Re: [asa] Proof That Common Descent is NOT Begging the Question

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> Of course, then there is the pragmatic angle. If science requires a set of
> examples of known designed and known undesigned life, since we don't have
> such a set, science cannot determine whether or not life was designed. And
> if science requires a certain amount of knowledge about the designer, and we
> don't have this knowledge, science cannot determine whether or not life was
> designed.

Life's unfair but if we cannot formulate scientific hypotheses then
science is unable to address these issues. So at best we can accept a
'we don't know' position here. But that's hardly science's fault.
Science does have a hard time dealing with unconstrained explanations
and when such explanations are combined with an eliminative approach
you have a recipe for disaster.

Of course, what if God revealed himself and showed us how He created?
Of course, given His words to 'Doubting' Thomas, perhaps faith without
evidence is far more valued that faith with evidence.

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Perhaps ID not only remains scientifically vacuous but could easily be
seen as theologically problematic. After all, what's faith when it is
based on scientific facts?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 13 01:47:22 2008