Behe's position is one of contradiction. Darwinism says nothing about
if there was a designer or not and if one accepts that front loading
is compatible with purposeful design then so is Darwinism. That
Darwinism proposes natural processes that do not require guidance or
planning is not different from the universe unfolded exclsively by the
intended playing out of natural laws.
What ID has to show is that the initial conditions require a designer,
of course when shown to be wrong, ID can easily move its goalposts
once again.
So what does ID contribute to our knowledge? Not much I'd say.
On 7/24/07, John Walley <john@walley-world.org> wrote:
>
>
> Those who worry about "interference" should relax. The purposeful design of life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of natural laws. The purposeful design of life is also fully compatible with the idea of universal common descent, one important facet of Darwin's theory. What the purposeful design of life is not compatible with, however, is Darwin's proposed mechanism of evolution–random variation and natural selection–which sought to explain the development of life explicitly with out recourse to guidance or planning by anyone or anything at any time.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 25 12:33:27 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 25 2007 - 12:33:27 EDT