Re: ID vs ?

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Wed Aug 30 2000 - 16:14:58 EDT

  • Next message: Tedd Hadley: "Re: ID vs ?"

    From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@cab.com>

    >Well, that's it. People with macroevolutionary theories will be bothered
    >by the absolute metaphysical proscription of the possibilities they
    >envision. This is religion-driven science, more interested in avoiding
    >what they think is creationism than in puzzling out the facts.

    Cliff wheels out his old straw man again, this time elevating it to the
    level of an "absolute metaphysical proscription".

    This is the classic hallmark of the proponent of a crank theory. Refusing to
    accept that his theory could have been rejected for its lack of merit, the
    crank insists that it was rejected because of metaphysical blinkers.

    As I've said before, duplication of segments and merging of symbionts are
    *not* beyond the pale of mainstream evolutionary biology. It's your
    particular version of them that is seriously flawed.

    Richard Wein (Tich)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 30 2000 - 16:12:38 EDT