Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,06:38)|
|First, evolution does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (and before you respond, consider the fact that nobody has offered an evolutionist refutation for THAT one in all 39 pages of this debate), and with the God of Genesis you definitely get 100 percent conscious anticipation of the future. |
Wrong. It has been pointed out many times that this objection is based on your failure to understand the how science works. The supernatural isn't addressed in science, so you wouldn't expect definitions of scientific theories to refer to supernatural. Adding "except for any possible supernatural meddling" to the definition of any scientific theory would be extraneous. If such an addendum was required for evolution, it would be required for all other scientific theories, e.g.
* except in the event of supernatural meddling
Second, you would automatically eliminate the claim that supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science,
Uh no, that does not follow at all. The fact that science cannot address the supernatural clearly means that the supernatural doesn't belong in science class. In any case the establishment clause clearly prevents favoring any one supernatural explanation.
I notice you ignored my post here which previously addressed most of this: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156228
So please is explain, if god is ominipotent how can he be excluded from anything ? Doesn't the definition of omnipotent meant that he could change anything, anywhere, any time ? Or is your god not omnipotent ?