[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> scientists, people would be outraged.  Fortunately, judges usually don't   
   >>> rule on whether or not a researchers intentions are scientific or not.   
   >>> Of course the case was not appealed as all the pro board members were   
   >>> ousted and the new board president wanted nothing of it.  Though, I   
   >>> personally think the original intent seemed reasonable and that Judge   
   >>> Jones certainly stepped outside the normal lines of judicial behavior, I   
   >>> personally don't really care if ID is taught in the schools, though it   
   >>> would seem obvious the theory of evolution and it's shortcomings should   
   >>> be part of the course.  In the end, you find people, like some of those   
   >>> here, who just like to muck up any topic with this constant reference to   
   >>> this one case and claim a total victory of some kind.  I think it should   
   >>> be pretty much tuned out or you get nowhere.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Before you two can reasonably claim that supernatural causes are valid   
   >> alternatives to naturalistic ones, you need to identify:   
   >>   
   >> 1. what you mean by supernatural, with examples, and   
   >> 2. how presuming supernatural causes explain anything.   
   >>   
   >> I stipulate for arguments' sake the possibility of a supernatural   
   >> Creator.  Now then, tell me how that helps you say whether X is more   
   >> or less likely than Y.  With naturalistic causes, there are physical   
   >> limits which are identifiable and can be experimentally demonstrated.   
   >> Not so with supernatural causes.   
   >>   
   >   
   > This is a fundamental issue in this debate. Intending to be constructive   
   > and open-minded, what if I frame it this way:   
   >   
   > Separate from and prior to specific discussions about science, how do   
   > you regard naturalistic vs supernatural* explanations of origins?   
      
   The issue with trying this gambit is that there is no way to separate   
   the natural from the supernatural in terms of what we currently observe   
   about nature.  Some god could have done something in any conceivable way   
   including using naturalistic processes to get the job done.  Miller has   
   claimed that maybe the creator jiggles atoms to get things to turn out   
   the way it wants during the evolution of life on this planet.  The atoms   
   would have already existed, and the creator would have just sent them   
   down one of the possible paths that they could have taken in the future.   
     Just because some creationists want things to have been created in a   
   puff of smoke like Behe, doesn't mean that any god responsible for this   
   creation would have done any such thing.  Just ask a Deist like Denton.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   > Do you regard one more likely or worthy of consideration that the other,   
   > and why?   
   >   
   > * The so-called "God hypothesis", which might be summaried as: A   
   > transcendent/supernatural agent (an unspecified God, intelligent   
   > designer, non-material cause), involved in the origin and/or   
   > organisation of the material universe.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)