From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 14:34:53 EDT
Hi Howard. Re post: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0542.html
>"could not or would not..."? I make no argument re "could not or would
not."
>That's putting words into my mouth. I am simply stating my own
>presuppositions as plainly as I can, without giving a long explanation re
>reasons for choosing those presuppositions.
And a little later:
>In the context of this thread, OK. I don't recall claiming any more than
that.
Thanks for the clarification. I had initially mistook your "statement of
presuppositions" for an *argument* against ID.
>Of course not. But in choosing presuppositions, logical consistency is not
>the only or primary consideration. It would be just as logically consistent
>to replace #2 with the proposition, "Each biblical 'kind' was independently
>created by God." However, I think we would agree that such a proposition
>deserves evaluation on the basis of other than purely logical
>considerations.
Agreed, of course. The issue for me was that I thought you were asserting a
true logical inconsistency in the IDer's use of ID, when if fact you spoke
specifically of "inconsistency in the rhetoric" (cf.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0482.html)
It appears now that your real argument is more aesthetic and philosophical
than logicical (which is certainly fine with me, I use these arguments in my
own work - cf. my article Fearful Symmetry,
http://www.BibleWheel.com/RR/AZ_Fearful.asp).
>> 1) The Universe had to be fine-tuned for life-supporting chemistry,
stars,
>> etc.
>"Had to be"? What evidence is there for the necessity of fine-tuning? If
you
>want to be precise, there is only evidence that the fine-tuning hypothesis
>provides a satisfying scientific explanation for the properties and
>parameter values observed.
The "had to be" was intended as "short hand" for the general fine tuning
argument. Obviously, I would have to develop it well beyond a one-liner if I
were really going to argue it. :-)
>One could, with the logical consistency that you proclaim so valuable ...
Hehe - are you suggesting an alternative to logical consistency? But
seriously, I understand and *appreciate* your point. Logic is a very limited
mode of cognition that is utterly blind to vast vistas of human experience.
It seems we may be in strong agreement here.
Concerning biogenesis:
>But, of course, your #2 appeals only to a lack of evidence. You could craft
>a book full of loony hypotheses and declare that none of them were
>contradicted by #2. Not a big victory there for ID.
This seems to be a continuation of my discussion with George. Somehow,
people have lost sight of the fact that science is based on evidence. In
science, *lack of evidence* is generally considered to be a BIG problem.
Evidence is the essence of Science. How is it that people are so will to
minimize the utterly overwhelming and complete lack of evidence for
naturalistic biogenesis? It is false to assert that we simply lack an
*explanation* for naturalistic biogenesis. The fact is that no one has ever
*observed* biogenesis in nature or in the lab. It therefore is *purely
hypothetical* and has no basis in scientific observation. Yes, we know that
biogenesis happened at least once in the past, but we do not have any
reason, outside of presuppositions like the RFEP, to believe it is a natural
phenomenon. It seems clear that current scientific observations support my
conclusion.
Good talking Howard,
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 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 14:31:45 EDT