>Richard Wein: If they have not been done yet, then it is imho quite
important that they are done so that they can support what is now merely
assertions.
DNAunion: Very true. But does this not also apply to the origin of life?
Why must Dembski have a 100% airtight, completely validated, empirically
tried and true, perfect hypothesis, generated and completed within a couple
years, before it is considered any more than an assertion, yet the
purely-natural origin of life on earth is accepted as scientific fact even
though it is not 100% airtight, it has not been completely validated, it is
not empirically tried and true, it is not a perfect hypothesis, and very many
researchers have been working on it for over 60 years!
Sounds kind of unfair: absolute proof required for Dembski, while only a
couple successes here and there - out of millions or trillions of steps - are
sufficient to establish biopoesis as scientific fact.
>Richard Wein: I know that science can be painful, but in case of a new
thesis such as Dembski's it is quite necessary that such work is done.
DNAunion: So we can't accept it until it is fully proven? But the
purely-natural origin of life is elevated to scientific fact on flimsy and
scant evidence?
It all sounds pretty much like double standards. If we are not to accept
Dembski's work then I suggest fairness dictates that we should not accept OOL
researchers' work either.
And let us not forget that Darwin's theory was also woefully incomplete when
he introduced it. If "you guys" had your way (and applied "your guys"
criteria equally), then there would be no Darwinian theory as it would have
been rejected at the very beginning because it did not have all the answers
right out of the starting blocks!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 22:37:47 EDT