>>> Hmm, can't a scientist speculate?  Thought experiments, anyone?
>>
>> "Hmm, how could something this complex have arrisen? Well, maybe it 
>> was designed by aliens from another planet."
>>
>> "Well, yeah, but then how did *they* arrise in the first place? You 
>> haven't really answered the question, just moved it to another planet."
>>
>> "Hmm, well, maybe in the future *we* will became sufficiently advanced 
>> to both design entire genomes and also travel through time. So maybe 
>> *we* are the 'aliens'?"
>>
>> "Uh... now you've just hidden the problem inside a temporal paradox 
>> instead of answering it."
> 
> Hmm, yea.  It makes a lot less sense now. :P

In other words, as a "thought experiment", the result is pretty 
conclusive: this line of reasoning doesn't make coherant sense.

> BTW, wasn't he supposed to be supporting a creationist view?  He's 
> contradicting even that by suggesting man created man! O_o

*shrugs*

All I know is that his book's argument is basically

1. Darwin's theory has various problems. (E.g., it doesn't address how 
life *started* - well, yes, that's true, it doesn't.)

2. Darwin's theory is therefore false.

3. ID is therefore correct. (Wuh?!)

4. "Now that we have proved that ID is correct, this raises several 
interesting questions..."

That last point really made me gasp. Seriously, you haven't *proved* 
anything! You're just waving your hands around going "hey, Darwin is 
imperfect, therefore you're all wrong". Sheesh...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message