The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer - any challenges?

[Rcfchess at aol.com]

In a way, even that hypothetical refutation prob. wouldn't matter; if we  
were to create life, the religious nuts would no doubt say that it was only  
because it was God's will that we do so...
 
In a message dated 09/29/2005 5:16:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
malignd at aol.com writes:

<<However, one can start mid-stream: by explaining the origin of  life 
from the inanimate universe from which it emerged Science
has not  yet been able to accomplish this. If science is able to  
achieve  this, the proof that validates the theory will be the  creation 
of  life "in the test tube" from inanimate building blocks. >>

If and  when life is created, it will certainly be a blow to religion.  
The  absence of that occurence is proof conclusive of nothing.

<<Such  an accomplishment, however, would lend more evidence to  
Intelligent  Design -->>

You capitalize Intelligent Design, meaning you intend  the current 
"thesis."  What science may or may not do in some future  lab has 
nothing to do with that.

<<--than to an explanation  based on "randomness," since the life so 
produced would be an artifact of  culture ...>>

And here, for anyone reading this far, is the  feebleness of your 
argument.  The creation of life might be, in the  limited and perverse 
sense your argumentt requires, a cultral  artifact.  It would also be a 
triumph of scientic method and, for  those for whom it matterd, a final 
banishing of the primitive thinking  reilgion endorses.

<<and no one argues convincingly that cultural  artifacts are anything 
but the result of intelligent design, or at least,  a hybridization of 
intelligent design and chance.>>

The  "cultural artifact" in this specious and absurd argument being the  
creation of life.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20050929/1b239eb8/attachment.html>