[RJT]

maurile,

I should have just quoted him directly. I was going to but couldn’t find what I read (plus one can‘t cut and paste from Adobe - I couldn‘t anyway). I kind of misrepresented what he said. But my point is still the same.

Page 141:

[ QUOTE ]
To explain the origin of DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like ‘God was always there’, and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might just say ‘DNA was always there’, or ‘Life was always there’, and be done with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn’t refute The Blind Watchmaker at all. He simply dismisses it as not necessary. (page 147 and on). Then he goes on to say “We are here concerned with the kind of solution that must be found…”, (to figure out the origin of life).

This is why I think we will never understand each other (atheist and belivers). You guys seem to think he is saying something. I mean he is and he is interesting and the science must be fascinating. But, he doesn’t say anything of the origin of life. There is nothing in his methodology that leads one to a conclusion that God won’t be at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps not the God we all talk about. But, in simply dismissing the Watchmaker he says nothing. And in simply talking about how to find the solution he says nothing again.

I guess what I am really trying to say is that we believers and atheists (who read stuff like this) are really talking about the same thing. We just speak different languages is all.

RJT