RE: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 20:36:27 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Opposing Evoultionary Theory"

    Blake wrote of may stating that I had never heard a fact speaking for

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Dr. Blake Nelson []
    >Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 9:20 AM

    >What a novel, literal approach to the phrase.

    Glad you liked my novelty. But it was not meant like you are taking it.
    The point is that facts do fit into theories and hypothesis. Some facts can
    be explained in many different ways. But, the more facts you have to fit
    into a coherent theory, the harder it is to 1. find that theory, and 2 the
    harder it is to salvage all the other theories.

    The YEC movement often makes use of the concept that facts must be fit into
    theories in order to wiggle out of conclusions. The thing they miss is that
    with lots and lots of facts, the viable theories shrink tremendously. That
    is why you will see YECs explaining fact A with theory A and fact B with
    contradictory theory B. Only by explaining things in the 'local' method can
    they explain anything. To build a logically consistent, coherent theory from
    ALL the facts at one time, would drive them towards the theories which are
    generally accepted.

    I won't be drawn in to the wierd direction you took off of my comment that I
    have never heard a fact speak for itself. BTW, the approach I took is not
    really novel to me. I stole it from Lewis Binson I believe.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 20:36:54 EDT