I'm reposting this, as it wasn't relected back to me the first time. Sorry
if you've seen it already...
From: Jack Wyatt <jwyatt@earthlink.net>
>Hi Steven,
>
>I read your post in the Calvin reflector and here is my reply. By the way,
>I am not a member of this forum and therefore can't post replies there. I
>don't even know if I would be allowed to join or how to do it.
"To subscribe to this list send email to majordomo@calvin.edu with
the words "subscribe evolution" (no quotes) in the body of the message."
[snip]
>Jack>> The designer of life on earth could be designed or undesigned it
>makes no difference. The nature of THIS designer is outside the realm of
>science. All ID theory is concerned with is showing that evidence for
>intelligent design on earth is empirically detectable and that ID make more
>sense of the data from earth's natural history than does a blind
>watchmaker. And that's enough. The nature of the designer is a side issue
>and is a metaphysical one.<<
The problem with this argument is that science cannot compare two hypotheses
without considering the implications of those hypotheses. The ID hypothesis
(life on Earth is the result of ID) logically entails one of the following
additional hypotheses: (a) the first designer (in a possible chain of
designers) evolved elsewhere in the universe; (b) the first designer sprang
into existence fully formed; (c) the first designer has existed for all
eternity. You cannot honestly consider the ID hypothesis without considering
at least one of these additional hypotheses.
Since the additional hypotheses are much less parsimonious than the
hypothesis that life evolved on Earth without intelligent intervention, the
ID hypothesis carries with it a heavy evidentiary burden. Simply pointing
out that we don't yet have a detailed non-ID explanation for certain aspects
of life on Earth (particularly abiogenesis) is nowhere near sufficient to
meet this burden.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 03 2000 - 17:15:23 EDT