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.
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?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |