>At 11:24 AM 07/14/2000 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
>> > but rather it is because he argues that "intelligent design in biology
>>.... is
>> >empirically detectable":
>>
>>Why, then, doesn't he suggest a method? He only talks in generalities.
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D.
>He does suggest a method. Mike says that ID is detectable by irreducible
>complexity.
All Behe did was point out that some biological systems are irreducibly
complex. This wasn't much of a bulletin to most biologists. Then he in
essence says "I don't understand how they could have evolved, so some god
must have done it." I've read an essay by Behe explaining the gist of his
thesis and some reviews of his work. Most biologists (to whom IC was not
news) can come up with several pathways for evolution to have occurred
without invoking the supernatural. IC is not proof of ID. It's only proof
that evolution isn't linear. And who ever said it was?
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 12:46:17 EDT