Re: DNA sequence space

From: Terry M. Gray <>
Date: Sun Oct 02 2005 - 00:22:08 EDT


#1 is disputable. By no means a clear picture. Pim provided some
recent work in the area. ID folks claim that "science is giving us a
clear picture", but it's mere assertion. (BTW, there is no such thing
as an "unguided naturalistic process".)

I still want to know what you mean by "detectable creation via
secondary causes or primary causes, or some combination". Help me out


On Oct 1, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> Terry:
>> Your bottom line argument, as I see it here, is that, I can't
>> explain how the code originated given what I know now, so I
>> conclude that God did it using extraordinary means. Can you tell
>> me at what point do we "give up" on "naturalistic" explanations?
>> How do we decide not only that we don't know, but that we will
>> never know?
> This is a caricature of evolution skepticism and ID. Something more
> representative would be:
> 1. Science is giving us a clear picture that it is unlikely that
> the DNA code evolved via unguided naturalistic processes as
> evolutionists maintain is true.
> 2. It is clearly a reasonable move either (i) to consider
> alternatives, such as detectable creation via secondary causes or
> primary causes, or some combination, or (ii) to deweight the origin
> question and focus more on a design theory that does align itself
> to a particular origin theory.
> 3. In all of this we are not (i) giving up on naturalistic
> explanations--those are always in the offing, or (ii) trying to
> prove the existence of God. We also are not mandating a priori's,
> such as that divine action must be via law-like processes, or
> undetectable.
> --Cornelius

Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Sun Oct 2 00:24:01 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 00:24:01 EDT