Joined: May 2006
|Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 20 2011,09:50)|
|I enjoyed these bits from Luskin's article:|
|If the trait evolved multiple times independently, then why do so many plants still lack such a "lantern" protective shelter?|
Ah, yes. The old 'if evolution is true, how come humans haven't evolved wings' ruse. Just because a trait evolves and is selected for in some species doesn't mean it should be selected for in every species.
|After noting that some proponents of neo-Darwinism make unfalsifiable appeals to unknown selective advantages, [Lonnig] concludes that neo-Darwinism is not making falsifiable predictions and finds that this "infinity of mostly non-testable explanations (often just-so-stories) itself may put the theory outside science."|
So if a "Darwinist" appeals to unknown selective advantages, he's guilty of making unfalsifiable predictions and being unscientific. But it's totally fine for an IDist to appeal to an unknown designer, right? At least the Darwinist is appealing to a mechanism that's proven to exist.
Intelligence is proven to exist, too, and to produce functional structures.
It's just that God's intelligence is very different, so you'd expect his designs to be very different as well.
So the analogy holds. I mean, except for God's intelligence being so unlike any we've ever seen, and the functional structures being a great deal different from anything we've produced.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy