From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 15:17:33 EDT
>>Your condescension is quite offensive.
Obviously I cannot understand you, and thus this conversation and
clafirication of your point is a waste of your time. >>
FWIW -- I find no problem (this time) understanding George. And I did not
find his response to you condescending. Maybe faintly irritated? Could be.
I do not agree with all George (and others) write about ID -- noer do I
agree much with the ID people either. But I do think they are a useful foil
to unthinking acceptance of all evolutionary writing.
David Berlinski, a mathematician, has an interesting essay in COMMENTARY (a
jewish publication of some respectability) on how the "evolutionary
establishment" sometimes accepts too uncritically that which its high
priests (Dawkins, for instance) preach. The issue here is the Nillson-Pelger
article of not to long ago in which it was (1) "proven" (2) "by means of a
computer simulation" that the eye could evolve from a sensitive spot to
20:20 acuity in only a few generations (wel -- a few thousand). As
Berlinski, who is apparently an IDer, points out, (1) science at best
provides evidence for a concept -- it does not "prove," and (2) there was
not and never has been a "computer simulation" involved at all -- just some
"back of the envelope calculations."
Keeping the high priests honest is also a useful think my friends at ICR
have done over the years. Maybe that's why I am still friends with Duane
Gish. He may be wrong -- but he "sins boldly."
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 15:18:12 EDT