[extropy-chat] against ID

[gts]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:31:40 -0500, The Avantguardian  
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> But when they say it's a theory with no data
> to back it up, it bugs me. Their only justification
> seems to be gaps in our knowledge.

The cornerstone of the so-called theory (I agree it is not a valid theory)  
is "irreducible complexity" and they do offer supposed statistical data to  
support the claim that some biological structures are irreducibly complex  
and so could not have evolved naturally. If such structures really exist  
then ID would seem a reasonable hypothesis. However, as far as I can tell,  
no such structures exist.

They muddy the waters further by positing that the same Intelligent  
Designer also designed the universe, an idea I do not oppose and which is  
not itself an affront to natural science or the theory of evolution. Like  
their Creation Science predecessors, ID proponents wrongly characterize  
evolution as an inherently atheistic doctrine.

I'm glad at least that the Vatican knows better than to support ID.  
Apparently the Catholic Church learned something from Galileo.

-gts