Behe responds to Draper! 20 years later

[Faizal_Ali]

@Timothy_Horton

Heh. More mealy-mouthed bafflegab from Behe. What a surprise. I did find this interesting this however

Behe: It would be silly to examine, say, Mount Rushmore, or the monolith found on the Moon in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey , and say no inference about their possible design could be made because we didn’t know whether a designer wanted to make either of them. Rather, we conclude from observation of a system itself that it was designed.

Except no one would conclude Design in Mt. Rushmore or a monolith by looking at just the object itself. They may conclude Design based on extenal knowledge, by comparing the object to other known designed ones.

Yup. There was some dude on this forum who was flapping his gums about this very error that ID Creationists tend to make:

The single most important thing "Intelligent Design" proponents get wrong

When we identify something as designed, we do not do so on the basis on whether it is “irreducibly complex”, or because of the amount of “information” it contains, or anything like that. We consider something to be designed if it is artificial, rather than natural. ID proposes the existence of things of which we do not have a single known example: Something that is natural, but designed,