On 4/22/2011 1:22, andrel wrote:
> On 22-4-2011 1:16, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/21/2011 15:46, andrel wrote:
>>> In it's purest form ID does not give an explanation what did happen if it
>>> wasn't evolution.
>>
>> Then why is it called "intelligent design" if in its purest form it's
>> not hypothesizing intelligent design?
>>
>>> point in defending that ID in the form stated above
>>
>> I disagree that ID is "some things didn't evolve." That's backing off so
>> far that one is simply searching hopelessly for anything that's
>> non-disprovable.
>
> No, just to the point where it is in principle provable, but in practice
> not.

But nobody has even come up with an idea of how you would show a protein 
could not have evolved. "Irreducible complexity" doesn't show a protein 
could not have evolved. So how would you recognize such a protein?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message