Re: Flawed anthro views of RTB

From: robert rogland (
Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 10:37:52 EST

  • Next message: Ted Davis: "volunteers for email interviews"

    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.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: george murphy <>
    To: Glenn Morton <>
    Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu <>
    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