[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I basically agree with what NR said (as usual), especially his last line. To phrase it slightly differently, the (intelligent) theist argument says that your conditions a,b,c, and d were created by God as part of intelligent design.

The problems arise when scientists claim that chance is an inherent component of the universe. I think NR is saying that "atheistic evolution" is evolution plus a belief about the primality of chance. This combination is not science, and when scientists claim it is, I believe they should have their credentials revoked for not understanding what science is and is not capable of establishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya Darryl_P

The only thing, I think, a respectable scientist should say, is that chance is sufficient to explain what happens. To me it clearly does whith regard to evolution. Occam razor takes me to take the position that the simplest sufficient explanation is enough, therfore I do not need posit the idea of a creator, but I would argue against that idea on a different basis. I would argue against the existence of a god on a moral basis, not on a scientific one, as I have done, in other posts.

We seem to be in rough [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] consensus except on the matter of belief in God. Am I correct? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]