Darwin
Friends of Darwin
MisfitBloggers

He loves and she loves

Just Causes

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« "So that we, here in Europe, can have cheap shrimp" | Main | Hey, baby, it's cold outside »

December 28, 2004

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Um, your categorization of ID is inherently contradictory. You say its: ""I'm not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer."

But notice your use of the word EVOLVE in that quote. As far as I can tell, ID distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution, and argues that the complexities of macroevolution are such that a design process is necessary. Far from positing an ignorance on how a structure evolves, it is a theory that the current system of microevolution does not adequately explain the structures necessary in macroevolution.

In effect, ID attempts to address the faults of evolutionary theory which makes it disprovable.

How is evolution disprovable?
You see, true unique ocurrences can not be disproved they are either observed or validly deduced from what can be observed.
But if Simburg characterization of the limits of scientific theory is correct, (and I believe it is) then it follows that concerning the question of origins (a unique non-repeatable ocurrence) ID is as unscientific as evolution in that if true neither of them is disprovable.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Look to the animals

  • looktotheanimals

Kudos

Blog powered by Typepad