> Steve Clark writes:
>
> <<Jim's claim that this exciting finding (if confirmed) damages evolution
> suggests that he does not fully understand the use of hypotheses and data in
> science. This has been a significant criticism of Phil Johnson as well.>>
>
> It's comforting to know that Prof. Clark is around to eradicate our ignorance.
> I was picking parasites off my body just the other day, reflecting how I wish
> I fully understood things as well as the gatekeepers at the University of
> Wisconsin. The term "priesthood fallacy" popped into my head, but I quickly
> shunted it aside, realizing I probably don't fully understand what it means.
>
> <<The appearance of life elswhere does not disprove evolutionary science,
> rather it adds novel data that must be accounted for in any model of
> evolution.>>
>
> The crucial part is "must be accounted for in any model of evolution." That is
> the restriction naturalism erects. So, from a naturalistic framework, one HAS
> to say, "See! This is not a blow at all!"
>
> But the group of theistic realists, watching the emperor march down the
> street, keep asking why he isn't wearing any pants. The naturalists quickly
> say, "Hush! You can't ask that question! You don't fully understand..."
Gee, that's what I was thinking when I read your post earlier. The
"intelligent design emperor" isn't wearing anything, and darn he needs to
lose weight.
Contrary to what you said, you didn't not ask a question in your previous
post. You _said_ it was damaging to evolution. You _said_ it was
further evidence of design. I think it's a fair question to ask if it
damages evolution, and the answer is "no" for the data we now have. I
know you don't like it, but that's your problem. As for design, you
claimed it, but didn't even try to support it. Hmm, where's the clothes?
Tom