<<For your own sake, you should make it clear to people that you're
starting with the theoretical/non-empirical assumption not shared by
most scientists that abiogensis is either impossible or extraordinarily
unlikely.>>
I've been around here a long time, and by now most people know where I stand
on these assumptions. Part of the joy of this reflector is interacting with
people you know, and have known over a long period of time. Most messages are
posted in that context. You don't have to spell everything out every time.
It's a like a small community. I'm the town crier, Glenn is the
village....wait a minute, I almost typed something I shouldn't have.
[Note to Glenn--I couldn't resist, so I deserve to be put in the stocks]
<<I doubt there's one scientist in a hundred who would have
been able to make sense of your argument without your making explicit
that hidden premise, since that is not a premise widely shared>>
Hmm, that doesn't say much about the perspicacity of most scientists.
Personally, I think you're wrong here. I'd give them much more credit than
this.
<< Now -I- know with certainty that you aren't =
dumb, so I was able to figure out the hidden premise.>>
I wouldn't be so certain of the first statement, and as to the second, you
prove my point. I don't think my "hidden premise" was all that hidden. In the
context of this reflector, you didn't have much trouble figuring it out.
But yes, it should be made absolutely clear as we get on with the discussion.
Your point is well taken. Without those assumptions being spelled out, it does
get us all speaking at cross purposes.
Given the competing assumptions, I believe that naturalists are FORCED into
their position, and must secure wiggle room by saying: "There MUST be a
naturalistic explanation for this highly unlikely event, we just haven't found
it yet." I've always had trouble with this line.
Thanks for your clarifying thoughts.
Jim