Re: Bill Buckingham testifies in Dover...

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 11:18:38 EST

janice matchett wrote:

> At 08:58 AM 11/2/2005, Ted Davis wrote:
>> /"When the whole argument is about whether or not the a priori
>> restriction against intelligence is appropriate, then it isn't an
>> answer just to say that intelligence isn't the answer--but that's the
>> answer a lot of scientists will give. ..."/
> ### Exactly.
> "God *couldn't have* done it" is a premise fit for an extremist.
> Yet that same extremist will make fun of the one who says, "God *must
> have* done it".

God couldn't have done it is as "extreme" as God must have done it.
Neither one, scientifically speaking has any relevance.
However, there are some real problems here. First of all, there are no a
priori restrictions against intelligence. But 'God did it' is no
scientific answer since there is no way to constrain what God can or
cannot do.
It's scientifically vacuous. Just like intelligent design as presently
formulated in an eliminative format.
Received on Wed Nov 2 11:20:21 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 11:20:21 EST