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