Skip to main content
The boards are getting a new home!

We're pleased to announce an update is coming to the community boards.

Sunday, September 25th: We are migrating the boards to a new platform. The site is currently in read-only mode and we will bring it back online as soon as the migration is complete. | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 1
IMO, ID is so lacking in detail about the nature of the designer and the mechanism by which design is created that it adds nothing to the understanding of evolution. But its possible that I'm just being ignorant, so I'd appreciate some clarification on a few points.

1. Does ID apply only to those structures Behe has deemed "irreducibly complex", or does it apply to any aspect of evolution for which a complete explanation has not yet been found?

2. How improbable does a proposed natural explanation have to be before ID becomes the preferred explanation?

3. Lets take something specific like flagellum and accept the ID explanation for its causation. What new experiments would be inspired by this shift to ID?

4. How does one decide that enough research has been done on a phenomenon to declare that a natural explanation is impossible?
Print the post  


When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.