kavli writes:
If an organism was found to be truly ”irreducibly complex,’ I think the argument that it was designed is just as valid as the argument that chance and mutation put it together.
Just a couple thoughts. First, you are using something that has yet to happen as a proof of ID? ("If an organism was found to be truly ”irreducibly complex,..."). How bizzare. Second, "if" the organism was truly "irreducibly complex", then chance and mutation would not be able to explain it anyway, therefore you statement makes no sense whatsoever. That is to say...both cannot be equally valid.
If natural processes (mutation and selection) can explain the emergence of the "thing" in question, then ID is not needed. If ID explains it, and only ID explains it, then natural processes, by definition, cannot. You can't have it both ways.
™ Version 4.2
