Re: Fw: The Mere Creation Discussion

Jim Bell (70672.1241@CompuServe.COM)
03 Dec 96 17:50:48 EST

Russ, you tapped another fine answer on the question of how we decide there is
a reasonably high probability that one biological system did not evolve from
simpler systems. You went at it from the backside (figuratively speaking!) and
did so with your characteristic clarity.

DBB, "There is no publication in the scientific literature--in prestigious
journals, specialty journals, or books--that describes how molecular evolution
of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have
occurred." Pg. 185.

In light of that glaring lack, how can it be plausibly maintained that we can
still "imagine" some "selective advantage" that can explain the gradual rise
of all this complexity? On what basis do we maintain that it is a reasonable
supposition? If there is no reason or data to back it up, what drives the the
sort of recalcitrant intractability that maintains the position? I believe the
utlimate answer lies in the religious--psychological--philosophical matrix
that is the sum of the complexity of that system known as man.

Jim