On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:21:06 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>SC>...I simply wish to point out that the theory of evolution can,
>in fact, include a model for prebiotic evolution.
>SJ>Unless some sort of detailed mechanism is specified, it is
>vacuous....if "evolution" means simply "change through time" then
>by definition it is true, even tautologous.
>BH>And now I will hold you to your own criteria. Please specify for
>me the detailed mechanisms used by the Intelligent Designer. If you
>cannot do this then I will have to conclude that your so-called
>Intelligent Design model is vacuous.
>SJ>No. The "Intelligent Design model" does specifiy a "mechanism", the
>word of command of the "Intelligent Designer':
>
>"And God said, `Let there be...,' and there was..." (Gn 1:3,6,9,
>11,14,20,24,26); "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
>their starry host by the breath of his mouth" (Ps 33:6); In the
>beginning was the Word...Through him all things were made; without
>him nothing was made that has been made." (Jn 1:1-3).
BH>OK, fine, but it is not necessary for ID to appeal to God.
First, Brian now acknowledges that the "Intelligent Design model"
does specifiy a "mechanism". This is in contradistinction to
naturalistic evolution which has no specified mechanism, eg. for
"prebiotic evolution."
BH>Earlier we were discussing panspermia and you mentioned that you
>were confident that a civilization capable of designing and building
>interstellar space craft would also likely be able to create life.
>So, what I'm interested in knowing is what mechanisms would such a
>civilization use to create life. If you can't specifiy these then
>this panspermia variant is, according to your line of reasoning
>above, vacuous.
No again. An advanced civilization would presumably create life in the same
way that naturalistists believe they will one day be able to do it,
with intelligent design:
"But supposing that life could originate in the laboratory already
hinted in the Miller-Urey experiment? What should our judgment if
some day a scientist actually makes a living cell or something akin
to an amoeba? Men used to believe that man could change or duplicate
only the inorganic, for only God could make living creatures and
their products. But since the synthesis of urea a good number of
organic compounds have been created and the entire debate ceased.
Even the staunchest hyper-orthodox would hardly reopen this debate.
If man can think God's thoughts after Him, why is it incredible that
man can do some of God's works after Him?" (Ramm B.L., "The
Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster: London, 1955,
p183)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------