There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Essay talk:ID textbook chapter challenge
ID "challenge"[edit]
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. Sterilexx 09:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)