dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
>
> George, you're kinder to Dembski than I would be. I haven't finished
> _Intelligent Design_ yet, but find some grave problems. For example, in
> Ch. 2 he critiques the definitions by Spinoza and Schleiermacher that
> exclude miracles. But in Ch. 4 he does essentially the same with TE.
> About p. 111 he produces a caricature of theistic evolutionists which is
> unrecognizable from within. In connection with information, he does not
> mention that the mammalian genome has more information than that of
> insects, some of which could be derived by duplication and modification:
> 1 homeobox vs. 4, if I recall correctly, all clearly homologous. Note
> also the red and green visual pigments on the X chromosome. The types of
> alteration involved are well documented as occurring.
>
> One must grant that two copies of the same information produces no
> increase. But one copy may be modified by point mutation, inversion,
> deletion or insertion to produce new information while the original
> maintains the data necessary for the development or well-being of the
> creature. However, this does not solve the problem of the ultimate origin
> of information. However, he _knows_ that the Almighty is not competent to
> include it in either the original creation of the universe, or even the
> creation of the first life. But how does one restrict the power of
> omnipotence?
Dave - Yes, there are more things to criticize that I was able to mention. E.g., the
tired old device of letting atheists tell us what's wrong with TE really ought to be
given a rest. Recall what I said about space limitations. I noted what seem to me the
most significant scientific & theological problems but didn't want to just do a hatchet
job on it. I think it's worth reading.
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 15:31:05 EDT