"Eventually, I came up with a name for it. I called it 'irreducible complexity'"
More like this
One of the peculiarities of my recent debate with Jerry Bergman was that he announced his definition of irreducible complexity, which he claimed to be the same as Michael Behe's…and under which car
It's been a while since I've replied to anything over at Uncommon Descent. But this entry from Salvador Cordova really caught my eye.
Jason Rosenhouse has a thorough and devestating takedown of Sal Cordova's recent post at Dembski's blog about redundancy as proof of ID.
Yesterday I blogged about a new study in which scientists reconstructed 450 million year old proteins in order to trace the evolution o
Hahaha. "When you look at molecules...you realize evolution can't explain life..."
Wait a second, I'm missing the part where he makes an actual argument for this assertion.
They have all the trappings, including an intellectual-fatherly British voice-over and the whole bit. But the main meal is still not there. There is no actual soundly structured, testable argument below all the "hunches" and "intuitions."
ID is like a Chinese box: you keep opening it and opening it looking for the present, and eventually, after it's all opened up, there's no "there" there.
Haha. Somewhere, if he even exists, probably God is thinking "hey idiots, all my stuff is logically put together. Blessed are scientists, for they have taken it upon themselves to study me and understand me, while the so-called "believers" are still worshipping their own projections."
Omg that was horrible.
Look at these dice.
Now look at them closer!
Now LOOK AT THEM CLOSER!!!