On 21-4-2011 7:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:26:31 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve? Or
>>> that some intelligence actually created that protein?
>>
>> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection.
>> Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as
>> a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).
>
> No, that's not correct.  Just because something can't be explained by
> evolution (assuming it were found) doesn't mean ID is how it occurred.

In it's purest form ID does not give an explanation what did happen if 
it wasn't evolution.

> What it means is we don't understand the process by which it occurred.

yes

> Leaping to the conclusion that it's ID because it isn't evolution is a
> poor application of Occam's razor (at best) and lazy rationalization (at
> worst).

See above. you are again assuming you know what the alternative should 
be. That almost everybody publicly defending ID shares your assumption, 
indeed moves them into the camp of easily proven to be non-scientific. 
My whole point in defending that ID in the form stated above can be a 
scientific hypothesis is that you have to forget about all the people 
that claim God did it.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message