From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 12:38:28 EDT
Keeping busy with lab work has kept me from replying, which has also corresponded to improved communication.
I failed to make it clear that I was referring specifically to currently popular versions of ID; if I recall correctly, Josh has specifically disavowed a general endorsement thereof.
I would say that shell color patterns and shapes are not irreducibly complex in that they have relatively simple generating formulas in many cases and that a series of intermediates is evident in the case of shell shape. On the other hand, they pass various proposed tests for irreducible complexity or other related terms in current ID jargon.
I am actually in favor of seeing design in the traditional sense of crediting God for the beauty that we see in shells, with the caveat that our theological understanding of said God must depend on more direct revelation (i.e., Jesus and scripture). However, I see the main thrust of the current ID movement (to the extent that a big tent has a coherent direction) in its demand for form-conferring events and a priori rejection of "macroevolution" (defined as "evolution that I don't believe in") as theologically, logically, and scientifically flawed.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 12:40:43 EDT