[asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 4D from Timaeus – to Ted Davis: Martian Sculptures and Owen Gingerich

A quick, short rejoinder.
 
Steve Matheson wrote: "I am completely unconvinced that any of the biological examples presented by you [Timaeus] or Denton or anyone else display counterflow.  Note that I didn't say that they *don't* display counterflow.  I'm just not convinced, even a little bit, that they do.  And the more arguments from incredulity that I see (Nature's Destiny is chock full of them), the more I suspect that there is little prospect of any serious attempt to demonstrate counterflow in a meaningful way."

The concept 'flow' is a process concept. There is no stasis in 'flow.' Thus, for ID as an origins idea, the concept of 'flow' is foreign. Talk of 'designing' is deemed irrelevant. Why then need ID talk about 'counterflow'? Theirs is an ontological argument for the mere existence of 'design.'
 
Steve may expect a flow argument, but he has also likely not read Pitirim Sorokin on the heart of sensate culture which 'evolutionism' represents. Flow, flux and change-ism are key in this regard. Yet there nevertheless remain things that do not evolve, do not change, do not 'flow' or 'flux' which are crucial for human self-understanding.
 
Gregory __________________________________________________________________ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 7 02:50:22 2008