Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Thats the definitional statement in this section of the book. Thats not consistent with common ancestry, its directly opposed to it, isn it, Professor Behe?

0
Posted

Thats the definitional statement in this section of the book. Thats not consistent with common ancestry, its directly opposed to it, isn it, Professor Behe?

0

A Well, as I tried to make clear in my direct testimony, I don’t think this was well written. I think it’s tentatively phrased. It says “some scientists,” and certainly I do not think that that is a definition of intelligent design. And what I see this paragraph trying to say is that we see these things in the fossil record as some eminent paleontologists apparently agreed, and that if we hold this view, this face value view, then we do not have to necessarily come up with some strained explanation, or some explanation which seems ad hoc, perhaps that’s the way it happened, because intelligent design can accommodate a fossil record like this.

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123