🚀 go-pugleaf

Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <U4Nzd.7529454$6p.1183837@news.easynews.com>,
> Sam Stone  <sirian@mental.org> wrote:
> ......
> 
> 
>>http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
>>
>>...has both sides of the issue, feel free to remain unwilling to see 
>>that ID is plausible, even provable...
> 
> 
> Behe's arguments of irreducible complexity are based on assertion
> of irreducibility. But Kenneth Miller does a fair job within this reference
> of pointing out Behe's shortcomings. 
> Demski's specified complexity is also dealt with within the reference by
> Robbert Pennock. Similarly, Wells goes off an ill-defined deep end
> with his assertions of "design" but Eugenie Scott brings him soundly
> back to earth. Finally, Barbara Forrest summarizes the political 
> content of intelligent design and its lack of scientific content.
> 
> Thanks for the reference.

And thanks for a predictable dismissal of ID...

>>And for those readers who find this odious little weasel's flailing 
>>tired, the grist of the ID argument follows:
>>
>>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe
> 
> 
> Calculating probabilties that life would be unlikely in
> another universe begs several obvious questions such as
> the fact we can't reliably calculate any of these numbers,
> the uniqueness of this universe is guaranteed to the extent we exist,
> the probabilities listed are not independent quantities,
> and we don't know the resulting universe with alternative
> possible "life" with different numbers.

So, iow, we have ony our own lens of creation to use as a magnifier and 
thus our postulations, pro or con,  necessarily are as limited as the 
visible spectrum of light our own eyes can recieve.