... Counterpoint.Having read George Gilder's article, I am no more convinced of Intelligent Design than I was before I started it; in fact, I'd say I'm more unconvinced. I expected at least some rational arguments for Intelligent Design, but there was almost no insight based on facts: Gilder gild 1 tr.v. gild·ed or gilt , gild·ing, gilds 1. To cover with or as if with a thin layer of gold. 2. To give an often deceptively attractive or improved appearance to. 3. hand-waves, produces no evidence, and does not make any verifiable predictions. He also says things that are flat wrong. Contrary to his assertions, evolutionary biology Evolutionary biology is a sub-field of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change, multiplication, and diversity over time. is able to explain cooperative behavior, and evolutionary biologists have offered replies to Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity
v. 1. To subject a substance to distillation. 2. To separate a distillate by distillation. 3. To increase the concentration of, separate, or purify a substance by distillation. the argument he presents I would paraphrase par·a·phrase n. 1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning. 2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device. v. it thus: "What I see in biological systems is too complicated for me to understand or comprehend, therefore God must have done it." This is the kernel of ID theory? No scientific experimentation, no verifiable predictions, and poorly formulated logic? In the future, should I expect learned articles explaining the secret meanings behind Crop Circles, UFOs, Atlantis, and Bigfoot? Dr. Michael J. Wolkowicz Via e-mail |
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion