From: Michael Roberts (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 18:15:56 EDT
> I don't see that. If after all their good work, accounting for some
> of complexity by a naturalistic mechanisms seems intractable to scientists
> then their logical conclusion would be that there must be some other
> causative agent involved.
No! The most reasonable conclusion is that we must look for more evidence
and wait and see. Biochemistry is too new a science to have all the answers
at present. E.g. when my father puriefied sufficient lysosyme for Florey to
see whether it could be an antibiotic in 1937 (it couldnt) future Nobel
laureatte Dorothy Hodglkin estimated its molecular wt as 16,000. Its
structure was not worked out til 1965. Since then various pathways have been
What was intractable in 1937 or 1965 is not now , but there are still
ID and especially Behe fails to realise this
Whether taking the next step to speculate on that
> agent leads to a GOG argument depends on how one sees physical reality.
> It's not a GOG argument if physical reality is not ontologically
> with intrinsic properties but rather its regularities are the explicit
> activity of God to maintain stability and order. GOG presupposes a
> that runs on its own with intrinsic properties but that is purely a
> metaphysical speculation. It can't be empirically proven either way.
To me ID jumps to GOG in a vain hope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 02:08:26 EDT