[continued from previous message]   
      
   events) universe, or an eternal universe, or an infinite regression of   
   causes, runs contrary to common intuition. But postulating a cosmogen   
   doesn't get you out of the bind. It doesn't add to the explanation -   
   it's another way of explaining away the data. One might as well apply   
   Occam's Razor, and say "I don't know the origin of the universe" than   
   say "the cosmogen created the universe, but I don't know the origin of   
   the cosmogen".   
      
   The only scientific "law" relating to information that is the relevant   
   to OOL that comes to my mind is the time reversal invariance of the laws   
   of physics. If T-invariance is true, "information" can't be created or   
   destroyed, because the initial state can be recreated by running the   
   process backwards. There is a problem - physicists believe that   
   CPT-invariance holds; as CP-violation occurs in neutral kaon decay,   
   T-violation is inferred to also occur in neutral kaon decay. There is   
   also the black hole information paradox (but Wikipedia tells me that   
   that has been resolved). I don't see T-invariance is a problem for   
   abiogenesis.   
      
   >   
   > I'm not denying things suggested as or considered IC can be show not to   
   > be.  I just found the blanket statement that "irreducible complexity is   
   > evidence *for* evolution and *against* ID" is a little absurd, or funny.   
   >   
      
   In scientific epistemology, if theory A predicts X, then the observation   
   of X is evidence for A. The theory of evolution predicts irreducibly   
   complexity (the prediction was made in the early 20th century, decades   
   before Behe mistook it for an argument against evolution). Therefore   
   irreducibly complex systems are evidence for evolution.   
      
   When comparing theories, if theory A predicts X, and theory B neither   
   predicts nor disallows X, then the observation of X is evidence for   
   theory A over theory B, i.e. against theory B. If you reject a Bayesian   
   analysis you could argue that it is not evidence directly against B   
   (it's not a falsification), but if you take that position to be   
   consistent you 	should concede that even if Behe had been correct   
   irreducible complexity would not have been evidence for Intelligent Design.   
      
   --   
   alias Ernest Major   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)