On Sat, 12 Aug 1995 23:23:21 -0400 (EDT) you wrote:
GS>Stephen, what you write seems a non sequitur:
SJ>"If no known 100% naturalistic mechanism can account for the
>rapidity and direction of the changes documented in the fossil record,
>then it seems a valid scientific inference that Intelligent Design was
>involved."
LH>If no *known* 100% naturalistic mechanism can account for the
>rapidity and direction of the changes documented in the fossil record,
>time and new ideas might solve the naturalist's problem - and then
>what you call a "valid scientific inference" evaporates.
Agreed. Isn't that what science is all about? Risky, falsifiable,
predictions? :-)
GS>In my lexicon, a "valid scientific inference" is not so fragile.
Note,
>I am not denying the possibility of Intelligent Design - simply your
>conclusion, which does seem unwarranted.
Why? How else are we ever to know that God has acted supernaturally,
if
it is not be assuming no natural cause? Jesus repeatedly used this
type of argument to prove that He was from God (Jn 10:37,38; 14:11).
This servant
is not above his Master (Mt 10:24) :-)
GS>Of course, if you remove the word "known", what you are left with
does
>seem valid - but close to a tautology.
Without the "known" it *would* be a tautology! :-)
I know it might be hard for those trained in the naturalistic
scientific
paradigm to understand it, but to those of us not so trained, the
lack of
plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and the
sudden
appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record, is strong evidence for
some form of creation.
Thanks for your input. God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------