Re: Flawed anthro views of RTB

From: george murphy (
Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 20:08:32 EST

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "RE: Flawed anthro views of RTB"

    robert rogland wrote:

    > George, your error is not a non sequitur so much as a petitio
    > principi, i.e., begging the question. You are assuming that living
    > organisms developed from non-living matter. But the anthropic
    > principle can be maintained by those like myself who believe that God
    > created a universe fit for life and then created the first life forms
    > supernaturally. Until you can provide a plausible scenario for OOL,
    > including a plausible scenario for the appearance of the information
    > in the simplest conceivable organism, your assumption remains just
    > that, an assumption.

            For the present purpose I am making no assumption that human
    beings are the product of evolution, but am simply pointing out that the
    force of a design argument based on the anthropic coincidences is
    greatly weakened if indeed they are only coincidences & evolution hasn't
    Don't be so hasty to speak of "your error" before you've shown that an
    error has been committed.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 21 2002 - 20:07:51 EST