From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 22:54:21 EDT
Hi Denyse,
You had originally written:
>>>Essentially, Dennett is saying that you have to accept the Darwinist
(ultra-Darwinist) explanation for the evolution of a stick insect not
because it is a good explanation, but because it is the only explanation
possible.
This has got to be as big a science stopper as anything ID is charged
with.<<<<<
I then wrote:
>> I am curious about your statement here and would like to
>investigate a bit.
>>
>> Do you believe in an old universe?
>
You wrote:
>Yes, based on what I assume to be good evidence.
>
I wrote:
>>
>> Do you believe elements of higher molecular weight than iron were made in
>> supernovas?
>>
>
You replied:
>If you say so, I don't dispute it. I have not researched current opinion
>on the subject.
Take my word, that the common view is that the heavy elements were created
in supernova and then re-incorporated into the earth via the pre-solar
nebula.
The reason I asked this, is that this process entails an evolution of the
matter used to create the earth. Given your position that you don't think
the ID group is stopping science with their view that life and the
information for life was popped miraculously into existence, why would
consistency not require that one hold the same position for matter itself?
In other words, why is evolution ok for inanimate matter but bad for living
systems? This seems highly inconsistent. It is picking and choosing
evolution where it is convenient but rejecting it where it is inconvenient.
That is what is wrong with the ID approach.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 22:54:48 EDT