I guess one way to appreciate the point of Dr. PEJ, IMO, is to
consider the following:
1. Suppose for a moment that MN does not apply to the original
formation of the most fundamental self-replicating living units
because God in fact create them de novo, so that all forms of life did
consequently "emerge" (mediated creation) from the waters and the dust
2. If 1. is true (our assumption) just in that isolated case then
one can ask: is evolution (as defined by Dawkins et al., that is,
purely naturalistic evolution) true all the way from the big bang to
the present day? The right answer would be "not" because of 1.
Now, assumption 1. "could" be indeed true. In fact, we have no way of
denying assumption 1. or any similar possibility/case by current
scientific knowledge. However, possibilities such as 1. are denied a
priori by MN (PEJ's argument). In that sense, strict MN, although it
may be the most effective way to do science, restricts other possible
lines of scientific inquiry (and says that God, if he indeed exists
and acts, is irrevelant as far as scientific inquiry is concerned)
such as ID.
I hope this helps
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com