Reflectorites
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:55:01 -0400, David Bradbury wrote:
[...]
DB>A recent Washington Post article on endangered species by Advanced Cell
>Technologist Robert Lanza tells us "One hundred species are lost every day, and
>these mass erxtinctions are mostly our own doing." As an OEC (Old Earth
>Creationist), could you comment on how many years this imbalance has been going
>on?
I have no specifically OEC position on this. I understand there have been
at least five major mass-extinctions in the history of life on Earth.
Apart from that there have been extinctions happening constantly. The average
species lasts only a few million years.
DB>And perhaps explain how OEE (Old Earth Evolutionists) might possibly explain
>it?
I don't know any such position as "OEE (Old Earth Evolutionists)". Since all
evolutionists believe in an old Earth, maybe David better ask the evolutionists
on this List that question?
DB>3) Your excerpts from mathematicians Schutzenberger and Eden from the 1966 Wistar
>Symposium MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF
EVOLUTION
>(with participants as Medawar, Mayr, Fox, Eiseley, Lewontin, etc., etc.) were both
>pertinent and interesting. I would like to add one more. This by Dr. Eden on
>page 109 where he states: "It is our contention that if 'random' is given a
>serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the
>randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory
>of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural
>laws--physical, physico-chemical and biological."
Yes. There are many evolutionists who have had a problem with Darwinism's
randomness.
DB>Thus, over 30 years ago, Dr. Eden was acknowledging the very problem (inadequacy of
>Random Mutations and Natural Selection [RM+NS] to explain biological evolution)
>which Dembski, Johnson, Behe, et al are today addressing as Intelligent Design
>(ID), Irreducible Complexity (IC), etc. -- and which evolutionists, like ostriches,
>prefer not to acknowledge rather than facing up to reality.
Agreed. I would not be surprised if ID flushes out a lot of scientists (even
biologists) who believe in design but don't know how to express it.
A lot of ordinary people who are not religious believe in design too. Today
I was talking with the fellow I share an office with about some biology
news item which I was reading on the web (I can't even remember what it
was) and he just blurted out "there must be a Supreme Being, there's too
much design." Then he clammed up. He is in his 50's and as far as I know
not a religious person. I would not be surprised if most people are like that:
non-religious people who believe in design, no matter what the atheist
evolutionists have been trying to drum into them as kids all these years.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 17:52:13 EDT