Joined: Jan. 2008
|“Thou shall not resort to immaterial causes for the explanation of natural structures, functions and events”.|
I will ask you to consider this though. Suppose Craig Venter succeeds in creating an artificial life form. Suppose further that the life form is handed to a researcher who is tasked with coming up with a theory of its origins. If the researcher is bound by the rule “intelligent causes are ruled out of bounds prior to the investigation” will he not be bound to reach an erroneous conclusion? The answer is “yes” BTW. Write that down.
According to BarryA Craig Venter is an immaterial cause,
|2. That said, ID does not posit non-natural causes (unless you think Craig Venter is a supernatural being).|
but not supernatural. That's somehow comforting.
OTOH, that the designer is not a non-natural cause will be news for a lot of people, e. g. StephenB in the same thread, three comments earlier:
|Yes, indeed. What kind of evidence would satisfy them short of a DNA molecule signed, “built by Yahweh.”|
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner