[Vision2020] Eugenie Scott's Talk at U of I

[Chasuk]

On 10/13/05, Robert Dickow <dickow at uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Did Eugenie Scott point out that at the most general level the
> entire Creation Science argument is based on a fairly clear non-sequitur in
> reasoning? The observation of complex systems or patterns is not a logical
> basis for concluding the involvement of an intelligent creator in that
> object, nor does it imply the existence of such a creator or being. This
> does not belie that God exists. Of course God exists. But still the logical
> connection above is fallacious.

I agree with most of what you wrote above, but I am puzzled by the inclusion of:

"Of course God exists."

Is this really an a priori conclusion that I somehow have missed?