RE: Breaking through Darwinism's Defenses

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:37:42 -0700

Stephen :<<The first flaw is a case of misdirection. Evolutionists often contrast natural and supernatural causes and since they exclude the supernatural because of the limits of science, they are left with only natural causes. No one disputes that miracles are unique events and that we cannot put God under a
microscope. But does this limit us to only natural causes when we enter the realm of science? Evolutionists would like us to think so. However, they are overlooking something.>>

Are they ? Please provide us with a scientific theory of supernatural causes

Stephen : <<Consider your own experience. When you go for a drive in the country, it is readily apparent which fields are wild and which ones are cultivated. You probably have observed the wind scatter dandelion and maple seeds, and you probably have seen farmers plant seeds. Through experiences like
these, we learn that intelligent agents and natural forces are very different in what they are capable of doing. This is why we often can tell whether impersonal forces or intelligent agents caused an event simply by looking at the results.>>

And knowing that farmers farm. But how do we recognize the actions intelligent agents when we are not able to recognize these agents ? They as well as their actions remain beyond scrutiny of science.

Stephen : <<Take the example of archeologists who come across a statue buried in the ground. They do not assume that only natural forces were involved in producing the statue. If someone insisted that wind and water erosion, cracking due to freezing water, and other natural forces must have created the statue, people would say, "He's overlooking the obvious. The statue was carved by an intelligent agent.">>

Only because we know that the making of statues has been an action of the intelligent agent.

Stephen : <<Evolutionists insist that life developed through a process involving only natural forces and random events. But how do they know that no intelligent planning and activity were involved in the history of life? >>

They don't. But there are some who do invokle intelligent planning, just not supernatural planning.

Stephen: << Similarly does not the enormous complexity of living things suggest the need for intelligent planning and activity, and therefore the need for a Designer?>>

Nope. A logical fallacy that complexity equals the need for a designer. We are very well aware of the evidence that complexity does not need a designer. So the argument falls flat on its face. Furthermore if complexity itself is the only 'evidence' suggesting a designer/intelligence then it fails. Perhaps additional evidence could help us out here. Evidence that the earth was visited by aliens is a start.