From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
[snip]
>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.
To say that IC is evidence for ID is like saying that finding presents at
the foot of a Christmas tree is evidence for Santa Claus. (For the sake of
argument, I'm setting aside the question of whether IC has actually been
adequately defined.) That is, it is an observation which could be explained
by the hypothesis, but science (or rational thinking) should reject this
explanation because there is a more parsimonious explanation which is
consistent with the data.
To use the phrase "X is evidence for Y" in this way is to devalue it almost
to the point of worthlessness.
Richard Wein (Tich)
"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride
it; malice may distort it; but there it is." -- Winston Churchill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 22:07:08 EDT