Dr. Jeffery Martin, The Finders Course Works, Sorry Haters |406|

Think of it then as a proof that evolution by natural selection is wrong! That is what the serious books by people such as Behe are concerned with. I wish more people would discover for themselves the fact that natural selection can't possibly create life, or the incredible variety of living beings.

People need to be confident about that bad science here, in order to come forward with alternative ideas - "Yaweh did it" and morphic fields are only two such ideas.

David
In addition to proof that natural selection cannot explain evolution, scientists who work in the field of intelligent design also try to demonstrate logically that the best explanation for the evidence is that some things that are considered natural were in fact created and designed by intelligence. In the same way an archaeologist can tell a stone arrowhead was produced by a human rather than by an avalanche, scientists who study ID try to demonstrate, intelligence is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, for the existence of codes, information, irreducible complexity, and cybernetic systems in living organisms, and for macroevolution.
 
Last edited:
In addition to proof that natural selection cannot explain evolution, scientists who work in the field of intelligent design also try to demonstrate logically that the best explanation for the evidence is that some things that are considered natural were in fact created and designed by intelligence. In the same way an archaeologist can tell a stone arrowhead was produced by a human rather than by an avalanche, scientists who study ID try to demonstrate, intelligence is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, for the existence of codes, information, irreducible complexity, and cybernetic systems in living organisms, and for macroevolution.
I'm always a bit more wary of arguments such as fine tuning - certainly as a way to come to scientific conclusions:
http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/113/the-not-so-fine-tuning-of-the-universe
I also think scientists over estimate what they know about the universe massively - it is like a house of cards for so many reasons (for example, think what happens if Halton Arp's ideas turn out to be true). In contrast, the micro facts of biology seem far more definite.

I think Behe has reduced the element of doubt about RM+NS - at least in my mind. I don't want to repeat what I wrote on my thread about his book, so I'll just link to it:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/

I mean, I'd rather have one super-strong piece of evidence, than several less strong ones.

David
 
I'm always a bit more wary of arguments such as fine tuning - certainly as a way to come to scientific conclusions:
http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/113/the-not-so-fine-tuning-of-the-universe
I also think scientists over estimate what they know about the universe massively - it is like a house of cards for so many reasons (for example, think what happens if Halton Arp's ideas turn out to be true). In contrast, the micro facts of biology seem far more definite.

I think Behe has reduced the element of doubt about RM+NS - at least in my mind. I don't want to repeat what I wrote on my thread about his book, so I'll just link to it:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/

I mean, I'd rather have one super-strong piece of evidence, than several less strong ones.

David
have you ever reached out to him about coming on skeptiko?
 
have you ever reached out to him about coming on skeptiko?
Well the only way I could get him was via the DI, and then nothing happened for ages, before a woman contacted me very appologetically and said my email had got lost in the system, but she was now passing it on to Behe - and then I heard no more. I am rather disappointed!"

David
 
Top