Can you elaborate on part c) of your comment? I do not follow you.
Regards,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
Cc: Biochmborg@aol.com <Biochmborg@aol.com>; asa@calvin.edu
<asa@calvin.edu>; evolution@calvin.edu <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Saturday, August 14, 1999 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Behe on Kansas in Today's NYT
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>
>> I think this whole thing of what embryos look like is nonsense. Folks, we
>> are in the atomic age and what matters is the description at the
molecular
>> level andnot what appears to the naked eye of humans.
>
> a. Embryology is certainly important for understanding the historical
>development of evolutionary theory.
> b. Haeckel would no doubt have been quite pleased to have all the
information
>we now have on relationships between species at the molecular level. He
would have
>seen them quite properly as further evidence for evolution.
> c. Though the _theological_ idea of recapitulation in the Incarnation,
which
>goes back to Irenaeus & the Gospel of Matthew does not dependent on any
kind of
>embryological recapitulation. But the latter provides a very nice
illustration _&
>extension to prehuman life_ of the former, as C.S. Lewis realized in
_Miracles_.
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>