William Dembski wrote:
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: ”Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
Source: William Dembski Organisms using GAs vs. Organisms being built by GAs thread at ISCID 18. September 2002
January 1, 2008
Dembski: “Pathetic” Comment
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] So perhaps Crowther can enlighten us: How does ID explain the bacterial flagella? Oh, I forgot, ID is not in the business of answering such pathetic requests… [...]
Pingback by Definitions: Design and Complexity « Intelligent Design Exposed — May 4, 2008 @ 7:17 pm