<<Jim's claim that this exciting finding (if confirmed) damages evolution
suggests that he does not fully understand the use of hypotheses and data in
science. This has been a significant criticism of Phil Johnson as well.>>
It's comforting to know that Prof. Clark is around to eradicate our ignorance.
I was picking parasites off my body just the other day, reflecting how I wish
I fully understood things as well as the gatekeepers at the University of
Wisconsin. The term "priesthood fallacy" popped into my head, but I quickly
shunted it aside, realizing I probably don't fully understand what it means.
<<The appearance of life elswhere does not disprove evolutionary science,
rather it adds novel data that must be accounted for in any model of
evolution.>>
The crucial part is "must be accounted for in any model of evolution." That is
the restriction naturalism erects. So, from a naturalistic framework, one HAS
to say, "See! This is not a blow at all!"
But the group of theistic realists, watching the emperor march down the
street, keep asking why he isn't wearing any pants. The naturalists quickly
say, "Hush! You can't ask that question! You don't fully understand..."
Jim