Divine Feet are not only in the door, they're in the woods, too.
Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:31:25 -0700>>On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:15:29 -0700, Chris Cogan wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>Implicit in Susan's remark is another: Scientific method is not suited to
>>>the study of divine feet in the door. Scientific method uses a process of
>>>conjecture and refutation by empirical test of implications. What test
would
>>>you propose based on the presence of a divine foot in the door in the
midst
>>>of a theory of mechanics (say)? The scientist wants theories that imply
>>>things like: "If we measure this quantity, and it does NOT have THIS
value,
>>>then the theory is false." Or: "If we look in places where thus and so
>>>conditions are met, we will find fossilized whatsits." What similar test
of
>>>a divine foot would you propose?
>
>Steve Jones Wrote:
>
>>The point is that Lewontin would not even allow the Divine Foot in the
door
>>*no matter* what the "test" was. He (and all materialist-naturalists) rule
out
>>the "Divine foot" *absolutely* no matter what the evidence for it is. As
>>Johnson comments on this:
>
Susan Brassballs :-) Wrote:
>what you and Johnson seem to omit in this discussion is that there is no
>evidence at all for "divine feet. What *is* the evidence? Since you say "no
>matter what the evidence for it is" you seem to imply that you (or Johnson)
>have some. Can you share a few tidbits?
Chris ("Hulk Cogan") Cogan Wrote:
EVIDENCE????!!!??
Isn't "irreducible complexity" ENOUGH? (So what if it keeps getting reduced?
So what if it's just an argument from ignorance?)
And, don't forget the EYE. IT can't POSSIBLY be the product of evolution,
right?
Then there's all those "Big Foot" footprints. Aren't those proof that some
Designer has been wandering around in the woods, admiring his desings and
leaving "Divine Footprints"?
Chris