--- Damien Broderick
> At 06:49 PM 12/01/01 -0800, johnn marlow wrote:
> >> Do you question this theory [evolution]?
> >**I refute it.
> No, you *deny* it. If you refuted it, you'd be
> worthy of a Nobel Prize, not
> to mention a Templeton Award.
**You are indeed correct, re: refute, and I stand
corrected. Should've grabbed a dictionary. I do not,
however, deny it--as I said, I think it incomplete.
> >Obviously portions of it are true
> There's nothing *obvious* about it--it takes hard
> work and study to see why
> evolution is incomparably our best theory, in
> biology, cosmology and indeed
**Well put--and "theory" it is. Huge gaps in
evidentiary chain. Much supposition.
> >**To suggest that something like Man ("in
> >apprehension, how like a god") is the result of
> >anything other than a conscious, directed,
> >effort is absurd.
> Sigh. Why am I not surprised to read this?
**No idea. If you want to say that DNA is an
intelligent force, that works. of course you'll *deny*
Sheldrake's morphogenetic field theory, I'm sure.
> >If memory serves, Darwin himself
> >conceded his theory had fatal flaws (the eye, for
> >example; too complex, too soon); they have not, as
> >yet, been corrected.
> I love it! The major theory underlying all today's
> science is fundamentally
**I doubt I need to point out to you how many times
PRECISELY that has occurred in the past..? though
"underlying all today's science" is of course an
overstatement. How does Darwin relate to, say, quantum
**If you can observe the universe, the order, the
mathematical precision--and conclude that this is all
one big happy coincidence, well, I just don't know
what to say.
**I see intelligent direction; you see happenstance.
> Damien Broderick
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:18 MDT