Re: Artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube
- D R Lindberg (responding to Will): "This is the 'God of the gaps' argument, which has nothing to do with Darwinism, neo or otherwise. Jim, for one, always seems to be pushing it."
You're quite wrong. I've never pushed any "God of the gaps" arguments. Indeed, I've explained on several occasions that intelligent design does not make any "God of the gaps" arguments. Rather than being an argument from ignorance (which is what a "God of the gaps" argument is), the argument for design is based on what we know about the kinds of effects caused by intelligent agents. You can always tell when someone is ignorant of ID when he reduces the argument for design to something like this:
"Science can't explain this, therefore God did it."
You'll see such a statement repeatedly in the writings of ID critics, which demonstrates that they've acquired their "knowledge" of ID not from reading any of the design literature, but from reading the criticisms of other poorly informed ID critics. From what I've seen, most criticisms of ID amount to the critics echoing and re-echoing one another's misrepresentations of it. The ID critic who takes issue with the arguments that design theorists actually make rather than with arguments he falsely attributes to them is rare.
Jim in Missouri
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, will brooks <wilson_brooks2003@...> wrote:
> From Will Brooks Thursday 14th March 11.10AM GMT
> in response to DR Lindberg
> Will: I asked you to tell us what you do believe and you posted the following:
> > Â D R Lindberg: "Compare that with this direct clear unambiguous
> statement: 'Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of
> the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly
> in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.
> Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes
> of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution
> occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its
> occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically
> irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited
> to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of
> our nation's public schools.' "
> Will: Thank you. As that is what you posted I accept that is what you believe. The above, in a nutshell, is the belief in - molecules to Man. A shared Common Ancestry. I should like to discuss this further but before doing so please, so that we can avoid any future misunderstandings, tell me a) do you believe undirected chemicals formed by chance to produce living organisms and b) do you believe in a Big-Bang model as an explanation for how the Universe started or do you believe something different. If something different please let us know and then we can move forward.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]