This is an edited and less meandering response to a comment that ID has been completely debunked. My response is hardly scientific but I think it raises a decent point or two so I thought I?d punish you with my comments.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet
I googled flagellar motor irreducible complexity?then jumped to the scholarly articles and got 393 hits.
One, can read these articles that suggest there is something to ID and the irreducible argument or dismiss them out of hand when one finds one of the articles denying credibility to ID. But ignoring all scholarly articles except the ones that supports one conclusion isn?t scholarly.
I?m not arguing that ID is true. From a religious perspective I reject it out of hand. From a scientific POV I think it raises some challenges to the root bound considerations we?ve adhered to for 150+ years. Evolution has a hard time explaining a lot of things. But it wasn?t meant to explain a large number of those issues offered in challenge. But that does not mean that the challenge disappears.
The challenge: Given what we know, does the order we find in the universe make more sense if we assert it is more likely the result of pure chance or if we assert that it is more likely the result of intent?
We cannot answer either question yet many dismiss ID categorically. That?s dogmatic. It is not scientific.
Back to God and ID and Douglas Adams?.
The argument goes something like this: ?I refuse to prove that I exist,?? says God, ?for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.? ?But,? says Man, ?The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn?t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don?t. QED.? ?Oh dear,? says God, ?I hadn?t thought of that,? and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. Oh, that was easy,? says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.? Douglas Adams
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet
I googled flagellar motor irreducible complexity?then jumped to the scholarly articles and got 393 hits.
One, can read these articles that suggest there is something to ID and the irreducible argument or dismiss them out of hand when one finds one of the articles denying credibility to ID. But ignoring all scholarly articles except the ones that supports one conclusion isn?t scholarly.
I?m not arguing that ID is true. From a religious perspective I reject it out of hand. From a scientific POV I think it raises some challenges to the root bound considerations we?ve adhered to for 150+ years. Evolution has a hard time explaining a lot of things. But it wasn?t meant to explain a large number of those issues offered in challenge. But that does not mean that the challenge disappears.
The challenge: Given what we know, does the order we find in the universe make more sense if we assert it is more likely the result of pure chance or if we assert that it is more likely the result of intent?
We cannot answer either question yet many dismiss ID categorically. That?s dogmatic. It is not scientific.
Back to God and ID and Douglas Adams?.
The argument goes something like this: ?I refuse to prove that I exist,?? says God, ?for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.? ?But,? says Man, ?The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn?t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don?t. QED.? ?Oh dear,? says God, ?I hadn?t thought of that,? and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. Oh, that was easy,? says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.? Douglas Adams
Last edited:
