> that there is not a single paper in any of the journals Behe scrutinized
> that describes HOW intelligent design could explain HOW complex structures
> arose.
>
> The problem here is two fold. 1) design is not a mechanistic hypothesis.
> Rather it is a metaphysical world-view.
Implying that there is a mechanistic explanation for the origin of life
and kinds of animals, is ,formally speaking, also a metaphysical
worldview. Because it excludes right from the beginning a direct divine
intervention( as opposed to a only guiding divine influence).
2) Design is not inconsistent with
> evolution, because evolution, properly considered, is a mechanistic
> hypothesis and not a metaphysical world-view.
The theories of evolution and also the theory of evolution itself may be a
solely mechanistic hypothesis, but they are part of the above-mentioned
metaphysical worldview.
> An omnipotent designer could
> create via evolution. This is the crux of the EC position.
> >But the theory of evolution is nowhere near the rocks in the data game. Good
> >scientists will adopt "wait and see."
>
> You can't do science without an hypothesis to test. In the absence of a
> good alternative, evolution remains the hypothesis that is tested whether it
> is right or wrong. Either way, the information gained from testing the
> hypothesis will, sooner or later, likely provide us with reason to more
> fully embrace it or to replace it with an alternative. This is not done by
> a "wait and see" approach.
If someone wants to prove so far reaching things as evolution the
scientists should wait and see. But if this is not the way science
proceeds one must first ask the question , if the origins questions belong
to science. the answer you give on this question will then predetermine
everything that follows.
Oliver
student of physics