>Non-naturalism seems to be simply a waste of time and mind.
Not when it helps us to better understand the world.
>Even if we could
>prove that abiogenesis and macroevolution are impossible on Earth, would we
>need a non-naturalistic alternative? No. As I pointed out, contrary to
>Jones' claim, naturalism does not imply or require evolution. Evolution is
>natural to it, but not necessary. He would also have to disprove a multitude
>of *other* non-naturalistic theories.
If a naturalist rejects abiogenesis/evolution, what are his alternatives?
A naturalistic designer. Chance. What else?
>But, so far, even invalidating
>abiogenesis and macroevolution has proved to be too much for the
>"Intelligent Design" folks.
My concern is with abiogenesis. And I have no burden to invalidate it
simply because it has not been validated. In fact, since it is so weakly
supported, I'm not sure why so many believe in it (apart from the need to
believe in it due to metaphysical considerations, that is).
>The best they have done is point out what was
>accepted all along: That we can't be absolutely certain that abiogenesis
>occurred or that macroevolution is just longer stretches of
Just because you expect absolute certainty from a design inference is no
reason to think an ID person demands absolute certainty for abiogenesis.
If you have some evidence that abiogenesis occurred, let's hear it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 21 2000 - 00:40:19 EST