Re: "Genesis Reconsidered"

From: George Andrews (gandrews@as.wm.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 03 2000 - 10:30:02 EST

  • Next message: Massie: "[Fwd: Re: "Genesis Reconsidered"]"

    Massie wrote:

    > Quite to the contrary. ID argues that there is no reasonable exptation
    > of a yet undiscoverd scientific principle of organization of information
    > of this complexity from chaos and therefore we need a God. This is not
    > about filling in God where we just do not know something.
    >
    > However, the other side feels that any attempt to posit that information
    > came from a non-physical source is a vain attempt to insert God of the
    > gaps.
    >
    > Bert M

    Could you tell me how the ID camp handles information generation found in
    symbol sequences course grained from chaotic attractors which naturally occur
    in nature; e.g. BZ reactions? (see Prigogine's book "Complexity") It seems to
    me that this obviates the need for new physics or God and offers "reasonable
    expectation" of an explanation for "specified complexity" based on present
    knowledge of nonlinearity.

    Thanks
    George A.





    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 03 2000 - 10:18:08 EST