pangloss

From the thread linked below, Dembski writes:

"That's why I insist on **detailed** Darwinian pathways (and no, you haven't provided them)."


I wonder - where are his detailed ID pathways?

Tom Sawyer

He specifically stated that ID didn't need these pathways. Since everything is built by design, each step can have whatever attributes the designer chooses to give them, so pathways between the different steps are not needed.

So basically, evilutionists have to prove everything down to the smallest detail and IDers just have to say goddidit without backing that up. Basically, it's just intellectual cowardice brought about by clinging to an undefendable position.

If anyone thinks I'm misrepresenting his position, please let me know. I think that kind of sums it up.

pangloss

Well, isn't that convenient...