Re: >Re: Design Flaw in the Brain

Eduardo G. Moros (
Tue, 04 Nov 1997 19:11:12 -0600

Hi Glenn,

First of all, let's try to narrow the topic lest we get all entangled-up and
people start thinking I'm discussing old-earth geology with you. On the
matter in question, I thought we were talking on the wiring of the brain. On
this subject you may be interested in the recent articles by Bejan. He says
that the "tree" networks in nature are fully "deterministic" in nature. I'll
give you some links below. I'm not 100% sure Bejan's discovery applies in
this case but I think it does. Now before we continue this exchange have in
mind that I have not read the book you read and that I have not read "all" the
posting on the ASA reflector on this subject. I usually concentrate in a
single point and I am usually brief because time is a prime commodity these
days in my career. Now, I am more than willing to carry on a discussion on a
given point. I have said a couple of times the last two days that I see no
connection between your (or Deacon's) argument and darwinian derivatives.


News articles: <>

Magazine article: <>

Journal article: <>

Glenn Morton wrote:
> Hi Eduardo,
> Of the effect of the environment on the death of neonatal neurons,
> At 10:23 AM 11/4/97 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
> >But of course Deacon calls it like he does. After all he "believes" it.
> >This is a typical case of orthodoxy blocking progress in science because all
> >must be molded to some type of darwinian derivative.
> Why is this a blockage to progress? How can you support the statement that
> more progress is to be made by making other assumptions? Has there been an
> experiment performed which shows that 5% more progress comes from
> non-evolutionary assumptions?
> I am not trying to be facetious here. I hear this statement in the
> Christian literature all the time, how evolutionary orthodoxy stifles
> progress. I have been told that a global flood model ought to be able to
> find oil more efficiently and that it is not used only because of the bias
> of the geologists. My company spent $12 million on a dry hole this year.
> Let me assure you that if they saw benefit from a global flood perspective
> at stopping a dry hole, they would most assuredly use it. but some people
> think we would rather spend that kind of money rather than accept a global
> flood. Of course this is ridiculous. (See David R. McQueen, The Chemistry of
> Oil explained by Flood Geology, Impact 155 May 1986,)
> glenn
> Foundation, Fall and Flood