Also a response to Thornhill at
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm
But ARN has been off line for me for a while now.
An interesting quote:
"Behe's notion of IC has found itself into the scientific literature and is
being taken seriously by scientists. Behe has contributed to science by
forcing
non-teleologists to once-and-for-all lay the various Darwinian pathways on
the table. This is progress as we can now look to the data to determine
if there is any evidence that these pathways apply to an particular IC system
in question. "
That the article was showing that natural processes can result in IC systems
and therefore disproves Behe seems to be less relevant than the hope that
these scientists took Behe seriously. The author also seems to be convinced
that Behe actually contributed to science by forcing these authors to do
something that science already knew.
What I truely think is ironic is one of the final comments
"The remaining explanations for IC are indeed possible, but without evidence
to support them, there is no reason to seriously embrace them."
I guess the author tries to reverse the burden of proof here. Behe claimed
that no natural pathways could exist. So now IC is not a reliable detector of
ID anymore and therefore it is up to Behe and his supporters to find
supporting evidence for their claims. So far we have seen science advance in
their understanding of scientific pathways to IC systems. What has ID
contributed to our understanding I wonder?
It seems however that at this moment in time IC cannot be used as a reliable
detector of design. "The remaining explanations for IC are indeed
possible...."
What now?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 23:43:56 EDT