From: FMAJ1019@aol.com <FMAJ1019@aol.com>
>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
I think this is a fine case of "hoist with his own petard". ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 11 2000 - 04:04:13 EDT