From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 16:27:59 EDT
> >>However, if Darwinian biologists are *not* able to reasonably line out
> in
> detail *some* complex biological designs it will prove ID.>>
>
> I don't think so. That's a GOG (God of the Gaps) argument.
I don't see that. If after all their good work, accounting for some types
of complexity by a naturalistic mechanisms seems intractable to scientists
then their logical conclusion would be that there must be some other
causative agent involved. Whether taking the next step to speculate on that
agent leads to a GOG argument depends on how one sees physical reality.
It's not a GOG argument if physical reality is not ontologically independent
with intrinsic properties but rather its regularities are the explicit
activity of God to maintain stability and order. GOG presupposes a reality
that runs on its own with intrinsic properties but that is purely a
metaphysical speculation. It can't be empirically proven either way.
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W Burgeson" <jwburgeson@juno.com>
To: <steve@spetermann.org>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: RFEP & ID
> >>However, if Darwinian biologists are *not* able to reasonably line out
> in
> detail *some* complex biological designs it will prove ID.>>
>
> I don't think so. That's a GOG (God of the Gaps) argument.
>
> Burgy
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 27 2003 - 16:30:46 EDT