At 05:35 PM 07/21/2000 -0400, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
> SC
> This reply doesn't follow the preceding discussion. Nothing I said above
> rules out the role of "tangible evidence" to support theories. The claim
> was that Behe did not suggest a method for empirically detecting ID. I
> replied that he did suggest such a method. That is all.
>
>Huxter
>+++ It certainly follows considering what I wrote to which you replied.
>
>"But since IC is little more than an assumption based on the ignorance of the
>history of the system in question, that is no evidence at all. One should
>wonder why nothing tangible is in evidence...."
>
>I was addressing evidence, not a supposed methood to detect such evidence.
>Regardless, Behe should have actually presented some evidence supportive of
>his 'theory', rather than just claim that there are ways to detect it.
>
>"hey, I discovered the cure for cancer."
>
>" Great! Let's see your stuff!"
>
>"Well, actually I only know of a way to make the stuff that might cure cancer
>if we ever make it.... But that means that the cure exists!"
Using your example here, the evidence for a cure for cancer is cancer
cured. There is no mechanism or "hsitory" as you would like there to be,
nevertheless, the evidence is perfectly fine. On the other hand, some
would argue that this evidence is circular, but it would be based on a
simplistic understanding of the problems with tautologies and they would be
wrong.
Behe says that the evidence for ID is irreducible complexity. Whether or
not you agree with it (I do not) it is evidence nonetheless. You need to
debate him on other grounds.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 18:12:10 EDT