Monday, October 24, 2005
ID: The 98-Pound Weakling of Theories
Today, on his Uncommon Descent blog, William Dembski, writes, "As far as the science of ID goes, there is no way to get from the data of nature to the God of, say, Christianity (or any other deity for that matter)."
Last week, plaintiff's attorney Eric Rothschild forced Michael Behe to admit that intelligent design also does not propose a mechanism that explains how complex biological structures arose. Here's an excerpt from pages 86-87:
If intelligent design can't identify its designer, and won't propose a mechanism to explain how the life around us arose, just what, exactly, can it do?
Last week, plaintiff's attorney Eric Rothschild forced Michael Behe to admit that intelligent design also does not propose a mechanism that explains how complex biological structures arose. Here's an excerpt from pages 86-87:
ROTHSCHILD: I asked you, "In terms of the mechanism, it's just a criticism of Darwinian evolution's mechanism and not a positive description of a mechanism." And what did you answer, Professor Behe?
BEHE: I said "that s correct." But again, I think this is completely consistent with what I just said. Again, it does not propose a step-by-step description, but it -- but it proposes or it accounts for some very important features of what was involved in its origin, and that is intelligent activity.
If intelligent design can't identify its designer, and won't propose a mechanism to explain how the life around us arose, just what, exactly, can it do?
