I think Gil means something different, but this pretty much explains why IDC doesn't make any sense:
A microbe did not mysteriously mutate into Mozart and his music, and most people, thankfully, are smart enough to figure out that this is a silly idea.
This is essentially what ID argues. With a few magical tweaks here and there, the IDol just *poof* created whatever. No process, just "mysteriously mutate" something into something else.
Science doesn't operate by invoking mystery. ID does.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I've always been a big fan of Steve Case. As head of the committee appointed to draft the science standards for the state of Kansas, he's been at the center of an often blistering battle, but I've never seen him anything but calm and friendly. Whatever smears are aimed at him personally, he's…
Joe Carter is making a curiously convoluted argument. He's trying to get at why the majority of the American public does not accept the theory of evolution, and he's made a ten part list of reasons, which boils down to placing the blame on the critics of intelligent design creationism. We're all…
A few weeks ago, I received an email about a new book, "The Faith Equation", by Marvin Bittinger. Bittinger is an author of math textbooks - including, I think, my first calculus text. The book is supposed to be Bittenger's explanation of how mathematics validates christianity. Needless to say,
I…
Not that there was a chance in Hell I'd ever vote for him for anything, but now in a rambling and dogmatic monolog, Carson explains how evolution is stupid, and exposes himself as someone who embraces ignorance.
In a Faith & Liberty interview posted last week, potential GOP presidential…
IDiaF is also confused; ID proposes miracles, evolution does not.
It seems neither Gil nor his punch-card-programming commentators have ever programed even a single layer neural network. It's amazing what self organization can do, even in a computer program. It's especially amazing how very simple interacting neural networks can spontaeously produce truly "irreducible" behaviours, like walking. It doesn't require "an unimaginably complex, sophisticated, fault-tolerant, self-repairing, self-replicating computer program." And (as just one example) with no "poof" involved.
But then, I suspose they would claim that the walking behaviour is "front loaded".