OK, let's have a look:
On tuesday Feb 27 you wrote:
SJ:===
>>Once it is admitted that the "origin of life" did not happen by
>>"chance", then there is no justification for believe that it was
>>"evolution" that "began after the origin of life". It could just as
>>easily have been progressive creation, ie. an Intelligent Designer
>>guiding and controlling an "evolutionary" process in furtherance of a
>>purpose.
>=========
I had a hard time following you [as usual ;-)] so I wrote
on Thursday, Feb 29:
BH:=======
>Sorry, I don't understand this line of reasoning at all.
>
==========
And you clarified as follows on Wed March 13:
SJ:========
>If the intervantion of an Intelligent Designer was necessary for the
>origin of life, such intervention cannot be ruled out in the
>development of that same life.
>==========
It seems to me that this makes your position absolutely clear.
Why is the intervention of an Intelligent Designer necessary?
Because it has been admitted that the origin of life did not
happen by chance. It is clear that I interpretted your
statement in this way when I wrote on Sun. March 17:
BH:=====================
The realization that the origin of life did not occur by chance
does not in any way suggest that the intervention of an Intelligent
Designer was necessary. Would we agree that the orbit of the earth
about the sun is not determined by chance? Does this require the
intervention of an Intelligent Designer?
========================
Also, still contained in the context of this thread (see above)
we have your statement:
SJ: I still maintain that "there were only two alternatives,
chance and intelligent design".
We see then that I have not put words in your mouth. You slipped
the noose around your own neck and now your trying to slip it
back off. To make matters worse you try to blame me. I don't
see any point in discussing this further. If you won't take
responsibility for your own arguments and admit when they have
been refuted then I'm just wasting my time.
>BH>A couple of points here. First, the role that laymen might play
>>in science has been discussed recently in another thread and
>>some in this thread as well. My own view is that anyone can
>>participate in science and in discussions about science. However,
>>they cannot use their laymanship as a crutch or as an excuse
>>for faulty arguments or ignorance, i.e. if you want to play
>>you better be prepared, know your stuff, and when someone
>>attacks your position, no whining.
>
SJ:======
>First, your tagline says you are an "Associate Professor" of "Applied
>Mechanics". This means in discussions of the origin of life and
>evolution, you are just as much a "layman" as I am:
>
Yes, of course, I've never pretended otherwise. In fact, I have
been careful to point this out on several occasions.
[...]
========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================