I see the argument as more of a "transcendental argument" which I
take as different, and more potentially cogent, than a mere analogical
argument. A transcendental argument begins with given states (e.g. data)
and asks what would be NECESSARY in order for these states to be as they
are? Pure chance and mutational selection are judged as insufficient
explanations. What are the other options? Maybe something else is possible
beside intelligent design, but intelligent design is offered as an
hypothesis which posits the necessary condition for the existence of known
states of affairs (e.g. specified complexity). It seems to me that this
approach cannot be summarily dismissed because it is just an analogy.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rich Knopp, M.Div., Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics
Lincoln Christian College and Seminary
Lincoln, IL. 62656
"If God didn't exist, He would want us not to believe in Him."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *