Depends on your mindset. If you basically believe evolutionary principles
are true and that science is finding answers excluding God, you are
correct. If your mindset is "...in the beginning, God...." then one finds
the arguments cogent and usually intelligent. I, for one, find them much
nearer the truth than macroevolutionists.
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: John E. Rylander <rylander@prolexia.com>
> To: Calvin Evolution Reflector <evolution@calvin.edu>
> Subject: The Anti-Evolutionary Arguments We See Here
> Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 3:11 PM
>
> As one who's really open to God having done things via natural means or
not,
> I must confess dismay at the chronically low quality of the
> anti-evolutionary arguments presented here. I guess I'm echoing what
Howard
> said here, for reasons complementary to those he expressed.
>
> There are some significant arguments to be made, in my view, along the
lines
> of evolutionary theory being the best scientific theory by far but NOT
> therefore being either precisely and exhaustively true nor even being
> demonstrably -likely- to be precisely and exhaustively true (perhaps it's
> akin to Newtonian physics, e.g., and in any event ET's insight is limited
to
> the scientifically accessible aspects of the physical world, contra
> Dawkins).
> As a corollary, one could further argue that we should in principal be
> prepared to accept things like ID theory -should they ever prove
> empirically/scientifically superior- to evolutionary theory (which they
> certainly don't -right now-).
>
> But instead, from nearly all anti-evolutionary comers, we get some higher
or
> lower degree of rhetorical sophistication combined with scientific and
> logical dross, pretty much always in the directions of grotesque
caricature,
> gross exaggeration, or just sloppy confusion.
>
> It's a pity. It really is.
>
> --John
>