> Always? Maybe not; we should not use "the boy who cried wolf" logic to
> eliminate a plausible theory (such as ID) from consideration. One type of
> gaps-error is to insist on gaps if (in reality) there are none; but if gaps
> really do exist, then assuming they don't exist will lead us into error.
This is precisely the problem with ID. Evolution theory may (can?) account for
information generation via complexity notions which, therefore, fill the design
or information gap. This information gap, as I understand, is the thrust of the
-- George Andrews Jr. Assistant Professor Physics LeTourneau University firstname.lastname@example.org