From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 07:36:50 EDT
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>
> ----- 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.
1) The best evidence indicates that there was no life on earth ~ 4 x 10^9 years
ago and that there was life ~3 x 10^9 yrs ago. Therefore (barring panspermia which
doesn't settle any fundamental questions) biogenesis took place. The question is how.
2) If we're going to talk about basic assumptions I'd prefer to argue for my
own rather than Howard's. In particular, I think it's important to give some attention
to basic _theological_ assumptions - something most people in this discussion, &
especially the IDers, avoid. While my approach has some important things in common with
Howard's, it differs from it in crucial (pun intended) ways. Thus I'm not going to
argue for RFEP.
This will have to be my last on this for a few days.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 07:38:09 EDT