Hello Art. Good point.
It seems to me that there are individuals on both sides that over
play their hand, so to speak. For example, a creationist might
C1: "It's impossible for IC systems to arise naturally."
to which an evolutionist may reasonably respond
R1: "Please provide support for this claim."
Likewise, an evolutionist might claim:
C2: "IC systems can arise naturally"
with identical response (R1).
I would tend to agree that if this claim cannot be supported
then it is a statement of faith.
OK, my first question is to suppose that neither claim can be
supported at present (yes, there's always hope for the future:).
What conclusion should one draw?
Before attempting to answer this I think its important to
observe that C1 and C2 are not really reciprocal claims.
Reciprocals would be:
R_C1: "It's impossible for IC systems to be intelligently designed."
R_C2: "IC systems can arise by intelligent design."
OK, I don't know many evolutionists who would make the R_C1
claim. The interesting thing is that R_C2 seems to be taken
axiomatically. If an evolutionist is required to support
C2 then why wouldn't an IC'er be required to support R_C2?
Another point to bear in mind is that "arise naturally" and
"intelligently designed" are not automatically mutually
exclusive and so the definition of ID used in support of
R_C2 needs to be such that it *is* mutually exclusive.
OK, now back to my question. Suppose that none of the
claims C1, C2, R_C1, R_C2 can, at present, be supported.
What to conclude?
The Ohio State University