Thursday, March 31, 2011
Putting God to the Test
[Luskin] is interpreting examples of parallel and convergent evolution as evidence that the designer solves the same problem the same way in different organisms. I think the point there is that if organisms are random collections of traits, more closely related taxa should be more similar, and so therefore things that are far apart phylogenetically must be more different. Thus, when they aren’t, that is de facto proof of design.
This is exactly the issue of testability. On this specific point, ID and evolution make exactly the same predictions. However, the mechanisms of evolution that produce this outcome are (and have been) imminently testable and tested, and so are legitimate mechanisms to postulate as an explanation. I’d have to know what mechanisms the creator was using to produce that outcome and see if I can replicate those mechanisms.
On this specific point, ID and evolution make exactly the same predictions.
ID doesn't make that prediction. It doesn't make any predictions.
It might be more correct to say that it "retrodicts" that similar traits in "unrelated" organisms are the result of "common design," instead of common descent.
Why can't they be both?
That's actually my view. If they weren't dumb, they'd be much better liars, but their lies are usually easy to explode.
It is a striking difference between creationists like Luskin and folk who are honestly interested in the science. The former never contact a scientist whose paper they're going to write about while the latter regularly do.
Yes, but I think Prof. McPeek was just being diplomatic in his response there.
jordans for cheap
nike roshe one
nike polo shirts
michael kors outlet online
lacoste online shop
nike air zoom
michael kors outlet store
christian louboutin shoes
cheap jordan shoes
ecco shoes outlet
michael kors handbags