Posted on 12/08/2008 8:10:28 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
In Part I of this article,1 I argued as follows:
(i) Autopoiesis (self-making) is universal and therefore essential to life, so it is required at the beginning for life to exist and is thus not the end product of some long naturalistic process.
(ii) Each level of the autopoietic hierarchy is separated from the one below it by a Polanyi impossibility, so it cannot be reduced to any sequence of naturalistic causes.
(iii) There is an unbridgeable abyss between the autopoietic hierarchy and the dirty mass-action chemistry of the natural environment.
In this part, I test the integrity of this argument in the face of naturalistic objections to intelligent design. I then go on to assess evolutionary arguments for a naturalistic origin of life in the face of universally contradictory evidence...
(FOR PART 1 OF THIS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT PAPER, SEE LINK IN REPLY #2)
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
That is acceptable for religion. It doesnt work with science. [excerpt]Ah, a card trick!
My POINT is if ID is science then you need a scientific explanation of the “creator”. If you are playing it as religion, it’s not a problem because you then just need to take it on faith. Thats the difference between science and religion.
Personally I believe in both evolution and a Creator. Evolution as a mechanism, the result of a Universe with learnable scientific principles crafted by a Creator.
My POINT is if ID is science then you need a scientific explanation of the creator. [excerpt]ID does not postulate or infer a "creator".
Personally I believe in both evolution and a Creator. Evolution as a mechanism, the result of a Universe with learnable scientific principles crafted by a Creator. [excerpt]A Creator and Micro-evolution, aka, change within a kind, are fully compatible.
"Some believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight men or the Creator, or for the sake of mere variety, such doctrines, if true, would he absolutely fatal to my theory."Know who wrote that?
Mr. Huxley in his "Lay Sermons," writes as follows: "When I first read Mr. Darwin's, book, that which struck me most forcibly was, that Teleology (Design), as commonly understood, had received its death blow at Mr. Darwin's hands. For the teleological argument runs thus: 'An organ is fitted to perform a function or purpose, therefore it was specially constructed to perform that function.' This is precisely what Darwin denies with regard to plants and animals. If we apprehend the spirit of the Origin of Species rightly, then nothing can be more entirely and absolutely opposed to Design in Nature than the Darwinian hypothesis."Design and Darwin
A semantic distinction, without a relevant difference.Nothing could be further from the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.