From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:12:09 EDT
>From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
> I'm still at a loss to understand why C-12 would be any different than the
> other elements.
You're correct, it's not.
> I understand its centrality in the formation of Life, but I
> do not understand why the IDers wouldn't just solve this problem by
> asserting the evolution of elements through natural processes as a
> *consequence* of fine-tuning the universe.
In fact, that's the ID strategy for inanimate things like C-12. But to do
that, however, they have to change the meaning of their key tern,
"intelligent design." To put it as succinctly as possible, for inanimate
things and fine-tuning the ID argument is, "If the RFEP is true, then the
universe was 'intelligently designed' (meaning #1)." In the case of living
organisms, however, the ID argument is just the opposite, "If the RFEP is
false, then some living things must have been 'intelligently designed'
(meaning #2)." Heads I win, tails you lose.
> It seems very strange to assert
> that C-12 has to be "intelligently designed" especially in light of the fact
> that we could produce in the lab....
ID doesn't actually say that. It is the critics who ask the question about
C-12 to demonstrate the inconsistency in the rhetoric. (see previous answer)
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:13:52 EDT