quote:
Originally posted by originquestor:
Intelligent design as described in the writings of Wm A Dembski seems to be a valid and useful way to look at the biological realm.
Why? Once you decide something is IC then you stop loooking for the answer. Hardly a useful concept.
quote:
First, I was awed by the descriptions of some living beings and their amazingly arrayed technology.
No argument.
quote:
In one paper, Dembski describes the operation of a bacterial flagellum which is used to propel the bacteria through the water. The Falgellum rotates @ about 10,000 rpm, can change direction in 1/4 of a turn, has O rings, and a motor.
And there are other varieties of flagellum. These other varieties ARE less complicated. So much for irreducible complexity.
quote:
Dembski states that this is flagellum represents Intelligent Design as measured by his criteria.
So what? Maybe not by my criterion.
quote:
He then claims that evolution could not produce such a mechanism given the operational features of selection, genetic development and so on.
"Claims" and "demonstrates" are very different things.
quote:
Hand-waving and stories are not enough. Invoking the operation of chance, invoking partial operation of known or unknown genetic processes don’t cut the mustard. Stories, scenarios and interpretion/extrapolation of geological processes won’t do either.
Dembski's stories, apparently, you have not problem with.
Think about it. What you have done is define away all the answers except your own. Defining away answers doesn't count.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://tccsa.freeservers.com/articles/max_to_olson_12_17.html
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
[quotations structure cleaned up by Adminnemooseus]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-18-2002]
™ Version 4.2