Talk:Infinite regression

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recently someone raised a controversy concerning Francis H. Crick's refusal to admit the existence of God and His role in creation.

For everyone's information, Crick absolutely did reject special creation out-of-hand. He once wrote to Winston Churchill that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel in a college at Oxford University.

But when he realized how much information DNA had within it, he knew he couldn't support the notion of abiogenesis. So he invented his theory of directed panspermia to explain how life came to be on earth.

Crick's pointed, deliberate, and explicit refusal to acknowledge the existence of God is a key context for Crick's line of reasoning. That is also the key context for my criticism of Crick's reasoning, and of infinite regression in general: that it seeks to obfuscate the First Cause of

heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. Exodus 20:11 (KJV)

--TerryH 09:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)
No one is contesting that Crick didn't believe a supernatural being created life on earth. Nematocyte 10:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Concluded or postulated

Hmmm--"postulated" that life was created outside. I'm not sure that that's correct. A postulate is an a priori assumption. A conclusion is a deduced statement. Crick deduced exogenesis. Now if he poatulated anything, then it was that supernatural means and agencies do not exist.--TerryH 11:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Quite right, language corrected. Nematocyte 11:21, 8 March 2007 (EST)