In a message dated 9/14/2000 9:27:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SZYGMUNT@EXODUS.VALPO.EDU writes:
<< SZ: I'd like to explore the example you gave of the large, smooth,
metal object with doors and portholes landing gently on earth.
I appreciate your giving an example of a case where you think it
would be appropriate, as a starting point, to make a design hypothesis.
SZ: What I'd like to know is how this differs in any significant ways
from what we see of the microscopic world of the cell from the standpoint
of late 20th century molecular biology. I'm not saying there are
no differences, just asking you to explain why you think a prima
facie design hypothesis should *not* be made about complex biological
systems (take your favorite molecular machine system if you want to
be specific) while it *should* be made for the smooth sphere.
>>
IC is based on the presumption that such systems require design rather than
on
showing that such systems could not arise naturally. Does this mean that
there are not instances in which we can infer design quite reliably? Sure
but
ICness does not seem to be one of them. After all if we know that IC systems
can arise naturally and can arise through design then we need to be able to
distinguish between them.
IC does not provide us with such tools.
Nelson:
The only problem is IC systems cannot arise naturally.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 11:52:02 EDT