DNA and Other Designs

First Things ^ | Stephen C. Meyer

[jennyp]

Your position that proteins have formed under the "right conditions" (requires the input of intelligence) from a "proper soup" (requires the input of intelligence) under "primitive earth conditions" (as created by the experimenter) do not support your hypothesis that this could occur by truly random chance.

Ah, so let me get this straight: Evolutionists claim that something happened naturally, and offer an experiment as proof. You say that the fact that the experiment was designed means that the phenomenon under test must have been designed.

What's the general principle here? What's the "take-home lesson"? It is this: All experiments are designed, therefore everything that has ever been learned about nature thru any kind of experiment must have been designed.

This, of course, is absurd. Your argument would drive a stake thru the heart of all science. Therefore your objection is absurd.

[jennyp]

Oops, correction:

Evolutionists claim that something could have happened naturally, and offer an experiment as proof.

[Exnihilo]

Great, I love science. What I don't like is people who try to pretend that science doesn't presuppose naturalism when asserting that naturalism is a fact. It makes me laugh.

[PatrickHenry]

What I don't like is people who try to pretend that science doesn't presuppose naturalism when asserting that naturalism is a fact. It makes me laugh.

I have no idea if what you call "naturalism" is a fact. There are probably creationists who equate "naturalism" with satanism or something; so I'm wary of buying into your terminology. But I do know that nature (or physical reality) is the only thing that science can deal with. Does that make you laugh too?

[Exnihilo]

I agree completely. Science may presuppose naturalism, but that is the nature of science. I feel that most people don't recognize the limits of science when they use it to support questionable theories of biology, namely Darwinian evolution. I agree that some kind of evolution has taken place. But I think Darwin's model is only a part of the picture. May I ask why you insist on calling me a creationist?

[PatrickHenry]

May I ask why you insist on calling me a creationist?

General impression from your past couple of threads. Are you a creationist? If not, what?

[Exnihilo]

General impression from your past couple of threads

Based on what?

To your second question, I'm a theist. You should be careful in the future to explain what you mean by Creationist. I am a "Creationist" in the sense that I believe God was and is involved in creation. I am not a Creationist in the sense that I do not believe the earth is 10,000 years old, I do not think Genesis is a literal description of the Earth's creation, and I do believe that there has been evolution of some kind on Earth. I'm just intelligent enough to recognize the limits of science and the dogmatic belief systems on both sides. For atheists, materialism, and thus natural evolution *must* be true. For theists like myself, that evolution has happened doesn't matter. I merely debate the subject because I think Darwinian evolution is tragically flawed, and I also think Intelligent Design theory is a viable science. I do wish that Dembski would publish in a peer reviewed journal, and I think he will soon. That's about it. I don't really put myself into one classification. I'm open minded but I don't let what I wish were true interfere with what *is* true, empricially according to hard science- not scientism.

[PatrickHenry]

An honest answer. Fair enough.

[balrog666]

To your second question, I'm a theist.

To what end? Without a religious framework in mind, what difference does it make? And I mean that literally.

I also think Intelligent Design theory is a viable science.

Science? Abstract philosophy perhaps, since I have yet to see any hint of a scientific method in your madness.

[Exnihilo]

Science? Abstract philosophy perhaps, since I have yet to see any hint of a scientific method in your madness.

Can you explain, specifically, what is unscientific about ID theory? Then I'll reply and tell you why you're wrong. Good luck!

[R Wise]

***