Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of...

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Sun Jul 23 2000 - 22:05:50 EDT

  • Next message: billwald@juno.com: "semi-ID?"

    From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>

    [snip]

    >Behe says that the evidence for ID is irreducible complexity. Whether or
    >not you agree with it (I do not) it is evidence nonetheless. You need to
    >debate him on other grounds.

    To say that IC is evidence for ID is like saying that finding presents at
    the foot of a Christmas tree is evidence for Santa Claus. (For the sake of
    argument, I'm setting aside the question of whether IC has actually been
    adequately defined.) That is, it is an observation which could be explained
    by the hypothesis, but science (or rational thinking) should reject this
    explanation because there is a more parsimonious explanation which is
    consistent with the data.

    To use the phrase "X is evidence for Y" in this way is to devalue it almost
    to the point of worthlessness.

    Richard Wein (Tich)
    "The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride
    it; malice may distort it; but there it is." -- Winston Churchill



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 22:07:08 EDT