<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1028" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Bob Dickow wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Yes, Scott made a similar assertion.
Scott also pointed out that this was scientific orthodoxy since William
Paley’s 1802 publication called “Natural Theology,” and that
Darwin held to just this view until he thought he found another possible alternative
explanation. Of course, Kant showed that the argument doesn’t work
very well as a deductive argument (fairing as well as most deductive arguments
of this kind). However, as a more subtle inductive matter, the question of
whether or not this sort of inference is a non sequitur is just one of the
issue of contemporary debate. A ‘logical basis’ usually looks
a bit different from an ‘implication.’ As someone like Alvin
Plantinga would point out however, another option would be to see belief in God
as properly basic: something immediately produced ‘because’ of the
‘evidence’ presented to the senses of the complexity and beauty of
the world, but not discursively ‘based upon’ propositional evidence
derived from such experience. I’m sure, Bob, that you don’t mean
that there is no ‘logical connection’ at all between the idea of a
Creator God and the ‘design’ features of the world….<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Michael Metzler </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>