Minnich, why isn this just the argument from incredulity?
A. I mean, that’s — Dawkins makes that argument that because I can’t imagine a mechanism that would produce this that I suffer from incredulity, and I’m, darn it, you know, we are trained to be skeptics. We are trained to look at things through, you know, a very narrow lens. We’re to be our own worst critics, and it seems like in any other practice of science that’s how we operate, except when it comes to an explanation of the origin of these systems, and then we’re accused of being, you know, suffering from incredulity because we can’t imagine how these came about. We don’t have the intermediates. Again for any biochemical pathway we don’t have the phylogenetic history for any biochemical pathway or subcellular organelle. Yet as a scientist I am supposed to accept this without blinking that this is a product of a Darwinian mechanism, and I’m sorry, these are highly sophisticated systems, and I know from experience that when you see a machine, a rotary engine, in any other contest, yo
Related Questions
- Minnich, you e not surprised -- you wouldn be surprised at all to learn that Dr. Woese has stated publicly that intelligent design is not science, would you?
- Minnich, I want to sort of shift our focus a little bit and talk a little bit about creationism. Is there a popular understanding of this term?
