>
>Ralph:
> >I can understand and appreciate a wide-ranging interest but it does
> >seem like you have settled on a particular personal interpretation of the
>facts
> >of evolution. If evolution was not the result of some rigid "plan" then was
> >it a flexible "plan" or no "plan" at all? If it was a flexible plan, how
> >do we distinguish it from a series of chance events? If there was no
> >"plan", why do we need to postulate an ID?
>
>Bertvan:
>I sure didn't mean to give the impression I'd settled on "any particular
>interpretation of the facts of evolution". I consider evolution a great
>mystery. People use all sorts of rational arguments about whether evolution
>was the result of chance or intelligence. IMHO none of these arguments
>conclusively dictate chance. Common sense tells me chance is an unlikely
>answer. No scientist "needs" to postulate ID. Only those who consider
>chance unlikely.
I see. I'm beginning to doubt my ability to interpret what people are saying.
Earlier you said:
>> I believe nature is the
>>result of intelligence and not the result of a series of chance
events.
Now you say:
>I sure didn't mean to give the impression I'd settled on "any
particular
>interpretation of the facts of evolution".
"I believe" sounded to me like someone who's made up their mind.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 15:42:37 EDT