didymos
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ April 14 2010,10:36) | I think the actual statement from Dembski was "[we don't need that] pathetic level of detail"
Makes one wonder what level of detail is required... |
That classic post can be found here. For Floyd to ignore/gloss over and everyone else's amusement, here's the money shot:
| Quote |
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. 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. |
Aaaand nigh on eight years later, ID still can't find its own irreducibly complex ass with both hands in a room full of mirrors.
--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio
|
