These are from way down in the comments section of this post.
Still no definition of CSI in biological organisms, no examples of how to calculate such claimed CSI in biological organisms.
I do not believe that the language of mathematics is necessary for people to understand the claim. Take the mouse trap example, it has a limited degree of complexity that has been specified toward an end. We already know that mouse traps come about as the result of the impact of knowledge on matter, yet Darwinists point out that they can use their creation myths in order to explain this fact away, naturally. And if they can explain something which we already know is designed away based on charlatanism then one can only wonder what other knowledge they may be explaining in terms of their abysmal ignorance.
Not that anyone expected you to actually provide them. IDCers have been avoiding defining their jello terms ever since day 1.
It’s humorous that any evolutionist would demand rigorous specification of a supposedly singular theory. After all, what trajectories of adaptation has the so-called “theory of evolution” been used to predict in groups of organisms? Where has the theory been rigorously specified in the language of mathematics as a force of nature that can be verified empirically? Since when have those with the Darwinian urge to merge had a problem with soft things like smoke, jello and so on? You often seem to have no problem wallowing around in the unfalsifiable hypothetical goo typical to evolutionary creation myths in the name of science, after all.
I have never claimed that ID is the epistemic equivalent of the most rigorous science, etc. Yet it is at least the equivalent of Darwinism. It is the charlatans who seem naturally drawn to Darwinism who often claim that their supposed “theory of evolution” (i.e. numerous hypotheses) is the epistemic equivalent of the theory of gravity, the fact that the earth is round, etc.
Filed under: Uncategorized |