Re: A case for Christianity that does NOT use ID or YEC arguments

Rich Blinne wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:19:01 -0500, "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> said:
> > Let me offer a "second opinion," relative to your friend using ID
> > arguments.
> >
> > I think that the ID movement is making some valid points about modern
> > science, as follows.
>
> I agree. I would like to see the ID movement focus on the anthropic
> principle more rather than on disproving evolution. When doing this they
> need to avoid the same fallacious statistical methods they apply to
> evolution, though. This would also keep people like Hugh Ross in their
> area of expertise. Some recent developments last year that would make
> for strenghtening the anthropic principle (no pun intended)include:
>
> 1. WAP satellite showing the universe is flat. One of the arguments
> against the Strong Anthropic Principle was oscillating universes. A flat
> universe does not allow for that.
>
> 2. Strong bounds on Lorenz Invariance violations. This hampers some of
> the multi-dimensional, multiple-Universe, string theories.

This sounds very interesting! Could you enlarge a little about these two
points? Are there any articles in the primary literature which can be
understood by a simple biochemist - but who is interested in cosmology
and the anthropic principle?

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)