From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 23:15:12 EDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: <richard@biblewheel.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Cambrian Explosion
> richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi George.
> >
> > In post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0503.html you cited an
> > article in Perspectives, March 2001, "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's
> > Functional Integrity." Is this available online?
> >
> > Also, I would be interested in your take on my formulation of the
argument
> > in post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0514.html Here's the
gist
> > of it:
> >
> > >1) Observations reveal fine-tuning of the universe (Tegmark even takes
> > >this for granted).
> > >2) Observations of biogenesis have never occurred.
> >
> > >ID Theory conforms to both observations #1 and #2.
> > >RFEP Theory conforms only to #1 and asserts quite
> > >optimistically that observations will "someday" support biogenesis.
> >
> > >ID is therefore more in accord with current scientific observations.
> >
> > Do you think this is a good argument? If not, why not?
>
> My article to which I referred is available online. Go to the ASA website
&
> find the listing of Perspective articles by author.
>
> Not a lot of time right now since I'm getting ready to leave for the ASA
> meeting. But briefly, no, I don't think it's a good argument. The ID
argument appeals
> to unmediated divine action to do things that are beyond the capacity of
created
> agencies. By one classical definition that means "miracle," though we
need not use that
> term. Anyway, such an appeal can explain _any_ unexplained phenomenon.
But it isn't
> science.
> I won't argue for use of the pejorative phrase "God of the gaps" but I'm
hardly
> convinced by Dembski's claim that ID isn't an appeal to GoG because "the
gap is not
> methodological but ontological." I see no basis for that claim.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
I see your point, but I think it is based on a simple oversite. I'm not
talking about some observations we have no explanation for. If that were the
case, your criticism would be valid, IMHO.
I am talking about something much more powerful. I'm talking about the fact
that no one has ever observed biogenesis anywhere at anytime. It has never
been seen in nature and no one has been able to produce it in the lab. The
point is not that we don't have an explanation for biogenesis through
natural processes, the point is that no one has ever observed naturalistic
biogenesis at all. This means that naturalistic biogenesis is *purely
hypothetical* and completely unsupported by scientific observation, and this
means that any theory fundamentally based on naturalistic biogenesis is
founded on air.
The RFEP is fundamentally based on the assertion of biogenesis through
natural processes. It is therefore founded on a hypothetical process that
has never been observed.
Does this make sense? Or am I missing something?
Thanks for your help, George.
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 23:11:47 EDT