Re: Hunter on Darwin and Gnosticism

From: Glenn Morton <glenn_morton@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Aug 02 2005 - 18:01:28 EDT

Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
CH: Wells is talking about the long history of embryology, and all the
metaphysical baggage it has been saddled with. He is countering the
evolution view with an ID view. He is not providing the details of how the
species arose. You mentioned the Nature of Nature conference papers. I'll
have to look at those, thanks. In any case, the kind of information
theory-based ID that Dembski promotes (trying to detect when and where
design can be inferred as opposed to the workings of natural processes) does
not provide the details of how species arise (this is not to say he and
other don't have their own ideas about it).

GRM: Come now. IF ID can't tell us anything about speciation, how can it be sure that the species were designed? I find this whole denial that ID has anything to do with speciation, entirely unbelieveable. If ID doesn't know how speciation took place, how on earth can they possibly be sure that evolution didn't do it?

GRM:Besides, humans want explanation, not the lack of explanations. By this I note that the problem is that by avoiding explanations you give great power to the other guy who does offer explanations.

CH: What I said was that small-scale adaptive change is a problem for
evolution and common descent. You seem to read everything as coming from ID.

GRM: I can't actually believe what I a reading here. Are you that unknowledgeable about the science of biology? Is the only way to be an ID person is to deny observational evidence of small-scale adaptive change being beneficial?

GRM: Please list these [nested hierarchy] violations. BAld, evidentiaryless
assertions are worthless. YOu seem to think that if you say somethign we
must automatically believe that you know what you are talking about.

CH: Here are some places for you to start. There's much more where these
came from.

I looked at a couple of these. The problem you still have is that you have never answered my question. Why does the entire ecosystem turn over every few million years? Why would the designer do that? You also haven't answered why there is this nested hierarchy of animals in the fossil record. Until you answer those two questions, I see no reason to take your drivel seriously. YOu can list as many articles which discuss different techniques to find out how it happened as you want. But until you actually explain why this non-god from Betelgeuse makes the entire ecosystem change every few million years and change in a nested hierarchical sense, you are just spitting into the wind. Are you ever going to actually address that issue or are you going to bey cryogenic Cornelius again?

                
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Received on Tue Aug 2 18:03:48 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 02 2005 - 18:03:56 EDT