Slow down, Steve. Take a couple of deep breaths.
>Reflectorites
>
>Here is an excerpt from a speech by a Dr. Roland Hirsch in accepting a
>Distinguished Service Award from The American Chemical Society. In it
>Dr Hirsch makes the *stunning* claims that:
>
>1. based on molecular biological data "the Darwinian theory itself is
>fundamentally, perhaps fatally flawed. "
For all I know, this may be the first time someone is using
molecular biological data to call Darwinism wrong. But
a mere announcement that a scientist has some doubts about
Darwinism is old news.
>2. "cellular processes are ... irreducibly complex" in that "gradual,
step-by-
>step evolution of the process would not work, for none of the intermediate
>stages would be "selected" because none of the intermediate stages would
>be functional."
OK. He's read Behe. So have we. Again, old news.
>3. "recent research in information theory...concludes that random mutations
>cannot create complex, biologically-specified genetic information."
Hasn't this been discussed over and over in this very group?
>4. Natural selection has been considered by many to be the unifying
>principle of biology. But these and other flaws seriously compromise the
>theory" and it "has thus far in my opinion failed."
Rack up one more scientist whose personal opinion is that Darwinism
has failed. As you know from this group, personal opinions are not
in danger of extinction. This is not "stunning" news, Steve, no
matter how you cut it.
>Note these claims are all based on the *data* that Hirsch knows in his
>field.. Dr Hirsch is not associated with the ID movement, but hopefully he
>soon will be!
He made no mention of ID, at least not in the excerpt you passed along.
Surely, if he thought he had proof (or even just a strong presumption) of
ID, he would have said something? Here is his vision:
>>I think that understanding function and its chemical
>>basis offers a much more secure foundation for biology
I'm confident that if anyone can squeeze ID out of that, you're the man,
Steve.
>I am becoming more confident that what we are starting to see is the
>beginning of a trickle of scientists, which will gradually build up
>into a flood-tide in repudiating the 19th century materialistic paradigm
of >Darwinism and replace it with a new 21st paradigm of intelligent design!
>This is shaping up to be a scientific revolution that will make the
>Copernican and Darwinian revolutions look like a Sunday school picnic.
>What an exciting time to be alive!
I'm excited at all times to be alive. :) If all this ferment leads to a
theory that does a better job of explaining how life developed than
Darwinism does, then I'm all for that theory, be it ID or anything else.
>I call on those evolutionists (particularly Christians) who have opposed
the ID
>movement to re-evaluate their position in the light of this emerging new
>evidence and not go down with the sinking ship of scientific materialism
>out of misguided loyalty to science (as it is currently conceived). Your
>loyalty as scientists should be to the *data*, not to
materialistic-naturalistic
>philosophy.
>
Why should Christian evolutionists ("particularly"), jump on ID's rescue
ship?
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 00:42:50 EDT