Re: Dembski's "Explaining Specified Complexity"
MikeBGene@aol.com
Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:52:35 EDT>MikeBGene: After life exists, you seem to be saying that both the
>intervention of an intelligent agent and natural selection can explain
>similar attributes. Your argument then boils down to 'we can't be sure.'
>Pim van Meurs : Of course not, science is never 'sure' but the lack of any
>evidence supporting an intelligent agent, the vaste amounts of evidence
>supporting natural selection as a likely mechanism and the Occam Razor
>surely seem to support natural selection. It's clear that NO evidence of an
>intelligent agent exists. SO at least that one has been eliminated as far as
>science is concerned. Now the question remains: Is natural selection
>(one of) the processes?
>MikeBGeneYou seem quite certain that it is "clear" there is "NO" evidence an
>intelligent agent exists. As a theist, I could not disagree more. Thus, we
>can either get into debates about the existence of God or we can simply
>agree to disagree.
Pim van Meurs:The existance of a God is not determined by evidence but by
faith.
Actually, there is no reason to think the two are mutually exclusive.
Speaking only for myself, I would simply say that if I did not
think there was evidence of God's existence, I'm not sure I would
still have faith (after all, I wasn't raised to believe in God).
>Mike: Thus, it comes down to this. If you don't see any evidence for God's
>existence, then of course you're going to rule out intelligent intervention.
Pim van Meurs: It's not what I believe I see. My statement should be seen in
the light of scientific enquiry.
When it comes to God's existence, science has nothing to say. That is,
evidence can exist (recognized due to metaphysical assumptions) even if it
is not acknowledged by science. I will recognize your statement in the light
of scientific inquiry, but as I said before, I am not interested in how to
label things.
Mike