonymous source.
>My comments:
>Why would I lie about something that, as you point out, I cannot prove
>without compromising my anonymity? Why would I deliberately put myself
>in a position that would damage my credibility unless I was telling
>the truth? If you cannot accept my word as a fellow Brother in Christ,
>what possible evidence could I provide that you would accept? You would
>still have to decide whether to accept my word they were not forgeries
>or falfisied, so why not save yourself the trouble and simply accept
>that what I have said is true without proof? Or have you already
>decided that you will accept nothing that I say as true?

Perhaps you misunderstood me. If you want to remain anonymous, that
is fine with me. But I will only deal with your arguments. I am
not going to believe some spectacular claims simply because you
say so.

In another post you wrote "Show me the evidence!", yet you expect
me to believe what you say without evidence?

>Brian Harper wrote:
>Please, share with us this overwhelming evidence which your department
>chair hopes never gets published.
>I already have in general. It's irreducible complexity. I even gave a
>couple of examples, but you appear to dismissed it because you
>couldn't understand it. See my posting this weekend on the bombardier
>beetle, then if you have any questions please ask them instead of
>dismissing it all out of hand.

I see, so the overwhelming evidence about which your department
chair said "Heaven help us if any of this evidence ever gets published."
is irreducible complexity? Interesting.

Showing examples of irreducible complexity does not establish your
argument. Everyone already knows that there are many biological
systems that are irreducibly complex. What you need to do is to
present an argument that irreducible complexity requires design.
Do you have this argument? [BTW, the argument from the false
or missing alternative is a logical fallacy, hopefully you'll
have something better]

Also, in your reply to Rich you wrote: "Behe is like Newton. His genius
allowed him to see something no one else had seen before, but his
education prevents him from seeing all its implications."

Actually, the argument to design from irreducible complexity
is an old one, being given by Maimonides (1135-1204) in
<The Guide to the Perplexed>.

When you are finished with the Bombardier Beetle, perhaps
you would like to also elaborate on your claim about Lord

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University

"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert