Joined: July 2006
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 20 2011,06:15)|
|Any ideas how to throw this out the window?|
The whole thrust of the argument on EN+V is that X could not have done Y therefore Z must have done it instead.
|However, there is another possibility, namely the scientific inclusion of intelligent design. In contrast to neo-Darwinism, Lönnig notes the ID-based view can "be falsified by proving (among other points) that the probability to form an ICS by purely natural processes is high, that specified complexity is low, and finally, by generating an ICS by random mutations in a species displaying none."|
Sure, ID is a possibility. So are invisible Unicorns from Mars.
The point is that the ID based view does not need to be falsified as it is not supported to start with in the first place.
All we have is a gap "How did X form - we don't know" and ID does not get to fill that gap without some positive evidence of it's own. Which it does not have.
So all that paper points to is a gap in our understanding of a particular process and if that's evidence for ID then it can be said that every day the "evidence" for ID is getting smaller and smaller as we find new things out.
And every time we've found such an answer ID is never involved. Ever. So what are the chances that it'll be involved this particular time?
It's just ID of the gaps, nothing new here.
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