but if you have information in the environment affecting development and
morphology, then you are an evolutionist. :-) This is precisely what the ID
folks are trying to evolve. And besides, information in the environment is
fluid as opposed to their concept of a static set of info in the DNA.
>
>[...]
>> much like a message in a known language, with chemicals acting as letters
>> and combining in defined sequences to form words, phrases, and sentences.
>> The 'message' is decoded by the cell much the same way the dots and dashes
>> of messages in Morese Code cann be decoded by anyone who knows
>> it."~Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas:
>> Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 6
>
>As we've been saying, this is a hyper-simplistic view. (Even
>in 1993.) Cells are tuned for the DNA they want to 'decode' and the
>DNA builds up some of the decoding mechanism itself (meaning there is
>a kind of blurriness about code and decoder).
But this is there argument that it is too complex to have occurred and
required a designer. While I agree that the universe had a Designer, I
think the design was much more subtle than the way we humans design. In
other words, they are anthropomorphizing God's technique of design.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm