Re: Intelligent design vs. natural selection
David Campbell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:36:07 -0400
Snipping prior messages...
Pattle Pun wrote:
>If patterns are discovered that are unique to each of the three
>urkingdoms, i.e. the signiture sequences in rRNA that cannot be explained
>by any naturalistic mechanisms, the better hypothesis would be it was put
>together under a "design", or irreducible complexity, to use Behe's famous
>buzz word. The same arguments are put forth to suggest that the origin of
>life from non living is by "design", not by naturalistic mechanisms since
>there are none. This is not "God of the Gap", since the hypothesis can be
>tested and further experiments can be done to check out what that
>"pattern" of "irreducible complexity" is designed for.
Given that the three urkingdoms have been distinct for at least about 3.5
billion years, unique features had plenty of time to evolve in each of
them. What exactly is it that cannot be explained non-miraculously and why
can't it be explained?
I don't think it's safe to say "no naturalistic explanation is
possible." Some atheists express excessive confidence that they will be
found, but that does not justify the reverse error. Since God is
omnipotent, He could have caused life to arise by the secondary cause of
natural laws. There are enough improbable "coincidences" necessary for
life to exist that atheists should be worried, but the claim "we're just
incredibly lucky" cannot be disproven scientifically because it is not a
scientific claim. [This touches on the issues John and Glenn have been
discussing-evidence should not be contrary to our claims, but the ultimate
basis for Christianity is faith].