RE: Snoke's paper

From: Richard Fischer <dickfischer@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 19:14:34 EDT

Randy Isaac wrote:

First, just a short point on where I see the science in ID right now.
You rightly mention one area, which is the critique of evolutionary
mechanisms.

Anyone can criticize. And criticizing a scientific theory doesn't mean the criticism itself is science at all. Read Darwin on Trial and you'll see what I mean. The essence of ID is that certain organic structures are so complicated that natural processes alone couldn't have produced them. But if these things are designed by an intelligence then we should see the same design patterns occurring across phyla. We don't. The absence of similarly designed structures occurring in distantly related organisms is the evidence for no intelligent design in my opinion.

David Snoke wrote:

It is important to understand the two-sided nature of ID. It is not
just "I don't understand it, therefore it must be God." It is "theory
A doesn't have a good explanation, and theory B does."

What you are missing is that theory A has an explanation that is part of the process and weeds out the unworkable flotsam and jetsam, natural selection. The good stuff carries on because the bad stuff keeps getting weeded out. Using your example, theory B offers no mechanism at all except to say that some disembodied, super intelligence must have done it somehow. Or if you are sitting on that "good explanation," let's hear it.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Fri Aug 12 19:17:02 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 12 2005 - 19:17:03 EDT