Glenn Morton wrote:
> Due to a discussion with a young astronomer who supports Hugh Ross, I did
> some research on the RTB site. Unfortunately, I found an anthropological
> article which simply doesn't represent anthropology correctly. I have
> written a critque which can be found at
It's also worth noting that while Ross is certainly a competent
astronomer, the astronomical data he cites in support of the anthropic
coincidences is rendered pointless by his rejection of human evolution. If
intelligent life hasn't evolved by natural processes then these are indeed just
"coincidences" and a design argument based upon them is just numerology.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 21 2002 - 10:13:04 EST