Sorry, George, but I just don't follow your logic. Could you explain for me
why, IF intelligent life hasn't evolved by natural processes, THEN these
[astronomical data cited in support of the anthropic principle] are just
coincidences. Your assertion seems like a non sequitur to me.
From: george murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Glenn Morton <email@example.com>
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: Flawed anthro views of RTB
>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
>"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 - 10:43:28 EST