> ID's "prediction" is a negative one ---
>that natural-process explanations will continue to fail. That's not a
>lot of "rigor," only a marginally helpful prediction, but it is
>something.
I wish an ID like Paul Nelson would comment on the protein folding problem
that I mentioned a couple of days ago. It seems to me that modern science
(from an ID point of view), has failed miserably to explain how the protein
folds into the proper shape within about 2 seconds. Modern computers would
take 10^127 years to fold a small protein. Is this evidence of intelligent
design? When modern science fails to explain the chemical origin of life it
is taken as evidence that God must have done it.
glenn
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm