Posted on 08/18/2005 6:15:15 PM PDT by wagglebee
I made no claim that was a scientific intelligent design argument. That would not be taught under ID. It was response to the claim that the universe could not be less than millions of years old. ID makes no claims about the age of the universe. So you don't have to start telling your friends that's what is taught under intelligent design.
Having said that, it is still a logically irrefutible statement. If you have a refutation you should tell it to me.
Where did you prove that?
post #116.
I believe in God the Creator. How He chose to create his world I honestly don't know nor do I care lie awake at night caring about.
I take it on faith the He knows what he's doing. It makes for a much more peaceful existence.
Behe and others believe the alternative explanation is a designer. So if you want to say the alternative explanation is not scientific in the strictest sense, I'll concede that, although I agree it implies a creator. I think an argument could be made that evolution is not scientific in the strictest sense either.
The correct statement reads: ID in general, including Behe's irreducible complexity, says the laws of physics are INSUFFICIENT to account for evolutionary PROCESSES. Behe's argument is also unscientific, because it is a calculation based on a model with incomplete information, that concludes, in essence, that there is incomplete information.
" I think an argument could be made that evolution is not scientific in the strictest sense either."
It is in the strictest sense, science.
Dear Wag:
Embryonic stem cells can actually cause cancer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.