Re: >Re: intell. des. and Berra's folly
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 05 Jun 1998 14:46:14 -0500 (EST)
At 07:52 PM 6/3/98 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>At 09:07 AM 6/3/98 -0700, E G M wrote:
>>Yes, of course, the mouse trap is a macro system used by Behe as an
>>*example* of a I.C. system that could not have come together
>>darwinistically. In that case you are right and I am wrong but let me
>>emphasize that the trap was used as an *example* and that the trap is
>>not a biological entity either.
>>I guess what you want to find is a biological I.C. system that did
>>indeed evolved darwinistically in order to refute Behe's argument.
>this is not really a serious request because it is like Catch-22. You are
>unlikely to agree that anything is evolved. And then use that to claim that
>there is nothing to refute Behe. Heads you win, tails I lose. Godd debate
>tactics---bad science and logic.
I believe you guys are not addressing the real fundamental question and,
that is, where was the notion of the mouse trap before it was actually
brought into existence by a human? In some sense the mouse trap existed
even before it was materialized. I go back to my statement of chance and the
die. The existence of a die indicates the possible outcomes and the
probabilities associated with each---of course, in the case of a continuum
each outcome has zero probability. Where is the die that determines the
possible outcomes of evolution? Who made it?