Of course, this ploy, with a slight twist, is also what Behe's model
represents. He basically says that "one cannot imagine" evolution of
irreducibly complex things. If Behe wants to make this argument, it is
appropriate for one to say that they disagree if they "can imagine" how
evolution may occur.
However, this sort of argument does not "prove" either side of the debate,
rather it addresses a different issue of plausibility. So, Behe argues that
evolution is not plausible, and the counter argument becomes that it is
indeed plausible.
When you cut through the posturing, ad hominems, arguments-from-authority,
etc., to which this thread of thought tends to devolve, one sees that this
particular debate is only about plausibility and not proof.
I previously have argued on this forum that Behe doesn't succeed in showing
that evolution is implausible.
Steve
_________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter." Proverbs
________________________________________________________