From: Richard McGough (richard@biblewheel.com)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 21:43:12 EDT
Hi Howard, I had written
>
>> ID-biogenesis *predicts* the current state of scientific observations
>> whereas abiogenesis is contradicted by it.
>
To which you replied
>Sorry, my baloney detector just went off. The noise is deafening.
>
I retracted this point when Glen Morton called me on it. But it is fascinating that he went on to say that "ID-biogenesis deduces God/THE DESIGNER from observational data--design, information, structure...." Do you agree with this? Is ID-biogenesis based on scientific observations, as stated by Glen Morton?
Re: metaphors based on processed meat by-products: I know (from experience on this board, no less!) that it can be frustrating when someone fails to agree with what seems obvious. Let me quote Jim Armstrong and his remonstration to me when I erred in a similar way: (cf. http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0538.html)
"Perhaps there's just a slightly more respectful way to engage and learn from one another."
>ID theory has no way whatsoever of predicting which particular portions of
>the universe's formational economy would be missing. No way whatsoever. Deal
>with it. Your claims re prediction are empty.
>
You may be right on this point Howard. I will need to reflect on it more though. Perhaps you could help by pointing me to the flaw in the idea of irreducible complexity. Is this not an area that ID would *predict* to be missing in the formational economy of the universe? If not, why not?
>ID has opportunity to introduce the ID hypothesis (fundamentally, its
>version of deus ex machina) only when the current state of scientific
>knowledge is inadequate to craft a causally specific account of some biotic
>phenomenon.
>(Furthermore, that causally specific account must be
>sufficiently detailed to satisfy the most AR of ID theorists.)
>
>ID theory is built on appeal to ignorance, and it's high time that ID
>proponents demonstrated the courage to admit it.
>
>Howard Van Till
>
I think I understand your point, but there is one huge problem with it. Suppose for the sake of argument that true science is actually asymptotically defining areas of divine activity (e.g. biogenesis, fine tuning, aspects of evolution, etc.). Exactly how should a scientist deal with this possiblity?
Thanks for your patient efforts Howard. I very much appreciate the discussion.
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 - 21:48:49 EDT