But that is the point entirely, that life can be created, not just happen by a materialistic fluke.

Dawkins said, 'But that higher intelligence would itself had have to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process."

Furthermore any success in the laboratory by intelligent agents in creating life would only confirm that 'with intelligence' life can be created.

If someone runs an experiment where they reduce the temperature of water and find that below a certain point it changes states, that does NOT show intelligence is needed.

It is the same with an experiment creating life. If someone preforms an experiment that shows that under certain conditions life results that does NOT show intelligence is needed.

All it shows is that under a given set of condition life results.

Oh dear sir, you have no idea how much I agree with your analysis. You are doing a superb job of deliniating the issue. I cannot thank you enough...

Without a 'we' or a 'who' (as Dawkins put it)... no miracle need apply indeed.

Will you ever learn to understand your own words?

I think it is important to address the fallacy that a human experiment proves that "Intelligence" is needed.

What scientific experiments show is simply what happens in a natural system, one driven by chemistry and physics. The whole value to such experiments is to demonstrate that outside miraculous intervention is NOT needed.

When life is created, and I imagine it will be soon, perhaps even during my life, we will know something new and worthwhile. We will know at least one set of conditions where non-living material becomes living.

Once there is one successful experiment I imagine that we will see many other such successes. That has been the history of EVERY discovery so far.

I think it is important to address the fallacy that a human experiment proves that "Intelligence" is needed.

What scientific experiments show is simply what happens in a natural system, one driven by chemistry and physics. The whole value to such experiments is to demonstrate that outside miraculous intervention is NOT needed.

You said the topic was about what Dawkins said. Why do you keep ignoring discussion about what Dawkins said? As I have mentioned twice already, Dawkins said that a creator could be considered only if there was empirical evidence of the creator and of the process used. Where is that evidence?

'I suppose it's possible that, ah... that you might find evidence for that (intelligent design) if you look at, the , um, at the detail... details of biochemistry / molecular biology... you might find a signature of some sort of designer. Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself had have to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process."

Ultimately explicable process?

Explicable in what way?

What would qualify as a signature is the real issue... Dawkins doesn't say. But he clearly is hinting toward the argument of the presense of information in biology. And it is this argument, that is powerful enough to move a man like Anthony Flew.

Dawkins admits earlier in the clip that there is currently no explanation materiallly. So what parameters does he intend to impose upon the evidence ahead of time?

Certainly he is not presupposing a material explanation for the genetic code which he himself agrees is undeniably digital, which would be a philosophical rather than scientific (in the empirical sense) demand. The whole reason he is evolving his position (though it is like puling a stubborn tooth) is for the same reason as Anthony Flew; the only emperical evidence for the existence of digitized information is intelligence.

I like the way Melanie Phillips personally questioned him in her article. And it points out the same point I am making in a different way.

What is your point Rob. The experiment creates life. What does that have to do with Intelligent Design?

As pointed out in the very message you quoted:



No miracle needed. No creator needed. No designer needed.

Ultimately explicable process?

Explicable in what way?

The whole reason he is evolving his position (though it is like puling a stubborn tooth) is for the same reason as Anthony Flew...

...the only emperical evidence for the existence of digitized information is intelligence

Not one of your comments or questions is scientific.

I think it is important to address the fallacy that a human experiment proves that "Intelligence" is needed.

What scientific experiments show is simply what happens in a natural system, one driven by chemistry and physics. The whole value to such experiments is to demonstrate that outside miraculous intervention is NOT needed.

No miracle needed. No creator needed. No designer needed.

Scientifically, of course. Dawkins is a scientist. What other criteria would he use?


You haven't shown any evidence that Dawkins is "evolving his position". And Flew's position has nothing to do with science, does it?


Nonsense. There is no "digitized information" involved, only molecules. Molecules interact every day with no intelligence involved. Dawkins didn't suggest otherwise.

What evidence is there that either Flew (who has been misquoted by the Christian Cult of Ignorance) or Dawkins changed their beliefs in relation to the existence of God.

Even if true, what the hell does that have to do with the topic?

I happen to believe there is a God. However that is totally irrelevant to the question of Intelligent Design.

What?

Are you serious?


What is not scientific about:



What is not scientific about:



The problem with ID is that it is a pointless, useless attempt to insert "Creationism" which is in itself a useless, worthless position that tells us nothing into Science.

Intelligent Design, even if it were true, is worthless.

Even the god that Rob believes in is supposedly immune to human experimentation, so it's hard to imagine how Dawkins could have had any such "explanation" in mind.

...since those who support natural science are 'supposedly interested' in the empirical world, we need to remind the world that Jesus came in the flesh (empirically). Intelligent design is a powerful tool to do just that because it points to the 'alien author of life' who is 'not of this world'.


At least one, 'scientifically minded person' has said to me that any empirical proof of alien life would verify the hypothesis; especially if they had the same DNA as we (thank you Straggler). By manifesting Himself 'like a son of man', Jesus fullfilled these 'scientific' requirements.

There is a larger theme for the two witnesses, and it is the coherence between the spiritual (philosophical) and material (empirical) witness that is so powerful in the life of Jesus.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid." 14 Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

He came ‘in the flesh’ (right down to our DNA) in order to reveal Himself ‘empirically’. He performed miracles to ‘prove’ who He was. He then gave many ‘convincing proofs’ (as Paul said) for His resurrection.

Let us have some sympathy for the doubters, because it was only ‘after’ Thomas ‘touched Him’ that he fell to his knees and declared, ‘My Lord and my God!’

We do not have a God who is ‘only spiritual’ (though God is spirit), He also lowered Himself to our level, not only to reveal Himself in ‘our empirical terms’, but to pay the penalty for our sin.

How in the world is He not ‘The Most Scientific and empirical God that Can Be?’ No life ever impacted the world like His. He is ‘real’ in the scientific and historical sense.

There were first predictions (prophecies) concerning the messiah, and then the ‘empirical verification and arrival’ of the messiah. Is that not the scientific method in short?

The empirical world declares the glory of God, and He made it clear how important it is to Him:

1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come ‘in the flesh’ is from God

2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who ‘do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh’, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

The communion is not only a celebration of His life, sacrifice, and the new covenant; but also… it is a material symbol and ritual to celebrate the ‘reality’ of the eternal God coming ‘in the flesh’ and ‘in time’.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you’.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Those who do not accept His empirical reality (and preach only His spiritual divinity) do not believe in the real spiritual and empirical Christ. Our God is not just the God of heaven (spirit)… He is Lord of ‘heaven’ (the spirit) and ‘earth’ (the material).

As I say in the article, logic is self-affirming. It is axiomatic; self evident. And Jesus is not only the spirit of God... He is the spirit of God incarnate. He is His own witness as He and the Father are one. It is the profundity and simplicity of logic that is as great a mystery as the Trinity, for both are triune, and that is the very heart of the two witnesses.