> At 09:36 AM 12/6/96 -0800, Randy wrote:
> >
> >
> BH:==
> >>
> >> This is very nice, Randy, but its a strawman since Darwinians do
> >> not claim that pure chance "achieved the degree of complexity and
> >
> RL:==
> >Yes I have heard those comments before if not pure chance then what
> >creative force?
> >
>
> As usual, I'm having a difficult time deciphering your comments.
I'm not supprised Brian it was a question.
> My point, which you have not addressed, is that your quote characterizes
> Darwinism as involving only pure chance. This is a gross mis-
> characterization.
What quote you are referring to? My last quote was Denton not
Darwin. I believe Jim made a quote from Darwin. I may very well be
mistaken please provide me with the quote so that I may be sure what we
are talking about.
Now how about an answer to my question?
>
> The way you phrased your question indicates that you think
> pure chance can be creative.
Not really:
Yes I have heard those comments before if not pure chance then what
creative force?
There was no comma, no change in direction the "if not" ref: your comment
that evolution is not random. My response if not random then what creative
force?
Remember the fish head? You didn't understand that either did you? It's
the same thing. First you have nothing then you have something then you
have part of something.
Natural selection does not explain how life evolved from nothing. Neither
does it explain how mutation could explain evolution upward to higher more
intelligent life. Where in all the universe does one find a plan which
sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? Where
does one see a marvelous motor which converts the continual flow of solar
radiant energy bathing the earth into the work of building chemical
elements into replicating cellular systems, or of organizing populations
of worms into populations of men, over vast spans of geologic time?
> "what else is there besides pure chance and how can these
> something elses be creative".
>
Not really. If you ask me the above question/statment, I could easily say
it's not a "these" He's a God! And where else but God does creation come
from?
> Let's consider the first part of my hypothetical question...
Is a Straw Man a mutated Man? Or it is just less than a real man? Or is a
hypothetical question not really a question since you really are not
answering my question but a question you have asked yourself because you
really don't want to answer my question. Oh I know you didn't understand
the question did you?
> be deterministic natural law. And in between there would a
> vast number of different types of processes involving both
> chance and natural law. Added to this there is a selection
What do you mean by deterministic natural law?
>
> Now the second part. Can such a process be creative? It seems
Very interesting you are taking a question dividing it in half and
answering both sides in different ways. Talk about avoiding the question??
Just put the word "RANDOM" between the words "A" and "PROCESS" and answer
the question.
> to certainly be a possibility which could not be ruled out
> _a-priori_. But for the point I was trying to make to you, it
> is absolutely irrelevant whether or not it is creative. The point
> is that the views of Darwinists were grossly mis-represented
> by the quote you gave, mis-represented in such a way as to
> make the whole idea look silly.
>
What do you mean by _a-priori_ ? And what does this have to do with
answering my question? Since I was quoting Denton this does look a little
silly.
Neither mutation nor natural selection is either a directing program or an
energy converter. If neither is either, they can't be both! And evolution
must have both to produce growth!
A sad comment, my fish you know the one with the missing face? Well the
mutation didn't work very well I planted it in my garden. I gave it as
much time as I could but when it started floating sideways in the pond I
decided it was time to do some natural selection. It was not a random
choice however because there was a great deal of thought that went into
it. Would the process be intelligent design professor?
=====m-_
`,_` ./.~`-,. "Throughout the hundreds of millions
=,` / 'i '~+=,_ of years the coelacanths have kept
v. . !-. = __. ~\=. the same form and structure. Here is
` ,_. , i`,_'\.- ~e_ one of the great mysteries of evolution"
' -.-,s @@Wi[ ,z,c \\.
.Y/ ,_-8!s/*fi! '',_\,!@m[ Jacques Millot, "The Coelacanth"
_si /i@Wzzz`--,dPV\gW@f
YP -i 'i -. gAY,g@@P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,!/!5 . iK| !d@/` ~
-=`-(- ',,`! Wf+i dMTf~~Y**f[ ~ Randy Landrum
!-! ! ,./,@b- -WW/b@mW~msm! ~ B.A. Brooks Institute
P-' , ' ~_dA~~M@WD*fV\]bA@@f ~ US Coordinator FaithNet 700:1000/0.0
e..! ,,!A`im/ - .*NW@@@Wf ~ randyl@efn.org
*\ 5-~~,@. = sNWW@@@@Af ~
@XW`. A~ 2+e2@@@@@A~ ~