Re: paleonet ID and function

["Dr. David Campbell" <amblema@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think I have seen that argument [that a good designer ought to 
provide backups, not irreducible complexity].  Ultimately it highlights 
the fact that the fundamental argument in the current Intelligent 
Design movement is about what sounds plausible.  I.e., they are based 
on making assumptions about what one expects a designer to do and 
whether you think he/she/it/they would do x or y.  Such assumptions are 
outside of science, but highlighting questions of exactly what sort of 
designer is being envisioned might get a few believers to think about 
how well the designer of ID actually matches what they believe about 
God.  

Of course, many particular claims, especially in proposed school 
curricula or in Discovery Institute propaganda, involve scientific 
errors.  Conversely, efforts against the Intelligent Design movement 
often fall into the trap of attacking religion generally or 
Christianity in particular, which is just what ID advocates want in 
order to "demonstrate" that opposition to ID is an atheistic plot.  

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections Building
Department of Biological Sciences
Biodiversity and Systematics
University of Alabama, Box 870345
Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345  USA