Re: [asa] Innate design detector?

I concur with Randy's line of questioning. Menuge does not have a knock
down argument. He does does not say that Darwinism cannot provide
solutions -- rather (p.120) he says that it cannot provide *credible*
solutions. He says (p.122) that none of the Darwinian proposals is
*convincing* . He says (p.122) that there are systematic theoretical
reasons that *question* the reach of Darwinism.
Don

Randy Isaac wrote:

> Dave,
> Ever since you posted Angus' criteria, I've been a little baffled
> by the significance. Certainly the criteria cited seem to be
> reasonable conditions that need to occur in the development of complex
> systems. But are there any indications that they cannot, in principle,
> be met? Or is it simply an argument of low probability for each of
> these criteria to be met? We're a long way from determining any
> probabilities quantitatively so is this one of the arguments from
> incredulity? that surely these conditions couldn't possibly be met so
> something else must have happened?
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *....*
>
> What I'm asking is specifically whether those availability,
> synchronization, localization, coordination, and interface
> compability criteria are reasonable. Perhaps they are reasonable
> criteria and chance and regularity can meet them. I'm just
> curious whether the criteria make sense, and if not, specifically
> why not.
>
> //
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 8 21:03:22 2006