Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:38)|
|Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:29)|
|Textbooks don't have any before-the-fact specifications Joe. They have descriptions of the makeup of proteins that were determined by after-the-fact observations.|
You need to show where the specifications were listed first, and then confirmed by observation. Otherwise you're just doing the 'sharpshooter's fallacy' - shooting an arrow anywhere into the side of the barn, then drawing the target around it afterward and claiming a bulls-eye.
Where are the before-the-fact specifications Joe?
Umm the theory of evolution is based on after-the-fact observation.
Science is an after-the-fact enterprise- you have to make an observation and THEN you formulate a hypothesis- after-the-fact.
ToE doesn't claim anything was built to a pre-existing specification either.
How can you tell if something is designed or not designed when your only criteria is "it looks like what it looks like"?
|But anyway Dr Behe discusses this in "Darwin's Black Box":|
|"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”|
That said what does your position have asshole?
You mean Behe claims it, but forgot to support his claims.
BTW, would that be the same Behe who testified that ID has as much scientific validity as astrology? The same one who's an even bigger laughingstock than Dembski? That Behe?
"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD