IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..

I'm new here, and I haven't carefully read the entire thread, but as technocore has indicated, there are some fundamental dynamics that seem to occur when having these discussions.The evolutionist will always be able to provide "positive" evidence, by merely engaging in thought experiments using "natural" selection as a model. Perhaps this is indicative of the low level of falsifiability of the theory.Creationists on the other hand, who are open to the possibility that a guiding intelligence factors in, will never really be able to provide positive evidence. The only conceivable way I can think of to do so, would be to present proof of a designer.The evolutionist will be able to take any "evidence" of intelligent oversight, and ascribe the design to probability, and selective pressures, etc. Even in IC, there is always the final resort of postulating that the system arose against the odds...Thus, ultimately, the best a creationist can do (imo), is to provide NEGATIVE "evidence" to the contrary based on statistical improbabilities. This reflects a reasonable argument, rather that logical proof, and is mirrored by the nature of faith - i.e. it is reasonable to postulate the existence of God since it is reasonable to believe we have free will, and it is very hard to conceive how to explain free will without a divine component.I realize that not all proposed solutions of the origins and complexities of life are dichotomies of god vs nature, and I have been rather simplistic in the post, but only for sake of clarity.peaceMarwanJulios, 12-14-2002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
A thought experiment is not evidence. Anyone claiming that a hypothetical scenario is evidence in favor of evolution is incorrect. Such exercises are merely projections of an evolutionary framework onto a puzzle of natural history.

---

Agreed - I should have put quotation marks around the word evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
The Creationist argument from unlikeLihood is most often raised in reference to abiogenesis, the origin of life. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this type of arguments, but it has to address the actual scenario proposed by evolutionists. For example, Creationists often state that the likelihood of a cell coming together spontaneously from constituent chemicals is 1 in 1^100. Evolutionists would agree and feel untroubled, since they propose no such scenario.

​

--Percy

---

Right - I agree fully. My point was to pinpoint the fact that a creationist cannot provide positive evidence in the same way that evolutionists can.