On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:43:49 EDT, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>>SJ>It never occurs to Darwinists (because it *cannot* occur to them while
>>they remain materialist-naturalists), that there is another node on the
>>explanatory filter that scientists like archaeologists, forensic scientists
>>and exobiologists recognise and use all the time, namely: 3. intelligent
>>design!
H4>I was unaware that archaeologists and forensic scientists recognose the
>supernatural agent of 'intelligent design,' which is , of course, what you
>are implying.
It is *not* what I am implying at all. I used "intelligent design" in lower
case. When I mean supernatural intelligent design I capitalise it.
My claim was merely that mainstream science already recognises intelligent
design. It makes no difference *in principle* whether the intelligent design
was human, alien, or even time-travellers.
However clearly intelligent design before the advent of humans (or hominids)
can only be only either alien, time-travel, or supernatural
But alien and time-travel hypotheses are less satisfactory than supernatural,
because another hypothesis is required to account for the origin of the aliens
or time-travellers!
Moreover, there is no hard evidence for aliens or time-travellers, while there
is hard evidence for the supernatural (eg. Jesus). But of course demonstrating
the latter would take us off-topic.
H4>Do you have any evidence that archaeologists have ascribed
>buildership of some ancient ruins to the Hebrew Tribal God (the one I presume
>you prefer over all others)? Of a forensic scientist putting the blame for,
>say, a murder on an angel?
See above.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"When we consider a human work, we believe we know where the
`intelligence' which fashioned it comes from; but when a living being is
concerned, no one knows or ever knew, neither Darwin nor Epicurus,
neither Leibniz nor Aristotle, neither Einstein nor Parmenides. An act of
faith is necessary to make us adopt one hypothesis rather than another.
Science, which does not accept any credo, or in any case should not,
acknowledges its ignorance, its inability to solve this problem which, we
are certain, exists and has reality. If to determine the origin of information
in a computer is not a false problem, why should the search for the
information contained in cellular nuclei be one?" (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution
of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation,"
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------