I did study set theory, both in high school and at university. Your application of it here is flawed. My explanation above still stands untouched by anything you wrote here. The most charitable explanation I can give is that you are still confusing ID as a social movement (which does have strong links with creationism) vs. ID as an intellectual effort at design detection (which is independent of creationism). If you could get that straight, you would see that my logic is unassailable. But I don’t think you want to get it straight, because if ID has any aspect that is not tied to creationism, your program of polemics against it can’t run as smoothly.
Thanks, vjtorley.
I have not, though he knows of my existence, through common friends.
This suggestion has been made before. The words at first blush seem to suggest it. However, the follow-up, instead of saying, “And the waters brought forth living creatures” – which would fit with abiogenesis perfectly – specifies that God created those living creatures. It seems likely that no capacity of the waters to produce life on their own was intended. (In contrast, the earth did bring forth plants, and the words “God created” are not found in that case, suggesting that earth does have at least some generative capacity of its own. But even that may be reading too much into the text.)
I don’t know what Tour thinks about abiogenesis and Scripture. When he talks about Scripture he seems more interested in Jesus than in Genesis. I have not heard him say anything suggesting that he rejects abiogenesis because of Scripture. I get the impression he thinks abiogenesis is scientifically unlikely, and that his judgment on that point does not rely on Scripture.
I have conversed with hundreds of ID proponents. I’m sure at least a hundred of those are scientists, but whether I could say “hundreds of scientists” I’m not sure. Certainly “scores of scientists” that I converse with are defenders of ID. And as vjtorley points out, there are many scientists in the world who, even if not ID proponents, think ID deserves a hearing, and we see their endorsements on the Eberlin book, on Meyer’s second book, etc.