You wrote:
>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)
John and I have lots of ideas. But step (1), I hope you would agree,
is to recognize that current hypotheses are in trouble. That's not
"merely throw[ing] rocks." That's ordinary hypothesis testing.
>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?
Three guys are hiking in a forest. One of them says to the others,
"Hey, we're lost!"
But the other two don't want to hear that news. "Baloney," they say.
"We're not interested in hearing that we're lost, unless you know the
exact route out of here. Ergo, we're not lost."
Can you see that identifying problems with a current theory bears
no necessary logical relation to having a better candidate?
In any case, John and I are working on the problem of homology from
a design standpoint. In 1998, we plan to submit a couple of papers on the
topic, and complete a book MS (part of which deals with homology). But
the only thing worse than not offering a hypothesis for an interesting
open problem is offering a half-baked, incomplete one. On the Internet.
That's it for me. Check out the bibliography we posted.
Paul Nelson