>A fertilized egg is one cell. Science has come a long way in analyzing what
>that cell contains, but we don't have much understanding of how the bits of
>matter in that single cell turn into a complex organism.
are you sure of this? I'm under the impression that cell biology is
quite well understood. I did a goole.com search and this was the
> If a cell can contain the design for the entire future of the organism, I
>see no reason why it couldn't contain the design for the future evolution of
so the original prokaryote 3.5 billion years ago contained all of the
DNA for the dinosaurs, whales, dogs, fleas, elephants, birds, and of
course, ourselves. That makes sense.
>I wonder why materialists feel compelled
>to think up a materialist explanation, such as Darwinism (chance variation
>and natural selection), to explain evolution.
I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that nobody "thought up"
variation and selection. That someone (namely Darwin and thousands of
scientists since him) have merely observed those things happening and
talked about them. I thought you were big on freedom of speech. I
know, though, that those creationist books you read like to say that
nobody *did* see it happening and scientists just make it up to
support atheism. That's not true, of course, but it's intended
audience--including you--just love it. And as long as you love it
they are going to keep saying it. The truth is of no consequence when
there are souls to be saved.
>They accept the maturation of
>individual organisms as the result of individual designs - without any
is a supernatural explanation needed? Is it ok with you if they just
study and report on what they see happening? What cell biologists see
happening is not what you would prefer them to see, but they see it
and talk about what they have seen. And will do so even if "the
public" (or you) would rather they talk about the supernatural (or
just keep quiet) instead.
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 19 2000 - 17:01:59 EDT