From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 21:18:42 EDT
Walter wrote of the book he was reading:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Walter Hicks [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 8:43 AM
My conclusions are that:
>
>1.) ID supports the notion that Darwin's concept of evolution by natural
>selection is wrong.
ID can only do that IF and only IF one assumes a priori the mode by which
God created the world.
An analogy:
If you want to send an unmanned space ship to Alpha Centauri to see what is
there and to explore the planets around that star. What kind of ship are you
going to design? The communication lines are too long for it to see a
danger, tell you and then await your instructions. The ship must be able to
'think' for itself and take action. Thus it must have a brain. But other
dangers may mean that the probe must be able to get out of jams by itself.
It must be able to repair itself, find its own fuel. And if you want to do
it efficiently, it must be able to reproduce itself so that it can send off
baby ships to other stars to see what is there. These are classic von
Neumann machines. The fact is, they are very much like a living system.
They repair themselves, they react to stimuli, they reproduce. That would
be the best design if you are sending an unmanned ship to explore the
galaxy. It would be even better if it could adapt to various conditions
such as heat, acidity, cold, various levels and frequencies of light.
If a human would design such a ship, DESIGN I repeat. Why wouldn't God use
evolution? Why does intelligent design mean that God would use a less
efficient means to send us here than we would to send a ship to alpha
centauri???
>
>2.) Most people agree with that statement and the scientific community has
>failed to convince people to the contrary.
I disagree. The scientific community has failed to convince people with a
particular religious preference to the contrary. That is what the real
situation is. I don't see atheists arguing against evolution. Nor do I see
many Bhuddists arguing against it.
>
>3.) ID is a scientific measure attempting to prove that natural
>selection cannot
>work.
I wish when people said ID was a scientific measure, they would actually say
what it is that is measured. There are only a few physical measures which we
humans can make: length, mass, time, and temperature. There might be one or
two others I am overlooking. What physical quantities did ID measure? What
exactly is the coefficient of design?
In fact, Darwin himself strongly
>stated that he
>did not consider natural selection as the only method by which
>things evolved.
Do you have a reference for this statment?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 21:18:49 EDT