Comments Posted By John Hatch
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments


Look, Intelligent Design is science, in that it estimates the probability that certain structures (like cells, for example)could have evolved, finds that the probability is strinkingly low, and then suggests that another mechanism is at play. We know enough about evolution to know that the probability of it explaining the emergence of human life in the time necessary time frame is extremely extremely low. Evolution is a "rock-solid" explanation only if you are willing to totally discount a non-natural one. Admittedly, science requires that you seek only natural causes. But science doesn't necessarily require you to believe that a thrown die would land and balance perfectly on one of its 8 corners. My guess is that evolution is taught as if, in a hypothetical experiment given the same pre-mordial conditions that existed thousands of years ago, human life or something like it would evolve 99 times out of 100. The truth is that it is far less than 1 in 100. That information is extremely relevant to learning, and if it takes ID discussions to make people realize that, than it's a good thing. I would submit that the author of this blog clearly doesn't know it. ID cannot affirmitively disprove evolution, but it does shed light on the extreme lack of likelihood that it could have accounted for all that it pruports to account for.

Comment Posted By John Hatch On 2.08.2005 @ 17:26

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page