>The ID argument is not "wait and see." It is "SEE! Now what's the most
>reasonable explanation?"
>
Because he had written to Terry:
>Terry writes:
>
><< BUT as I read Mike Behe and now several of his supporters
>who have posted to this thread, much more is being said. The claim is that
>the black box has been opened and we now KNOW that an evolutionary
>explanation is NOT POSSIBLE. Please correct me if I am mis-reading Mike.>>
>
>I think you are. What he is saying (and I've posted the quotes from DBB) is
>NOT that it is not possible, but that it is not REASONABLE to cling to the
>supposition. <<<<
Why would you say that it is a SEE (which in context is a KNOW) argument to me
and that it is not a SEE (KNOW) argument to Terry?
Bad form Jim.
>In this area, Behe has shown that science has not provided any naturalistic
>explanation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking. Indeed, ID should
>be subject to falsification experiments.
>
I would agree with you if someone could provide a definition of ID which is
falsifiable. So far I have seen none. Can you set forth an experiment which
would falsify ID?
><<The point I am trying to make is that God placed us here in the 20th
> century
>
>to deal with the data of the 20th century NOT the data of the 24th century.
>
>Our job should be to construct hypotheses which fit TODAY's data into a
>coherent whole which does not require the large scale overthrow of
> everything
>science has learned. >>
>
>What is it that science has "learned" about the gradual development of
> complex biochemical systems? Where is this knowledge published?
You are doing your "lawyer twist" here. The point of my post was that
everytime Christians get in trouble, they argue that they need more data. We
have more data than we know what to do with. What we need are explanations
NOT data!!!!
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm