I thought about this for a couple of days before responding.
At 10:06 AM 12/31/97, Paul A. Nelson wrote:
>Glenn:
>
>The point of our article ("Homology: A Concept in Crisis," _Origins &
>Design_ 18 [1997]:12-19) is that neo-Darwinists claim that homology
>can be explained naturalistically, without recourse to design. The only
>way a naturalistic explanation can succeed, however, is to provide a
>naturalistic mechanism. Two such mechanisms have been proposed:
>genetic programs and developmental pathways. Both proposals are
>contradicted by the evidence; therefore, neo-Darwinism has failed to
>exclude design as an explanation for homology. We do not offer a
>detailed explanation for homology based on design, which will prove to
>be a major research task, but merely suggest that, in the absence of a
>demonstrated naturalistic alternative, design could be a fruitful way to
>approach the issue. We hope to have more to contribute to this approach
>in the near future.
I am reminded of the chastisement Barry Lynn gave the anti-evolutionists
during his opening comment, quoting Martin Gardner. "If you claim the world
is not round, you are obliged to tell us what shape you think it really is."
The thing that so saddens me is that my fellow Christians seem content to
merely throw rocks at the other side but never present any concepts that can
be falsified. In other words we don't take the risk to suggest a
hypothesis, which explains the data which might be proven wrong. (i.e.,
tell us what shape the earth is)
I would challenge you with this: If they are so wrong, why can't you
explain it better? Or should I say, explain it at all?
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm