Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1847)	1/3/2006 8:05:57 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 2253

Showing that one specific thing doesn't really require ID is not much of a case against ID. Okay, that's true. OTOH showing one or more things that have not been explained by current theory doesn't strike me as a very strong case for ID. Well, its an evidence for something other than "orthodox darwinism". Darwin did say in famous book: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." Well, Behe among others, maintains that there are many irreducibly complex structures and processes which meet Darwin's description (the bacterial rotary motor is just one that strikes me as neat). I think his claim deserves to be argued on it's merits and not merely dodged by dismissal. Which is basically all that has been going on since Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box.