In a message dated 9/15/2000 8:52:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< 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.
>>
An unsupported and disproven assertion. Perhaps that is the presumption by
Behe but he also admits that indirect routes might exist. So even Behe admits
that IC system could arise naturally therefor IC itself is not necessarily a
reliable indicator of design. Furthermore it has been shown, as I have
addressed in my previous references, that IC systems can arise naturally.
Behe objects to such pathways but that's irrelevant to the thesis that "IC
systems cannot arise naturally". Behe has to show that such pathways can be
excluded.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 12:02:50 EDT