Eduardo G. Moros (
Mon, 29 Sep 1997 04:37:00 -0500

Just wanted to clarify a couple of things here since I think my statement is out
of context. NOBODY can show me someting in nature that is not at the same time
an evidence of a great designer. So I don't believe there are *plenty* of "great
designer" evidence. All nature is more than plenty.

I loved your comment about the Darwinian theories and their peripheral allies
which "a creative scientist can use to retroductively explain almost anything".
It's so true. I call this 'historrific story-telling' or 'scientirrific
theorization'. Many times when reading "science" I have the annoying sensation
I'm reading science fiction.


Craig Rusbult wrote:

> Eduardo Moros says,
> >So I don't understand why anybody can point to certain unexplained
> >or unexplainable mechanism in nature and say, "see? there is proof of
> >the great designer".
> I agree that there is no "proof" -- but there is plenty of "great
> designer" evidence to think about, to wonder about. Modern scientists have
> given up a quest for epistemological certainty; instead of looking for
> "proof" they are willing to settle for "a good way to bet" -- and "theistic
> action" theories should be seriously considered when evaluating the
> betting-odds for "matter in motion" theories. { Here, I think the
> distinction between INTRINSIC STATUS and RELATIVE STATUS is useful; even if
> a theory is the best available "scientific" theory, it can still have a low
> intrinsic status, especially if an ID-theory (even if it is considered
> non-scientific) seems to be more plausible. }
> Craig R