Subject:
|
Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:27:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
161 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > The Pittsburgh Post Gazette isn't exactly a rigorous scientific journal, so
> > the inclusion of this article shouldn't be taken to equal legitimacy. In
> > addition, Dr. Michael Behe's theory of intelligent design does nothing to
> > explain where the intelligent designer came from, and he also seems
> > uninterested in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, among others, since
> > his comments come across as a refutation of basic Darwinian evolution rather
> > than current theory.
> I can only hope that you take this as an indicator that the major scientific
> community does recognize the futility of macro-evolution explanation for how
> life came into existance and 'progressed'.
Hope away. Since you've demonstrated your inability to understand the
processes of science and what science represents, your assessment of the
alleged merits of Dr. Behe's theories is meaningless.
> The intelligence often pointed to is often described as being an alien race -
> which only begs the question where did it come from.
Yeah--just like begging the question of where did God come from. He
"always existed" and "he created himself" are both worthless answers, by the
way.
>
> If you totally reject the notion of a God-as-creator then you end up in this
> sort of silly reasoning.
I prefer the Uranus-and-Gaea-as-creators, or the Cosmic-Egg-as-creator,
which are mythologies equally as valid as your Christian mythology.
> (FWIW- this is a hot topic in PA since they're considering changing school
> cirriculum to refer to evolution as a theory (sad state of affairs there in PA
> schools.)
Well, it *is* a theory, and anyone who understands anything about it knows
that it's a theory.
As I understand it, there's also a lobbying effort in PA to begin teaching
the "Stork" method of human reproduction, which has as much scientific merit
as any form of creationism.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
| (...) I can only hope that you take this as an indicator that the major scientific community does recognize the futility of macro-evolution explanation for how life cameinto existance and 'progressed'. The intelligence often pointed to is often (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
