Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 8A from Timaeus - to Randy Isaac

"All analogies I've heard relate to situations where humans are the
design agent. We have no analogies of cases where non-humans (and/or
non-animals) are the design agent and we have no basis to extrapolate
our analogies to such a supposition.
"

I either disagree or I don't understand you here.

Consider the very real non-human case where a bird decorates its nest.
We have no problem inferring "intelligent agent" in that case, even
though the agent is clearly not human.

"If ruling out "gaps" means that we've ruled out the way in which ID
detects design, then how is it that ID is not a "god of the gaps"
argument for having detected design? If ID is indeed not a "god of the
gaps" argument, then how does it detect design in living cells in the
scenario without gaps?
"

ID only has to detect the POSSIBILITY of such an even; the possibility
of it being natural remains. Their argument, which I am becoming more
comfortable with, is that neither possibility should be ruled out and
that both can lead to new research programmes.. For awhile, I
disbelieved the latter; now I do not.

Burgy (still "id" and not yet "ID."

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.