Janice, (quoting a third party) misses the point here namely that
evolution explains the data without much additional assumptions while
creationism has to make assumptions about motivations of the designer,
something which they just cannot or will not do. Of course the
designer could have mimicked what follows naturally from natural
processes, the designer is after all unconstrained by our imagination,
and thus as such a meaningless scientific explanation.
Seems to me that much of the 'argument' about homology and common
descent is yet another strawman and an argument with major logical
flaws.
On 7/19/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
<quote>
For example, take homology and the common genetic code. The
naturalistic solution is to say that creatures had a common ancestor.
The creationist solution is to say that they had a common designer.
Now, on the face of it, one cannot argue for either solution without
begging the question (i.e. circular reasoning). However, in order to
tip the scales, the Darwinists would argue that the common designer
hypothesis can't be true since (according to their idealistic Natural
Theology view of God) God would never repeat a pattern but rather make
everything different and beautiful. Of course, the argument: a.) is
personal, subjective, and emotive, b.) is an argument against a rival
theory rather than for the proposed theory [making it a
"god-of-the-gaps" (or shall I say "chance-of-the-gaps") argument], and
c.) assumes that God's sole purpose in Creation was aesthetic.
</quote>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 21 13:08:33 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 21 2007 - 13:08:37 EDT