Essay talk:ID textbook chapter challenge

ID "challenge"

I'd be interested in reading such a chapter. My main beef with "ID theory: is that it isn't a theory, there is no solid framework of anything, just a bunch of godly hand-waving and random "irreducibly complex" things Behe comes up with to try to stay ahead of the real scientists who then analyze their reduceability. human 14:19, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that's kinda the point. I realized when we were doing the Leader's Guide that a lot of the "arguments" for ID are really analogies or begging for an answer-type arguments. Infomation theory and thermodynamics are at best an analogy. It's not clear if irreducible complexity presumes a designer. I think his argument appears stronger to those who agree with Behe only because it contrasts with evolution. Behe's argument basically comes down to it looks like it's designed so it must be, which is logic at its worst. Sterile^xx 09:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)