Cameron, you state:
"Neo-Darwinians, and other foes of teleological reasoning in biology, would be best advised to stop belly-aching about the alleged lack of peer-review of ID books and articles, and to concentrate on providing the detailed evolutionary mechanisms which they have failed to provide for the last 150 years."
That is *exactly* what mainstream science has been doing for 150 years - providing more and more detail on how evolution works. That it fails to meet the standards of those who reject the evidence for theological reasons is hardly surprising. There was enough evidence in 1859 to convince many Christians. Since then many more independent lines of evidence have converged to support Darwin's "big idea" of descent with modification through natural selection. How much evidence do you want?
The ID approach, in a nutshell, is to demand infinite detail for any disputed process. Behe has essentially admitted as much - that his version of "detailed mechanism" means every single point mutation along the way and full knowledge of the populations and selection coefficients for each mutation as well. He knows that this is an impossible standard.
In the meantime, ID cannot even define the boundaries on the age of the earth (again, for theological / political reasons). Demand infinite detail; offer none in response. Is it any wonder why mainstream science views the ID movement the way it does?
Dennis
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 16 03:23:06 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 16 2009 - 03:23:06 EDT