subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
 |
|
|
Letters
[Create a New Thread]
[Letters Index]
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Beyond subotimality |
shepherdmoon@yahoo.com |
Mar 03, 2005 |
To Mark Perakh:
I just wanted to write to tell you I found your recent article, "Beyond subotimality: Why irreducible complexity does not imply
intelligent design" thought-provoking and well done.
My only comment is regarding this passage:
---
ID advocates are welcome to accuse me of offering a caricature of their idea, but it cannot be helped when a concept's essence sounds like a caricature or a parody; the idea that "IC implies ID" can most succinctly be rendered by a maxim: stupid, therefore designed.
---
I can see what you are driving at, but I think in the last part, it might be better to replace "stupid" with "unstable." To say "unstable" is closer to your point in the article and avoids the unnecessary charge from IDists that you are merely engaging in insults. Even though the charge is false, it will waste time and distract from your excellent point.
I think your point about how suboptimality is in fact a core part of the IC argument is excellent and should be developed further.
Just my two cents.
Regards,
Shepherdmoon
|
read replies (1)
write a reply
|
Related Article(s):
Beyond suboptimality: Why irreducible complexity does not imply intelligent design
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Phylogenetic Tree |
V |
Mar 03, 2005 |
| Hi, I am doing an extra credit project of rbiology which involves creating a phylogenetic tree for the bottlenose dolphin. I read your website, but I do not understand how to construct one. If you could, please email me back with some clues and help. Thank you for your time. |
read replies (1)
write a reply
|
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Evolution |
Asim , Zaheer |
Mar 03, 2005 |
I was reading a book last night concerning Darwin and Evolution and how it is all fabricated due to fossil records, natural selection, and mutations.
one of the question which came in my mind whilst reading was in away human and animal bodies do evolve. An example is a species whether it is human or animal is born. As it grows the body features, its immune system, etc also changes so therefore it becomes more developed and better. Another example is that the appendix of a human being was used to digest fibre this is no longer the case. in fact the appendix cannot be used for anything which means it is useless.
Also the fact that animals evolve is that Tadpoles change in to frogs through the process of Metamorphosism similiar to Caterpillars changing in to butterflies.
please correct me if im wrong in believing that this is evolution not through darwins theory because i dont believe in monkeys evolving in to human beings as this would go against the teachings of the Quran. |
read replies (1)
write a reply
|
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| semantic quibble |
Gaudia, Gil |
Mar 03, 2005 |
| In perusing your high quality site (as I do almost daily), I couldn't help but wonder at your use of "median" in the Links section. You say, "Oasis is intended to be a median between all walks of life in order to provide proper education about history, science and all our cultures in the world." This unusual use of the word, notwithstanding its meaning as a midpoint in statistical values, leads me to question if that was your choice of words or a typo, whereas, "medium", "mediate", "mediator" or some other equivalent of "moderator" or "forum" might not better convey to the reader, the character of the Link. |
read replies (1)
write a reply
|
|
Previous |
| Next
|
|
