> Greetings Randy:
>
> "I think many of the ID argument's most energetic advocates are also
> convinced of the inadequacy of the present evidence to support the theory of
> evolution."
>
> True, but since ID is indistinguishable from evolution, then the same
> evidence that does not support also does not support ID theory either.
I hope this isn't just something I've missed in an earlier post but what
is the evolutionary explanation? It wouldn't be the oscillating universe
theory(since you said that question of dark matter is still open). Would
it be the baby universe theory?
>
> "I would agree with what you've said here. My argument is that any form of
> life which begins must ALREADY be compatible with the physical constants in
> the universe and, if it is not, will be dead before it has a chance to
> 'adapt'. I don't think we're actually disagreeing here."
>
> But there are different degrees of compatibility.
Certainly, but I don't see that fact as contradicting my statement. Did
you think it did?
Some lifeforms might have
> features that make them very compatible; others may have features that make
> them just barely compatible. And under a different set of constant values,
> the features that made a specific lifeform very compatible might now make
> that lifeform just barely compatible, or even not compatible at all.
I would agree with all of this. My focus has been on the boundary
between compatibility and non-compatibility.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
Randy Bronson