>
> Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> ID (intelligent design) folk and IC (Irreducibly complexity) folk
> should speak for themselves, but I felt compelled to respond to
> part of this.
>
> <<
> The ID group needs to cease looking for evidence of design in biological
> systems. It isn't there. While I believe that the universe is designed, I
> simply don't think that biological systems are capable of
> yielding evidence
> for design. As such, we should be honest with ourselves and our readers.
> >>
>
> It does look increasingly like this is the case, however, I
> would still prefer to wait and see. Whereas I suspect that
> ID will fail to show irrefutable evidence of God, it may
> prove useful in other areas of knowledge inquiry.
>
I think the evidence of design resides best in the anthropic principle. I
know there are those who will disagree, but biologically, the world appears
capable of evolving. While I believe that is because God pre-programmed
things, I can't prove it.
> <<
> Thank you Marcio for pointing out this article and its
> importance. Why have
> the anti-evolutionary apologists not pointed it out first?
> >>
>
> I am a little confuse how to interpret this.... I think you mean, "why
> is it that scientific discovery is found by evolutionists, and all the
> anti-evolutionists can do is ignore the data, avoid getting involved,
> grasp for 'Gaps', or indefinitely delay discussion and examination of
> such data." Is this something of what you mean?
>
My concern here is my historical experience that new discoveries are rarely
brought to the attention of the Christian laity UNLESS that discovery
supports the view of the apologist. Then it is out there in a New York
minute. New discoveries that contradict the apologists are not brought out
rapidly. I view this as part of the selective filter we must all guard
against. I know it is in part counterable as I have on occasion brought
forth evidence that goes against what I hold.
> To be fair, even as a professional who does scientific research, I'm
> typically behind. It is a battle to keep up on the latest, and just
> reading the literature is at least three full time jobs now. At the same
> time, I have to make new discoveries. The article has been on
> my stack of "to read" papers, but I have to set priorities somewhere, and
> prions are not at the top of my list. I don't think apologists can be
> expected to do more than I can on a regular day, and quite reasonably,
> their coverage would have to be more selective. Nevertheless, I share
> your concern about complete silence that ID and IC folk have shown
> on such issues.
I agree that keeping up is tough. My experience is that apologists don't
keep up very well, not even as well as their secular colleagues. If they
did, why would we find them using outdated material--like Barbara Stahl's
1972 Paleo book being the prime source of info for Phillip Johnson's 1991
Darwin on Trial? (Johnson used a Dover reprint of that 1972 book). That is
not, imo, the epitomy of keeping up.
My demand for excellence among the apologists comes from the fact that when
I was learning the truth about what the anti-evolutionists and YECs were
saying, I had to learn it from atheists. I should have been able to learn
about it from Christians
glenn
see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 01:44:41 EDT