Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
All IC means is that the system couldn't have evolved directly from a simplier form. It doesn't prevent the system from evolving from a more complex system. Nothing requires Evolution to only work from simpler systems to more complex systems.I've never cared for the 'scaffolding' argument because it suffers from the same problem that IDists have when they assert the designer could be natural. My response is: that's great, but if evolution is too complex to make us, then how did it make the designer without supernatural help? (Answer: it couldn't at which point it's clear that ID = supernatural) By the same token, you can say that a simpler form can evolve from a more complex one, but then how did the more complex one get there?This is not to say that scaffolding has never happened, only that it can't be an ultimate response to the IC argument. Nor is it to say that some structures are IC as evolution theory provides the best answer for how allegedly IC structures arose.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |