Mike Hough wrote:
> From the wiki article: Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are 
> no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design 
> supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed 
> rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system 
> occurred"
> 
> That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental 
> or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point 
> out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to 
> dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific 
> community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Except when they're talking about whether there's a God.  Then absence 
of evidence--and evidence then is defined to exclude any observation 
that cannot be duplicated--*is* evidence of absence.

 > The only logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.

On the other hand, it is a valid criticism of a theory to point out that 
it does not explain certain observations, and that at times biologists 
explain the existence of a certain feature by stating nothing more than 
that it evolved.

Indeed, neither abiogenesis nor macroevolution have actually been 
observed in nature (or accomplished in the laboratory); they are both 
assumed to have happened without any direct supporting evidence.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message