« on: June 22, 2007, 05:21:25 PM »
Messages - babyeatsdingo
« on: June 22, 2007, 04:11:33 PM »
Well then, it's hard to figure out the basis of your defense of design as the organizing principle of the natural world.
Defense of design? I put forth a general criterion for detecting the probable existence of design in nature as part of a conversation I had with another on Hume. But on that point I don't see how his reading of Hume relates to said criterion which is why I asked him to give me a syllogism to respond to.
« on: June 22, 2007, 03:50:44 PM »
If a biochemical process was observed to produce RNA you are committed to saying that RNA is not the product of design. Correct?
I would say that such an event would count as evidence against the proposition: RNA was designed.
« on: June 22, 2007, 03:42:42 PM »
"Natural geothermal processes" is no more protected from an argument for intelligent design than anything else. Your general position therefore becomes unintelligible and trivial.
If a natural geothermal process produces a strand of RNA, for example, then that counts as a reason to think RNA is not the product of design. It is still possible that RNA is designed but mere possibilities do not count as actual evidence and so are excluded when we try to determine whether the preponderance of the evidence says RNA is designed or not.
« on: June 22, 2007, 03:23:26 PM »
was G designed?
G has not been introduced yet. If G has qualities B, C, D, and E, and if there are no facts in evidence against G as a product of design, then we are justified in thinking G is designed.