From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 23:55:26 EDT
Glen wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I think the difference is that Life does not evolve in the same way as the
heavy elements. These are two completely different kinds of "evolution." In
physics we talk about the "time evolution operator"which is simply
exp(-iHt) where H is the Hamilonian. This describes how a physical system
changes (evolves) over time. This is radically different than the idea of
Darwinian evolution through mutation and natural selection.
Another reason for the difference is that the heavy elements are not
machines and give no immediate appearance of design, whereas life *appears*
prima facie to be designed to accomplish specific puposes (e.g. the spider
catching
flies in its web, etc).
I think Denyse's point is valid. One of the fundamental driving points
of evolutionary science seems to be the fact
that scientific naturalists recognize it as "the only explanation possible"
within their world view.
In service of Christ the King,
Richard
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 23:52:23 EDT