Replies

You quoted me: "The problem is that there are only two possible competing theories."

You then responded: Only two that you can think of. To close the door on there being a third is unscientific, even if nobody can think of another at the moment. At one time, people only saw one possible theory: that some supernatural force created life.

The problem is, you read something between the lines that is not there when you suggest that I am closing the door. I used present, not future, tense. My statement is correct. It may not be correct at some future date, but it is correct NOW and stands on it’s own.. Your follow up comment implying that since we used to have only one theory, but since we now have two, we may someday have three is one I strongly agree with, although I doubt it so far. But it is, as yet, speculation about an as yet unknown future..

Also, to say that any ID is by definition a supernatural force and then throw out as “unscientific” any theory that involves a supernatural force is not only disingenuous, but unscientific itself. After all, scientists have discussed the concept of actually creating a “parallel” universe. Anything the scientist then did within that contained “natural” universe would be, by definition, supernatural. Yet the man who created that universe is deity only to those who live in the universe he created. That fact does not instantly cause him to “disappear in a puff of logic” (1)

And heaven help the men who live in such a universe that I, a seriously flawed man, created and controlled. I would have a hard time being as free with "grace" as our Father is.

FWIW, I firmly believe that if the Lord waits long enough, we will actually achieve that ability, or one like it.

(1): “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” – Douglas Adams

The problem is, you read something between the lines that is not there when you suggest that I am closing the door.

You said two that there are only two possible theories. Don't place words in the middle of sentences if you don't intend for them to affect the meaning of your statement.

Also, to say that any ID is by definition a supernatural force and then throw out as “unscientific” any theory that involves a supernatural force is not only disingenuous, but unscientific itself.

First, I did not say that ID is, by definition, supernatural. I said that, at one point in time, the only explanation that people had for life was that it was created by a supernatural force.

Second, ID as currently argued is, in fact, supernatural, since it excuses it's designer from having to obey any sort of natural law (It claims that life cannot have arisen without a designer, but declines to subject this designer to the same law).

Third, something that is supernatural, is, by the very definition of science, unscientific. Science deals with the natural laws of our universe. Science cannot apply itself to anything that exists beyond those natural laws, ie, that which is supernatural. If scientists managed to create a parallel universe, it would merely be one more aspect of the natural universe.