In a message dated 9/13/2000 3:15:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
<< .Huxter.
> seems to me that without being able to document the history of a
>proposedly IC structure/pathway, declaring it IC and thus designed is a
>proclamation of ignorance.
Bertvan;
It seems to me a proclamation of ignorance would be an improvement over
declaring it was designed by "random mutation and natural selection" without
being able to suggest how that might have been accomplished.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan >>
++++++++++++++++++
I guess you just don't see what I'm getting at. Who claimed RM&NS 'designed'
anything? The only people that seem to think RM&NS are all evolution has is
anti-evolutionists. There is, afterall, evidence for selection and drift.
Would you like to see some, or would you just reject/ignore it?
So back to the point that you couldn't grasp -
ID advocates are making ignorance-based proclamations when they invoke some
sort of probability BS because they do not know the history of what they are
determining the probability of. By taking an extant protein/gene and
declaring design because this extant protein/gene could not have arisen as-is
by 'random chance' (they have the math to prove it, afterall) they are
forgetting that they are ignorant of the protein/gene's history, and so are
simply making proclamations of ignorance. Maybe I stated it incorrectly, but
declaring something to have been designed based on some statistical gibberish
cries of ignorance - at least to those that see the baselessness of the
proclamation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 13:09:44 EDT