Quote Originally Posted by Pahu78
BASIC ARGUMENT STATED

Our basic argument has now made two points. First, it is valid science to look for intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeologists do it all the time. When they find pottery or arrowheads, they rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it. Operation science is only concerned with secondary natural causes, but origin science is not so restricted and is the proper method for studying unique, past events. Second, present experience tells us that an intelligent cause should be sought wherever we find specified complexity. This gives us u criteria to show when an intelligent cause is operating and when it is not. So if it is valid for science to look for primary causes and we have some way of identifying them, the basic argument for Creation goes like this:

1. Origin science should be used to study origins.
A. There are two kinds of science: operation science and origin science; and we must use one or the other to study origins.
B. Operation science should not be used to study unique, unrepeatable past events because it is devoted to studying the normal operations of the present.
C. So, origin science is the proper method for studying origins because it studies unique, unrepeated events, which origins are by definition.

II. Origin science admits the possibility of primary intelligent causes.

III. Primary intelligent causes can be identifiedĀ· when there is evidence of specified complexity

IV. Therefore, wherever there is evidence of specified complexity, origin science should posit a primary intelligent cause.

We may now apply this type of argument to the three areas of origins: the origin of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of new life forms.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]
This is just sad.