Re: Critique of Robison - Part 2

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Thu, 08 May 1997 08:44:52 -0400

>Jim: This *seems* like a simple system, but it may actually be a
candidate
>for irreducible complexity (IC). And that would mean Keith was
>assuming the existence of IC to show that IC does not exist!
>
>Note that Robison does not deny the existance of an IC, just does not
>share Behe's belief that such a system could not have evolved gradually.
>This is exactly my point, IC systems may exist but Behe has failed to show
>that they could not have evolved.

CW: *Anything* could have evolved; you just gotta have faith.

On the contrary, evolution unlike it's religious counterpart adheres to
scientific principles that it can be falsified. Behe however has shown a
lack of 'faith' in a science which has only recently started to explore
the intricacies of biochemistry. Behe asserted that IC systems could not
have evolved or that he could not imagine a pathway. Robison obliged by
showing such a plausible pathway. Perhaps Behe should focus more on the
argument that we do not know the details, but that is hardly proof of an
intelligent designer. It appears that Behe just wrapped his personal
incredulity in a wrapper of attempted science.