—Pedant [and MathGirl] “You consider it fair to ask an evolutionist for a detailed step-by-step mechanistic scenario of complex organelle evolution, while providing nothing in the way of a step-by-step mechanistic scenario informed by design theory.”It is not only not “equitable,” it is not even rational. According to your account, all biodiversity was the result of a mechanistic, step-by-step process. According to our account, it was not. So now you are asking us to do what? –to provide evidence for something we say did not happen and that you say did happen? What kind of nonsense is that ?
—”As MathGirl suggested, surely it is equitable for anyone to ask design protagonists to provide better explanations for the origins of biological entities than the mechanistic explanations they find wanting on the part of conventional science.”
Incrementalism and the naturalistic, step-by-step process is your gig, not ours. That fact is, you cannot provide any evidence at all to support your wide-sweeping claim that such a mechanism can do what you say it can do. The counter fact is that we can provide plenty of evidence to support our minimalist claims for design in nature.
Big claims like yours require big support, yet you have none. Small claims like ours require much less support, yet we provide that and more.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Another Good StephenB Comment