Ben
There has to be justification to jump from this specific scenario to ALL scenarios, and that justification simply hasn't been given.
there is a logical falsehood involved here:
the claim is that an IC system could not evolve, therefore evidence of an IC system is evidence of a designer,
there is an IC system that has been shown to evolve, so this refutes the claim that evidence of an IC system is evidence of a designer.
This does apply to all IC systems, because the premise has been falsified.
There has to be explicit argumentatation about WHY you can generalize from a specific case to a broader range of cases. It isn't a "default" that you can just hang your hat on. And I haven't seen the articles in the website that RAZD quoted, or from RAZD either.
The reason you can generalize is because of the claim of IC to be
de facto unrefutable evidence of design. This has been shown to
not be the case, the premise is falsified therefore the conclusion is logically invalid.
Every other IC system now defaults to the argument from incredulity (I just can't believe it can evolve) and a lack of personal ability (to envisage such happening).
It is an invalidated hypothesis, and science dictates that it is dismissed as such and we go to the next theory.
but it has to be QUALIFIED. If there is no other food supply, the damn organism would die before it ever evolved this "IC" system.
But has any organism evolved use of a new food supply when the previous one(s) have been eliminated? Or do they normally add food supplies as they are able to expand their sources? Putting an organism is a situation with low normal food supply, but an alternate food source they are not currently using does not
make them evolve to use it, but allows this to happen.
Does that help?
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.