I am glad you were able to respond to all of these comments. Welcome to the
ASA list. You mentioned that you studied earth sciences. Are you still active
in this field?
I'll let the other people comment on your responses to their comments, but
will take up a couple of your points with respect to uniformitarianism. You
wrote in part:
> I'm not so much critiquing Darwinism as I am critiquing the uniformitarian
> assumption with regards to origins in general. Generally speaking, my
> definition of Darwinism encompasses the science which says that purely
> natural processes are solely responsible for the origins and evolution of
> life on earth.
> Uniformitarianism is a hypothesis, though often unstated, which says that
> only natural processes created life. Evolution and origins of life
> scenarios are theories which fit under the uniformitarian hypothesis.
Not only are you using an unusual definition of "Darwinism" you are using an
unusual definition of "uniformitarianism" as well. Uniformitarianism strictly
should only be applied to the 19th century geologists who believed in the
sufficency of present causes to explain the geological record. Extreme
uniformitarianians belt that those processes operated on the scale scale and
intensity in the past as they do at present. No modern geologist is
uniformitarian in that sense of the word. There is nothing in
uniformitarianism "which says that only natural processes created life".
> I think that the uniformitarian hypothesis is sometimes testable, but where
> it isn't, it is still taken as true. And where evidence seems to fit with
> the uniformitarian hypothesis, it often is weak or circumstantial evidence
> at best. For this reason I call it a philosophy as well, and where the
> evidence is lacking, uniformitarian hypotheses are still taken as true.
So what you positing that researchers do? Let us say there are a sequence of
events in earth history A-Z of which B, D-E M, N , S and V cannot be
explained by natural processes while the rest can. How do you propose we
study these unexplained events?
Some further questions. You seem to single out the formation of biological
systems as being inexplicable by natural processes. Why is this? Do you
except that natural processes are adaquate to form stars, galaxies, planets
and rocks? If so, why? If not, again why?
The "true outsider"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 05 2002 - 05:47:53 EST