RE: It's the Bible or evolution

It is true that physicists are trying to recreate, via high-energy collisions, the conditions of high densities and temperatures that existed in the very early universe. I do not see why biologists, similarly, cannot recreate the situations that existed prior to the emergence of life.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Sat 10/1/2005 4:45 PM
To: oleary@sympatico.ca
Cc: gmurphy@raex.com; tdavis@messiah.edu; randyisaac@adelphia.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: It's the Bible or evolution

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 11:28:35 -0400 "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
writes:
> Yes. I heard what you said, George.
>
> I am saying that you CAN'T put a fence around the word "created" and
> make it
> mean only what you want.
>
> If unguided nature can "create" life (that is the prebiotic
> evolution
> account, I believe), so can scientists create life in the lab.
>
> In either case, one can claim that God had something to do with it -
> or that
> he didn't. No doubt, both claims will be made with equal force. So?
>
> The only result that will be really interesting will be if
> scientists end up
> giving up on creating life in the lab because the idea turns out to
> have
> conceptual problems, like squaring the circle. (I am not saying that
> I think
> this will happen, but that if it did, it would be really
> interesting.)
>
> But I won't respond further because when people campaign to restrict
> the use
> of terminology, they either succeed or fail. The odds I would give
> this one
> don't really matter.
>
> Cheers, Denyse
>
Your argument makes as much sense as the popular claim that general
relativity theory proves that all moral standards are relative. There are
necessarily boundaries to use of terminology in technical and
semi-technical areas. Failure to abide by the distinctions is the
province of the mountebank, rogue, impostor.
Dave
Received on Sat Oct 1 17:42:22 2005