From: Richard McGough (richard@biblewheel.com)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 12:51:05 EDT
Hi Glen,
>Richard wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>>Behalf Of Richard McGough
>
>>ID-biogenesis *predicts* the current state of scientific
>>observations whereas abiogenesis is contradicted by it.
>
>I strongly disagree. ID-biogenesis deduces God/THE DESIGNER from
>observational data--design, information, structure.... It therefore
>retrodicts God (or the little green men they cavalierly use to avoid the
>charge that they are purely religious). In no way does ID predict anything.
Excellent point Glen. I had it backwards. I will agree (subject to my limited understanding of the claims of ID) that "ID-biogenesis deduces God/THE DESIGNER from observational data--design, information, structure...."
But doesn't this contradict Howard's variation on my demonstation of the Aphenomenon of Abiogenesis? What I mean is, Howard seems to have asserted that ID-biogenesis and abiogenesis are on *equal* evidental footing in that neither is based on scientific evidence. Now you have corrected me by reminding me that ID-biogenesis *does* rest on solid scientific evidence. This seems to leave abiogenesis out in the cold. Is this correct? Is ID-biogenesis the only game in town?
>If the designer is a little green man, lacking omnipotence, why would we
>expect the world to have the form it does?
>
If we discover that ID is true, I have little doubt we could dispatch the possibility of little green men with litte effort. If ID is false, we have no need to. Your point is therefore mute.
Good talking Glen,
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 : Sat Jul 26 2003 - 12:56:41 EDT