From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 11:23:10 EDT
I see little hope for ID until they stop talking about design in vacuo and
start recognising that the earth is billions of years old. They do this to
keep in with YECs and undermine what good ideas they may have had in the
beginning.
I think the polarisation of Dakins and Dennett with yEC and Id has throttled
much scientiifc discussion.
Regards
Michael
P.s. I am making use of my message rule of "delete from server". It has
empitied my in-box of bovine droppings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Cc: <richard@biblewheel.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: The Aphenomenon of Abiogenesis
>
>
> Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> >
> > I respectfully disagree. The only reason the ID group is doing what they
are
> > doing is to show that God designed the universe. Lots of people have
signed
> > on to that agenda. But, in the end, if you can't rule out green men or
> > Vishnu as the creator, then the ID agenda is taking people down a
logical
> > dead end and thus is a waste of time, effort, trees and ink. Any agenda
> > which has no hope of accomplishing what most people want it to is worse
than
> > useless because of all the wasted and misspent effort chasing a logical
> > impossibillity. It is a waste of apologetical talent.
>
> I recently read a book "signs of intelligence" edited by Demski and
Kushiner. It
> is all about ID and Darwinian theory. My conclusions are that:
>
> 1.) ID supports the notion that Darwin's concept of evolution by natural
> selection is wrong.
>
> 2.) Most people agree with that statement and the scientific community has
> failed to convince people to the contrary.
>
> 3.) ID is a scientific measure attempting to prove that natural selection
cannot
> work.
>
> I do not think that the book did a good job of proving #3 but that is not
to say
> that such a notion is a bad idea. It does not matter what the alternatives
are
> (green men or whatever) if the point could ever be proven.
>
> I don't agree with ID, but I also think that extreme defense of natural
> selection (As in Dawkins) only hurts the scientific approach to
understanding
> how things actually did happen. In fact, Darwin himself strongly stated
that he
> did not consider natural selection as the only method by which things
evolved.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 11:30:38 EDT