Joined: Sep. 2009
|Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,15:14)|
|ID is not mechanistic, Dembski wrote. So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science? |
(And what exactly will you evolutionists do to salvage your high-school biology textbooks' chemical evolution sales-pitch, if you insist on every scientific hypothesis being mechanistic?)
|True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. -- William Dembski|
Anyone have a published disproof of that statement?
Froot Loop, where is the DI's published evidence?