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.
If you put a ball in a pachinko machine and drop it, then don't watch the results, later you can see that it landed in one of the slots at the bottom. What caused it to arrive in that slot? Gravity, as well as the physics of mass and collisions of solid objects. Can you prove that it followed one path and not another? No. Does that mean gravity is an invalid theory? No. Does the lack of a complete snapshot record of the ball's path mean the system requires an intelligent puller to work? No. You can prove what path it took any time you want. Observe it happen. Everytime you drop it, it will take a path, often the same path it took before.You also need intelligence to set up the system in which natural forces are allowed to operate to produce random results.Picking up what I can from reviews and rebuttals, Behe seems to be saying now that you can drop the ball as many times as you want, it ain't gonna land in any hole that's not at the observable botton of the machine (the edge of evolution). It would take intervention from outside the system to accomplish that.In essence he's saying, we've dropped the ball a million times. It just lands in one of the holes at the bottom. I can therefore infer that to get to something else besides these holes, I need something not accounted for yet in the theory of pachinko.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |