Thomas Scharle posted this quote on talk.origins
`If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not
generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished.'
page 186, Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box", Free Press, 1996
So what does applying this standard to hypotheses about IC and ID lead to?
What explanation is generated? So far it seems to me that ID specifies that
an unknown and unspecified designer uses an unknown and unspecified method to
design. Now assuming that design can be infered reliably, and there is
significant doubt that it can, we now have evidence that something was
designed. But since design includes no explanation it cannot explain the
phenomenon of design. Design so far is infered from the absence of identified
evolutionary pathways. It's not based on knowledge but absence of knowledge
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 16:21:52 EDT