(A)Life cannot arise from natural processes, it must be designed, and
(B)No matter who the designer was, there can be no design that permits the organisme to evolve.
Is that correct?
Tactic- I’ll have to look at that later- I may be comign down with Bronchitis, and feelign pretty bad- hard to concentrate- I’ll look at your suggested poitns if I can and see if htey are reasoanble or not- At first glance it seems though that you are trying to change the rules by tryign to change what the author is actually putting forth- As you well know, there is microevolution’, and at first glance it seems you want to try to render hte authors whole precepts invalid by then pointing out that we know microevolution happens-
But again- I’m not feelign well, and could be reading yor points wrong, but it seems that htis is hwere you are tryign to lead?
The authors statements are:
(A) All aspects of life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations, and (B) only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.
Let’s then discuss whether naturalism can bring forth IC, and whether or not ID meets the criterion of an acceptable (and I would add- much more realistically probable) historical inferrence- according to hte law of cause and effect.
I’ll be tryign to read through the third link GGG posted- but again, not feelign well, and it’ll takem e soem time, but hopefulyl it will show more evidence which can be included to support hte authors two points