Joined: July 2006
|Here’s a pro-ID article without the usual disclaimers (e.g., a ritualistic suck-up to Darwin, an obligatory sneer at ID). Perhaps this is a sign of things to come.|
Now, i've only read the abstract, but does this quote from the article
|There is also overreliance on the Darwinian blind search to obtain practical results. In the long run, random methods cannot replace insight in constructing life-like proteins. For the near future, however, in enzyme development, we need to rely on a combination of both.|
really imply pro-ID intent? I really don't think so. To me the difficulty Dumbski has is when he see phrases like "in the long run" and equates them to human time scales. Yes, in the long run, random methods will not produce results because we'll all be dead. In the geological "long run" random methods are fruitfull.
Dembski, this is the best "
pro-ID" paper you can find? Pshaw!Link
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand