From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Nov 11 2004 - 15:36:24 GMT
Scott,
You wrote:
> Intelligent Design is not the same as "creation science". The latter
> assumes that the world is 6000 years old, but the former does not. ID
> accepts evolution of life forms, accepts that the earth is over 4 billion
> years old, etc., and therefore rejects the belief that the Genesis story
> can be taken literally. What it does not accept is the notion that
> evolution occurs solely through chance and natural selection. It bases its
> argument on calculation of probabilities. Whether one accepts those
> calculations is another story.
Right.
> What is true, though, is that no one can
> argue either for ID or for the belief that chance and natural selection are
> sufficient, based on clear, scientific evidence. So both should be
> relegated to a philosophical discussion on evolution, and neither should be
> taught as science.
Now that's something that never occurred to me, no doubt because I've been
overwhelmed by science's pervasive propaganda that searching for
mechanisms and using measurements is the only legitimate way to establish
true knowledge. But now that Scott has put evolution theory in proper
perspective, my belief that the theory fails as a complete explanation by
science's own standards has been further justified. Of course, Pirsig also
got me to thinking along those lines some time ago.
Thanks, Scott.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 11 2004 - 15:37:39 GMT