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
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…
A few days ago, I wrote a strongly worded but entirely accurate critique of an absolutely abysmal article by Robert Meyer. I pointed out that every single claim he made about Gould's views on evolution was not only false, but exactly the opposite of what Gould actually believed. That led to an…
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
There's no shortage of stupidity in the world. And, alas, it comes in
many, many different kinds. Among the ones that bug me, pretty much
the worst is the stupidity that comes from believing that you know
something that you don't.
This is…
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".