[[(A) All aspects of life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations,]]
This part needs to be stressed and adhered to without goign beyond- while it quite possibly does show it lies beyond the ability of naturalism, we shouldn’t say that it shuts off any other possible explanation (even htough reasonably, there really is no other explanation, as Macroevolution hypothesis, the whole basis for throwing God out of hte creation model, relies only on naturalism)
==we shouldn’t say that it shuts off any other possible explanation
That’s why I posted this debate thread. This whole thing got started because I kept sending the Williams papers to Evo after Evo, and none of them could shoot it down. So I thought I’d open it up to a debate to see if any of our resident FRevos could knock it down. I even sent them the papers in advance to prepare. To be honest, I am a bit taken aback by the silence on the other side. Perhaps things will pick up as the day grows on. Under normal circumstances this thread would be filled with replies by now. Could it be that Williams’ argument is as air-tight as I think it is????