>What "theory" and what "model" is that exactly? I agree with Walter
>that evolution is like a fog that accommodates to the data. It has
>been backpedalling ever since Darwin's Origin of 1859. The theory
>today is nothing like Darwin originally predicted, and if it abandons
>the central role of natural selection in favout of Kauffman-style
>self-organising complexity, then it won't really be an evolutionary
>theory .
Stephen, this is an amazing statement. I would be interested in
seeing a definition of "evolutionary theory" which excludes
Kauffman's theories.
[....]
>Sorry Denis, but modern materialistic-naturalistic science will not
>accept "contributions of the PCs and YECs".
I know of at least one example to the contrary, <The Mystery of
Life's Origin> by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen. I have seen this
book referenced in the mainstream abiogenesis literature many
times and have not yet seen anyone even hint that the authors
are creationists. I would have to check to be certain, but I
believe it was Leslie Orgel who referenced the book in the same
sentence that he referenced one of his own papers. This is, of
course, a great testament to the scholarly excelence of the book
but also calls into question your insinuation that creationists
are somehow being silenced.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================