Re: Benjamin Wiker on ID

From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 17:38:23 EDT

  • Next message: bob_miller: "Re: Benjamin Wiker on ID"

    Hi, Burgy,

        Berlinski is indeed part of the ID crowd. He participated in a debate
    that Bill Buckley organized several years ago between supporters of
    evolution and ID people that was broadcast on PBS. Berlinski also published
    several years ago in "Commentary" an attack on big bang cosmology. He is a
    mathematician, and if my memory is correct he is Jewish but not observant.

    Bob

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "John Burgeson" <burgythree@hotmail.com>
    To: <jbembe@hotmail.com>; <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 3:17 PM
    Subject: Re: Benjamin Wiker on ID

    > >>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 - 17:39:02 EDT