Re: It's the Bible or evolution

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 11:53:40 EDT

Denyse O'Leary wrote:

>Yes. I heard what you said, George.
>I am saying that you CAN'T put a fence around the word "created" and make it
>mean only what you want.
The meaning of the term created needs to be established from usage
patterns, not what you want it to mean Denyse.

>If unguided nature can "create" life (that is the prebiotic evolution
>account, I believe), so can scientists create life in the lab.
That's an illogical conclusion, easily refuted by for instance looking
at fusion. Found in nature but humans are still struggling. Please
explain why if 'unguided nature' can create something, scientists should
be able to do so as well? And remember 'unguided' is a poorly defined
term when it comes to evolution. While evolution may not be guided
towards a purpose, evolution is surely in some sense teleological and
guided by natural law, selection, physical constraints etc. Ayala and
Ruse have written on this.

>In either case, one can claim that God had something to do with it - or that
>he didn't. No doubt, both claims will be made with equal force. So?
Indeed, claiming God's involvement has no explanatory explanation which
is why ID which relies on the supernatural is scientifically vacuous.
Received on Sat Oct 1 11:54:50 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 11:54:50 EDT