Comments Posted By RBH
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments


JOhn Hatch wrote

"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."

Except for the minor point that no intelligent design proponent has ever actually done that. While Dembski blathers about "specified complexity" and "complex specified information", those measures have never been validated or calibrated, there are no reliability data on them, and there are no tables of probabilities of this or that biological structure to get a foothold to even get an ID hypothesis started.

Moreover, there is no ID "theory". One expects a theory to provide an explanation -- an account of initial conditions, relevant causal variables, timing of events, and so on. ID offers precisely none of that. It offers a label -- "designed" -- and leaves it at that. It's intellectually vacuous.

Comment Posted By RBH On 3.08.2005 @ 17:50

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page