Re: Who's Burden of Proof?

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:33:11 -0600
>Your suggestion of "random" mutation is a metaphysical leap that would have
>to be defended. This is a key point. If the real philosophic/scientific
>question of intelligent or non-intelligent design comes down to inference to
>the best explanation then what is the basis for the idea that mutations are
>random or unintelligent? How would that be defended?

WE can't predict the weather because there are round-off errors in any computer model of the atmosphere that we would like to create. And if you could know all the particle positions and velocities you still wouldn't be able to predict the weather because the round-off errors become eventually the heisenberg uncertainties. Those uncertainties are random and that is why quantum computing was brought up. The world is built upon a big random number generator--quantum mechanics.
>
>Clearly mutation and selection in biology does create designs. Is this
>associated with an ongoing intelligent design process? From my prior posts,
>the best inference from our own experience would say yes.

One could say that it is due to design. See Gordon Simons and my letter in the Dec. PSCF. Chance and design are not incompatible, but there is a huge prejudice against chance among the Christians because they think (mistakenly) that God is smaller than chance and they think mistakenly, that God can't create or use a random number generator which computer programmers use (in their design of games) all the time.
Received on Sat Nov 29 11:26:47 2003