"Nonsense - as I said in my earlier post there is always a good THEOLOGICAL reason for miracles. Hence Jesus' resurrection, virgin birth, various of Jesus' miracles etc.Secondly miracles are necessarily unexplainable by the scientific method - indeed supernatural miracles NEED science to define when they occur. To be truly supernatural miracles have to be the sort of thing that science cannot even get close to explaining."
I was being facetious Simon.
However, this is what YECs and the gnu Atheists will throw at you.Funny how they both say the same things to the TEs !
Simon: This is a response to point (2)."Despite the somewhat annoying rhetorical feel of the phrase "inference to the best explanation" it is a generally valid way of reaching a conclusion." I am really not sure why you refer to an “annoying rhetorical feel”. The term is valid; it is meaningful; it is appropriate.
"However I am not convinced that ID is the "best explanation" for understanding how life started. As I mentioned in an earlier post the one important point of these studies is to find an explanation for natural intelligence." Yes. That was how Darwin presented it. He claimed inference to the best explanation for his conclusion that variation filtered by natural selection can explain biological information. That is what Meyer is addressing – finding Darwin’s theory lacking in explanatory power; finding alternative naturalistic explanations lacking; and inferring intelligent agency to be the best explanation of the evidence.
“All ID does is say that because it is "incredulous" that specified complexity could have resulted from materialistic processes, a supernatural intelligence must be behind the system - hence the accusation of God of the gaps.”But this objection has already been addressed – this is not all that ID does. It is based on positive evidence of what intelligent agency can achieve. It is not God of the gaps.
Oh dear, I am one with Simon and have been for a very long time.
I hadn't dabbled in ID until I reviewed Darwin's Balck Box 15 years ago for Science and Christian Beleif - and only did so as I saw David carrying a copy. I soon realised that is was a goddidit and a godofthegaps argument
Despite being familiar with most of the arguments but not all ID (often a cloak for YEC) has nothing going for it and where I check out its arguments eg over the Cambrian Explosion it collapses to dust
I ignore GHitch's poor rhetoric
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Sign In Apply for Membership
© 2011 Christians In Science | All Rights Reserved
Christians in Science Ltd., incorporated in England and Wales.
Registered address 4 Sackville Close, Sevenoaks, TN13 3QD. Company No. 05959444. Registered Charity No. 1121422