Gregory,
With regards to your statements below - Why do you state that "natural" scientists are not united in their views on the age of the earth and universe?
Best,
Charles
<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Olivet Nazarene University
Dept. of Geology
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
>>> Gregory Arago gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 3/1/2006 3:40 PM >>
"In order for ID to provide a plausible alternative to evolution, its proponents would have to address the one issue they least want to face: the age of the earth and the universe ." * Edward Davis (Winter 2006 Issue)
This door has been identified repeatedly. Entering it is debatable and perhaps backward looking into the creation vs. evolution debate instead of forward looking into a scientific landscape that must sooner or later deal with the effects of information theory, studies in complexity, self-organization and (though it bothers me to say it) Dembski's specification-ism (which, as an aside, has not 'eliminated chance'). Why must ID make a theory on the 'age of the earth and the universe'? If (natural) scientists are not united in their views on this topic, then why must IDists be united on their views?
If I were an IDist (which I'm not), I'd put off the question that apparently 'has to be addressed,' as long as possible. It would seem there are other ways to 'provide a plausible alternative to evolution' than to speak about origins of life (OoL). The process philosophy inherent in evolutionary theory, for example, is vulnerable too.
Received on Wed Mar 1 18:06:10 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 01 2006 - 18:06:18 EST