 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Dave Low
|
| | | (...) Maybe Chris Tracey (or someone else) can explain this a bit better, but I think it's important to point out the main flaw in "intelligent design". To take Behe's mousetrap analogy: it's true that half a mousetrap isn't much of a mousetrap. But (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | (...) I realise the limits of taking an analogy too far...but since you already did it.....what you've just said is still intelligent design. What are the chances of a moustrap forming if you put all the parts into a box and shake it - that's not (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Repeatedly shaking such a box is simply re-randomization. If somehow you could discard every faulty physical combination of the elements and preserve the useful ones (as traits are discarded or preserved through evolution) your chances at (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | (...) The breaking point with both analogies is that they refer to human-invented artefacts (leading to the spurious conclusion that the universe is _necessarily_ a God-invented artefact). Re the scaffolding, I can give an example from embryology. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure... —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | (...) This is a good start. I have some additions to this but I'm late for an event I have to go to. I'll send my comments ASAP. -chris (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
